Saturday, March 27, 2010

Human Rights and the United Nations...the UN? They ARE a problem!

Human Rights and the United Nations?  What an odd statement...its more than some loosely defined oxymoron.  Although there is a reverse relationship with the two.  In other words, the United Nations has no record of actually preventing human rights violations instead they promote atrocities with the their so-called Human Rights Council by their denial of the very outwardly visible cause of modern day terrorism; Islam!  That's correct!  Islam is and has been for a number of years the root cause of and perpetrators of world wide terrorism (See: The Evolution Of Islamic Terrorism: An Overview ).  They are not by any means the religion of peace (again, we have an moronic juxtaposition of words--"religion" and "peace" ....moronic because within Islam it takes violence to obtain peace...on their terms not yours! ... believe in Islam or be decapitated). 
The United Nations publishes various documents outlining their goals regarding human rights.  One such document is the Oral Revision and Technical Correction for the Human Rights Council on the Defamations of Religions.  In a recent message Ben Powell writes:
Two paragraphs of the latest HRC Defamation of Religions resolution contain expressions which clearly demonstrate the reality that makes such resolutions unacceptable.
7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and, in this regard, regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience,
9. Reaffirms the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-terrorism Strategy, adopted without a vote by the General Assembly in its resolution 60/288 of 8 September 2006 and reaffirmed by the Assembly in its resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008, and in which it clearly reaffirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or group, as well as the need to reinforce the commitment of the international community to promote, among other things, a culture of peace and respect for all religions, belief`s, and cultures and to prevent the defamation of religions;
Lets get the critical clauses separated from the chaff for examination.
  • Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism
  • terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or group
    • need to... reinforce the commitment... to promote... respect for all religions...
Is the association of Islam with terrorism intrinsically wrong? Islam's canon of scripture & tradition contain relevant evidence which answers that question in the negative.
Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with God, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
If ye gain the mastery over them in war, disperse, with them, those who follow them, that they may remember.
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
And those of the People of the Book who aided them - God did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.
It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from God! But the (Wrath of) God came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers, take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!
Of a truth ye are stronger (than they) because of the terror in their hearts, (sent) by God. This is because they are men devoid of understanding.

Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), ...
Allah said that he would cast terror into the hearts of disbelievers. Allah told the Muslims to make an example of those they defeated. Read 8:57 in the light of the last sentence of 59:2.

Allah commanded Muslims to build and maintain military strength with which to terrorize their intended victims. Then he did cast terror, exemplified in 33:26 and 59:2. Allah told the Muslims that they were stronger than their victims because the victims were afraid of them.

Muhammad bragged about being made victorious by terror. In view of these facts found in Islam's canon, the association of terrorism with Islam is found valid.

General S.K. Malik in The Qur'anic Concept of War, makes the issue crystal clear. His discussion of terror as a strategic concept spans pages 54-60, beginning on page 48 of the pdf file. This quote comes from page 59.
Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponents heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him.
The fact that such terror is discussed as strategy in a Pakistani military training manual puts the lie to Pakistan's assertion that Islam & terrorism are not linked. It becomes obvious that the OIC, on behalf of Islam, has set out to render us defenseless before Islam's onslaught of terror.

Disproving the popular lies about Islam; that it is peaceful, compatible with liberty & democracy, by reference to Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence does not constitute hate speech or incitement to violence. Using loaded terms such as racism, negative stereotyping, intolerance & defamation throws up a smoke screen Labeling us as bigots and hate mongers who incite violence is a thinly veiled attempt to shut down debate and shield Islam from criticism and exposure.

Islam seeks to impose its blasphemy law upon us, to cast us into prison and fine us for telling the truth about their war cult. Geert Wilders in on trial for exposing Islam in his short documentary, Fitna. In that documentary, and a speech to the Dutch Parliament, Wilders quoted the Qur'an. I documented his quotes in another blog post. See Fitna: Supporting Documentation and Moral Standing: the Complaint.

Islamic law imposes a complete prohibition on criticism of Allah, Muhammad and their system of perpetuating warfare. These quotes from Reliance of the Traveller should make it clear to you. These are items in a list of acts which entail apostasy, penalized by death. The list begins at O8.7.
-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;
-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as ``Allah is the third of three,'' or ``I am Allah''-unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;
-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
-6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;
-8- to mockingly say, ``I don't know what faith is'';
-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);
-15- to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;
(n: `Ala' al-din' Abidin adds the following:
-16- to revile the religion of Islam;
-17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;
-18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;
-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;
-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24). )
There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)
Another list, beginning at O11.10 , includes acts which break the treaty of protection, subjecting the dhimmi to the death penalty. These items should be a clue for you.
-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;
-4- kills a Muslim;
-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.
The previous list should be sufficient to indicate what a dhimmi can't say about Islam. When they speak and write about "negative stereotyping" & "defamation", that is what they have in mind.
Our enemies outnumber us in the UN. We can not win the crucial votes. We must counter attack, using their own weapon against them. ICERD, ICCPR & CPPCG contain provisions which would, if enforced, require that Islam be proscribed by law. The International Qur'an Petition points out those critical provisions and shows how they are violated by fundamental Islamic doctrines. I want you to read and sign that petition and send it to everyone you can hope to influence. Exhort your friends, family and associates to sign and forward it. We need to make it go viral.
Islam is not worthy of respect; it denies the sanctity of our lives and property; declares war upon us, and curses us. Why then should we accept demands for promoting respect and tolerance of Islam?

End of Ben's quote...

Before I go let me add one suggestion to the UN's line, "Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism ..." Wrongly associated?  Why don't they read this " The Excessive Kindness Of Islam "?  ~ Norman E. Hooben

The Evolution Of Islamic Terrorism

Source: Frontline

The Evolution of Islamic Terrorism - An John Moore
Definition of Terrorism
"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
-- U.S. Department of Defense publication
In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., the threat of militant Islamic terrorism -- rooted in the Middle East and South Asia -- has taken center stage. While these extremely violent religious extremists represent a minority view, their threat is real. As pointed out by RAND's Bruce Hoffman, in 1980 two out of 64 groups were categorized as largely religious in motivation; in 1995 almost half of the identified groups, 26 out of 56, were classified as religiously motivated; the majority of these espoused Islam as their guiding force.
To better understand the roots and threat of militant Islam, here's a closer look at how modern terrorism has evolved in the Middle East and South Asia.
1968 - 1979:	The Dawn of Modern International Terrorism
The colonial era, failed post-colonial attempts at state formation, and the creation of Israel engendered a series of Marxist and anti-Western transformations and movements throughout the Arab and Islamic world. The growth of these nationalist and revolutionary movements, along with their view that terrorism could be effective in reaching political goals, generated the first phase of modern international terrorism.
In the late 1960s Palestinian secular movements such as Al Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) began to target civilians outside the immediate arena of conflict. Following Israel's 1967 defeat of Arab forces, Palestinian leaders realized that the Arab world was unable to militarily confront Israel. At the same time, lessons drawn from revolutionary movements in Latin America, North Africa, Southeast Asia as well as during the Jewish struggle against Britain in Palestine, saw the Palestinians move away from classic guerrilla, typically rural-based, warfare toward urban terrorism. Radical Palestinians took advantage of modern communication and transportation systems to internationalize their struggle. They launched a series of hijackings, kidnappings, bombings, and shootings, culminating in the kidnapping and subsequent deaths of Israeli athletes during the 1972 Munich Olympic games.
These Palestinian groups became a model for numerous secular militants, and offered lessons for subsequent ethnic and religious movements. Palestinians created an extensive transnational extremist network -- tied into which were various state sponsors such as the Soviet Union, certain Arab states, as well as traditional criminal organizations. By the end of the 1970s, the Palestinian secular network was a major channel for the spread of terrorist techniques worldwide.
Key Radical Palestinian Groups

(descriptions taken directly from the U.S. State Department publication "Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2000")

  • Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP): The PFLP, one of the original members of the PLO, [1] is a Marxist-Leninist group founded in 1967 by George Habash. The group was against the 1993 Declaration of Principles; participation in the PLO was also suspended. Participated in meetings with Arafat's Fatah party and PLO representatives in 1999 to discuss national unity but continues to oppose negotiations with Israel. Committed numerous international terrorist attacks during the 1970s, has allegedly been involved in attacks against Israel since the beginning of the second intifadah in September 2000. Syria has been a key source of safe haven and limited logistical support.
  • Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC): This group, led by Ahmed Jibril, split from the PFLP in 1968, wanting to focus more on terrorist than political action; violently opposed to the PLO and is closely tied to Syria and Iran. The PFLP-GC conducted multiple attacks in Europe and the Middle East during the 1970s and 1980s. Unique in that it conducted cross-border operations against Israel using unusual means, including hot-air balloons and motorized hang gliders. Currently focused on small-scale attacks in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip.
  • Abu Nidal Organization (ANO): Anti-Western and anti-Israel international terrorist organization led by Sabri al-Banna; left the PLO in 1974. Organizational structure composed of various functional committees, including political, military, and financial. The ANO has carried out terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 persons. Targets have included the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, moderate Palestinians, the PLO, and various Arab countries. Major attacks included the Rome and Vienna airports in December 1985, the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul and the Pan Am flight 73 hijacking in Karachi in September 1986, and the City of Poros day-excursion ship attack in Greece in July 1988. Suspected of assassinating PLO deputy chief Abu Iyad and PLO security chief Abu Hul in Tunis in January 1991. ANO assassinated a Jordanian diplomat in Lebanon in January 1994. Has not attacked Western targets since the late 1980s. Al-Banna relocated to Iraq in December 1998, where the group maintains a presence. Financial problems and internal disorganization have reduced the group's capabilities; activities shut down in Libya and Egypt in 1999.
While these secular Palestinians dominated the scene during the 1970s, religious movements also grew. The failure of Arab nationalism in the 1967 war resulted in the strengthening of both progressive and extremist Islamic movements. In the Middle East, Islamic movements increasingly came into opposition with secular nationalism, providing an alternative source of social welfare and education in the vacuum left by the lack of government-led development -- a key example is The Muslim Brotherhood. Islamic groups were supported by anti-nationalist conservative regimes, such as Saudi Arabia, to counter the expansion of nationalist ideology. Yet political Islam, [2] more open to progressive change, was seen as a threat to conservative Arab regimes and thus support for more fundamentalist -- and extremist -- groups occurred to combat both nationalist and political Islamist movements.
Meanwhile, in Iran, a turn to revolutionary Shia Islam under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini further eroded the power and legitimacy of the U.S.-backed authoritarian Pahlevi regime, setting the stage for the Shah's downfall.
1979 - 1991: The Afghan Jihad and State Sponsors of Terrorism
The year 1979 was a turning point in international terrorism. Throughout the Arab world and the West, the Iranian Islamic revolution sparked fears of a wave of revolutionary Shia Islam. Meanwhile, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent anti-Soviet mujahedeen war, lasting from 1979 to 1989, stimulated the rise and expansion of terrorist groups. Indeed, the growth of a post-jihad pool of well-trained, battle-hardened militants is a key trend in contemporary international terrorism and insurgency-related violence. Volunteers from various parts of the Islamic world fought in Afghanistan, supported by conservative countries such as Saudi Arabia. In Yemen, for instance, the Riyadh-backed Islamic Front was established to provide financial, logistical, and training support for Yemeni volunteers. So called "Arab-Afghans" have -- and are -- using their experience to support local insurgencies in North Africa, Kashmir, Chechnya, China, Bosnia, and the Philippines.
In the West, attention was focused on state sponsorship, specifically the Iranian-backed and Syrian-supported Hezbollah; state sponsors' use of secular Palestinian groups was also of concern. [3] Hezbollah pioneered the use of suicide bombers in the Middle East, and was linked to the 1983 bombing and subsequent deaths of 241 U.S. marines in Beirut, Lebanon, as well as multiple kidnappings of U.S. and Western civilians and government officials. Hezbollah remains a key trainer of secular, Shia, and Sunni movements. As revealed during the investigation into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Libyan intelligence officers were allegedly involved with the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine -- General Command (PFLP-GC). Iraq and Syria were heavily involved in supporting various terrorist groups, with Baghdad using the Abu Nidal Organization on several occasions. State sponsors used terrorist groups to attack Israeli as well as Western interests, in addition to domestic and regional opponents. It should be noted that the American policy of listing state sponsors was heavily politicized, and did not include several countries -- both allies and opponents of Washington -- that, under U.S. government definitions, were guilty of supporting or using terrorism.
Key Radical Religious Groups

(descriptions taken directly from the U.S. State Department publication "Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2000")
  • Hezbollah: Radical Shia group formed in 1982 in Lebanon. Strongly anti-Western and anti-Israeli. Closely allied with, and often directed by, Iran but may have conducted operations that were not approved by Tehran. Known or suspected to have been involved in numerous anti-U.S. terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombing of the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983 and the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping and detention of U.S. and other Western hostages in Lebanon. The group also attacked the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and is a suspect in the 1994 bombing of the Israeli cultural center in Buenos Aires. Operates in the Bekaa Valley, the southern suburbs of Beirut, and southern Lebanon. Has established cells in Europe, Africa, South America, North America, and Asia. Receives substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran and Syria.
  • Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ - Al-Jihad, Jihad Group, Islamic Jihad): Egyptian group active since the late 1970s. The EIJ is apparently split into two factions: one led by Ayman al-Zawahiri - who currently is in Afghanistan and is a key leader in the Usama bin Laden (UBL) network - and the Vanguards of Conquest (Talaa' al-Fateh) led by Ahmad Husayn Agiza. Abbud al-Zumar, leader of the original Jihad, is imprisoned in Egypt and recently joined the group's jailed spiritual leader, Shaykh Umar Abd al-Rahman, in a call for a "peaceful front." The group's traditional goal is the overthrow of the Egyptian Government and creation of an Islamic state. Given its involvement with UBL, EIJ is likely increasingly willing to target U.S. interests. The group has threatened to strike the U.S. for its jailing of Shaykh al-Rahman and the arrests of EIJ cadres in Albania, Azerbaijan, and the United Kingdom..
  • Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ): The PIJ, emerging from radical Gazan Palestinians in the 1970s, is apparently a series of loosely affiliated factions rather than a cohesive group. The PIJ focus is the destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian Islamic state. Due to Washington's support of Israel, the PIJ has threatened to strike American targets; the PIJ has not "specifically" conducted attacks against U.S. interests; Arab regimes deemed as un-Islamic are also threatened. The group has stated its willingness to hit American targets in Jordan. PIJ cadres reportedly receive funding from Tehran and logistical support from Syria.
  • Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS): Emerging from the Muslim Brotherhood during the first Palestinian intifadah (1987), HAMAS has become the primary anti-Israeli religious opposition in the occupied territories. The group is mainly known for its use of suicide bombers and is loosely organized, with centers of strength in Gaza and certain areas in the West Bank. HAMAS, while condemning American policies favoring Israel, has not targeted the U.S. directly.
  • Al-Gamaat Al-Islamiyya (IG - the Islamic Group, al-Gama'at, Islamic Gama'at, Egyptian al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya, GI): The IG, begun in the 1970s, is the largest of the Egyptian militant groups. Its core goal is the overthrow of the Cairo regime and creation of an Islamic state. The IG appears to be a more loosely organized entity than the EIJ, and maintains a globally present external wing. IG leadership signed Usama Bin Ladin's February 1998 anti-U.S. fatwa but has denied supporting UBL. Shaykh Umar Abd al-Rahman is al-Gama'at's spiritual leader, and thus the U.S. has been threatened with attack. From 1993 until the cease-fire, al-Gama'a launched attacks on tourists in Egypt, most notably the attack in November 1997 at Luxor that killed 58 foreign tourists. Also claimed responsibility for the attempt in June 1995 to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Has a worldwide presence, including Sudan, the United Kingdom, Afghanistan, Austria, and Yemen. The Egyptian Government believes that Iran, Bin Ladin, and Afghan militant groups support the organization.
1990 - 2001:  The Globalization of Terror
The disintegration of post-Cold War states, and the Cold War legacy of a world awash in advanced conventional weapons and know-how, has assisted the proliferation of terrorism worldwide. Vacuums of stability created by conflict and absence of governance in areas such as the Balkans, Afghanistan, Colombia, and certain African countries offer ready made areas for terrorist training and recruitment activity, while smuggling and drug trafficking routes are often exploited by terrorists to support operations worldwide. With the increasing ease of transnational transportation and communication, the continued willingness of states such as Iran and Iraq to provide support, and dehumanizing ideologies that enable mass casualty attacks, the lethal potential of terrorist violence has reached new heights.
The region of Afghanistan -- it is not a country in the conventional sense -- has, particularly since the 1989 Soviet withdrawal, emerged as a terrorist training ground. Pakistan, struggling to balance its needs for political-economic reform with a domestic religious agenda, provides assistance to terrorist groups both in Afghanistan and Kashmir while acting as a further transit area between the Middle East and South Asia.
Since their emergence in 1994, the Pakistani-supported Taliban militia in Afghanistan has assumed several characteristics traditionally associated with state-sponsors of terrorism, providing logistical support, travel documentation, and training facilities. Although radical groups such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, and Kashmiri militants were in Afghanistan prior to the Taliban, the spread of Taliban control has seen Afghan-based terrorism evolve into a relatively coordinated, widespread activity focused on sustaining and developing terrorist capabilities. Since the mid-1990s, Pakistani-backed terrorist groups fighting in Kashmir have increasingly used training camps inside Taliban-controlled areas. At the same time, members of these groups, as well as thousands of youths from Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP), have fought with the Taliban against opposition forces. This activity has seen the rise of extremism in parts of Pakistan neighboring Afghanistan, further complicating the ability of Islamabad to exert control over militants. Moreover, the intermixing of Pakistani movements with the Taliban and their Arab-Afghan allies has seen ties between these groups strengthen.
Since 1989 the increasing willingness of religious extremists to strike targets outside immediate country or regional areas underscores the global nature of contemporary terrorism. The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, are representative of this trend.
Key Groups in the New Phase of Militant Islamic Terrorism

(descriptions taken directly from the U.S. State Department publication "Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2000")
  • Al-Qaeda (The Base): Established by Usama Bin Ladin (UBL) circa 1990, Al Qaeda aims to coordinate a transnational mujahideen network; stated goal is to "reestablish the Muslim State" throughout the world via the overthrow of corrupt regimes in the Islamic world and the removal of foreign presence - primarily American and Israeli - from the Middle East. UBL has issued three anti-U.S. fatwas encouraging Muslims to take up arms against Washington's "imperialism." Al Qaeda provides financial, manpower, transportation, and training support to extremists worldwide. In February 1998 bin Ladin issued a statement under the banner of "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against The Jews and Crusaders," saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill U.S. citizens, civilian or military, and their allies. Allegedly orchestrated the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, on August 7, 1998. Claims to have been involved in the 1993 killing of U.S. servicemen in Somalia and the December 1992 bombings against U.S. troops in Aden, Yemen. Al Qaeda serves as the core of a loose umbrella organization that includes members of many Sunni Islamic extremist groups, including factions of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), the Gama'at al-Islamiyya (IG), and the Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM). The group is a prime suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks as well as the U.S.S Cole bombing.
  • Armed Islamic Group (GIA): Having initiated terrorist activities in 1992 following Algiers refusal to accept a democratically elected Islamist government, the GIA has conducted multiple mass killings of civilians and assassinations of Algerian leaders. While present in areas such as Yemen, the GIA reportedly does not target the U.S. directly. However, it is possible that GIA splinter movements or personnel may become involved in anti-U.S. action.
  • Aden-Abyan Islamic Army (AAIA): The Aden-Abyan Islamic Army is allegedly affiliated to the Yemeni Islamic Jihad and has been implicated in acts of violence with the stated goal to "hoist the banner of al-Jihad, and fight secularism in Yemen and the Arab countries." Aden-Abyan Islamic Army leader Zein al-Abideen al-Mehdar was executed for participating in the December 1998 kidnapping of 16 Western tourists. Four of the hostages were killed and another 13 hostages were freed when Yemeni security forces attacked the place where the hostages were being held. In March 1999 the group warned the U.S. and British ambassadors in Yemen to leave immediately.
  • Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM): Formerly part of the Harakat al-Ansar (HUA), the Pakistani-based HUM operates primarily in Kashmir. Long-time leader of the group, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, in mid-February stepped down; the popular Kashmiri commander and second-in-command, Farooq Kashmiri, assumed the reigns. Khalil, who has been linked to Bin Ladin and signed his fatwa in February 1998 calling for attacks on U.S. and Western interests, assumed the position of HUM Secretary General. The HUM is linked to the militant group al-Faran that kidnapped five Western tourists in Kashmir in July 1995; one was killed in August 1995 and the other four reportedly were killed in December of the same year. Supporters are mostly Pakistanis and Kashmiris and also include Afghans and Arab veterans of the Afghan war. The HUM trains its militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  • Jaish-e-Mohammed (Army of Mohammed): The Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) has greatly expanded since Maulana Masood Azhar, a former ultra-fundamentalist Harakat ul-Ansar (HUA) leader, formed the group in February 2000. The group's aim is to unite Kashmir with Pakistan. It is politically aligned with the radical, pro-Taliban, political party, Jamiat-i Ulema-i Islam (JUI-F). The JEM maintains training camps in Afghanistan. Most of the JEM's cadre and material resources have been drawn from the militant groups Harakat ul-Jihad al-Islami (HUJI) and the Harakat ul-Mujahedin (HUM). The JEM has close ties to Afghan Arabs and the Taliban. Usama Bin Ladin is suspected of giving funding to the JEM. Group by this name claimed responsibility for the USS Cole attack.
  • Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous): The LT is the armed wing of the Pakistan-based religious organization, Markaz-ud-Dawa-wal-Irshad (MDI)--a Sunni anti-U.S. missionary organization formed in 1989. One of the three largest and best-trained groups fighting in Kashmir against India, it is not connected to a political party. The LT leader is MDI chief, Professor Hafiz Mohammed Saeed. Almost all LT cadres are foreigners--mostly Pakistanis from seminaries across the country and Afghan veterans of the Afghan wars. The LT trains its militants in mobile training camps across Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan.
[1] Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Al Fatah
The PLO was founded in 1964 as a Palestinian nationalist umbrella organization committed to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, militia groups composing the PLO vied for control, with Al Fatah -- led by Yasser Arafat -- becoming dominant. Al Fatah joined the PLO in 1968 and won the leadership role in 1969. In 1969 Arafat assumed the position of PLO Executive Committee chairman, a position he still holds. Al Fatah essentially became the PLO, with other groups' influence on PLO actions increasingly marginalized. Al Fatah and other PLO components were pushed out of Jordan following clashes with Jordanian forces in 1970-71. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 led to the group's dispersal to several Middle Eastern countries, including Tunisia, Yemen, Algeria, Iraq, and others. The PLO maintains several military and intelligence wings that have carried out terrorist attacks, including Force 17 and the Western Sector. Two of its leaders, Abu Jihad and Abu Iyad, were assassinated in recent years. In the 1960s and the 1970s, Al Fatah offered training to a wide range of European, Middle Eastern, Asian, and African terrorist and insurgent groups and carried out numerous acts of international terrorism in Western Europe and the Middle East in the early-to-middle 1970s. Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles (DOP) with Israel in 1993 -- the Oslo Accords -- and renounced terrorism and violence. The organization fragmented in the early 1980s, but remained the leading Palestinian political organization. Following the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO -- read Al Fatah -- leadership assumed control of the nascent Palestinian National Authority (PNA).
[2] Political versus Fundamentalist Islam
Political Islam, as opposed to fundamentalist or neo-fundamentalist Islam, posits a worldview that can deal with and selectively integrate modernity. In contrast, fundamentalist Islam calls for a return to an ontological form of Islam that rejects modernity; groups such as Al Qaeda and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad are representative of fundamentalist Islam.
[3] A Note on State Sponsors of Religious Terror Groups
Unlike the "secular" national, radical, anarchist terrorism sponsored by states such as Libya, Syria, Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, and behind the scenes by the former Soviet camp, most of the Islamic terrorist groups have never been sponsored by states. Many Egyptian organizations emerged from the Egyptian domestic landscape. Algerian groups likewise were not sponsored by foreign states. Hezbollah certainly can be viewed as an Iranian surrogate, but other movements, while open to state assistance, remain operationally and ideologically independent.

Friday, March 26, 2010

Maxine Warns Us About Socialism...but we didn't listen

We ran this video back when it was current. Now that its going around the email circuit we thought that by re-posting it here it will shed some light on the fact that we were right about Obama's socialist agenda...remember, this video was taped long before Obama had a change of address... ~ Norman E. Hooben

----- Original Message -----
From: Ullie
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 8:30 PM
Subject: Fwd: OOOOOooops - she let it slip!!!

Subject: Fwd: OOOOOooops - she let it slip!!!

If there was ever any doubt in anybody's mind as to what Obama's plans were, this comment should set the record straight.

This should be sent out twice a week for the next couple of months.
This clip is showing Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D - Cal) discussing drilling for new oil reserves. She explains, in a slip of the tongue, what this whole administration's agenda is all about.

Whoops! She let it all slip out!

What can you say......notice the people around her.

This clip is about as blatant as a liberal can get. What she said was accidental, and notice that it stopped her dead in her tracks for a long moment, but it was too late.

Just hope the country wakes up in the 2010 elections. Scary agenda.

I do not think it is possible for too many people to see this video and I hope you feel the same way and will help send it along as fast as possible.

Obama Abandons A Visiting Head Of State...he just walked out on him...

...don't you think its time to walk out on Obama?

Seems as we knew this was going to happen sooner or later...the guy just does not like Jews! Period!...and a couple of exclamation marks!!  We posted stuff about the Jew-Hater back in October of 2009...if only the main stream media would tell it like it is this guy would have been sent back to Kenya  Chicago in a heartbeat.  Just in case you're interested you can read some of the previous stuff here (link) .

The following from:

Obama humiliates Netanyahu

Obama breaks new ground in US foreign relations, abandoning a head of state in the White House and heading to his private quarters to have his waffles in peace:
For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.
I don't write about foreign policy much because that would violate rule #1, but I think I understand part of this. It's Obama's modus operandi when others refuse to yield to his will, whether it be a congressman or an ally. You may recall this snapshot from a NYT piece by Sheryl Gay Stolberg a month ago:

As the clock neared 1 a.m., the two sides were at an impasse. Mr. Obama stood up.
“ ‘See what you guys can figure out,’ ” one participant remembers him saying, adding that the failed effort left the president mad. Another Democrat who was there, Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, said Mr. Obama left “frustrated that while he was putting out ways to bridge the problem, we hadn’t reached a conclusion.”

When crossed, he becomes petulant, throws up his hands, and tells the other party or parties to let him know when they're ready to come around. This is not leadership. (It can't be much fun to live with, either.)

More from the TimesOnline:
After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.
“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.
Left to talk among themselves Mr Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. [. . .]
Sources said that Mr Netanyahu failed to impress Mr Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. Mr Obama was said to be livid when such an announcement derailed the visit to Israel by Joe Biden, the Vice-President, this month and his anger towards Israel does not appear to have cooled. [. . .]
“The Prime Minister leaves America disgraced, isolated and altogether weaker than when he came,” the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz said. [. . .]
Newspaper reports recounted how Mr Netanyahu looked “excessively concerned and upset” when he pulled out a flow chart to show Mr Obama how Jerusalem planning permission worked and how he could not have known that the announcement that hundreds more homes were to be built would be made when Mr Biden arrived in Jerusalem.
Mr Obama then suggested that Mr Netanyahu and his staff stay at the White House to consider his proposals so that if he changed his mind he could inform the President right away. “I’m still around,” the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot quoted Mr Obama as saying. “Let me know if there is anything new.”
With the atmosphere so soured by the end of the evening, the Israelis decided that they could not trust the telephone line they had been lent for their consultations. Mr Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, his Defence Minister, went to the Israeli Embassy to ensure that the Americans were not listening in.

Far from being an asset, one of Obama's worst failings is his lousy temperament, so ill suited to his position.

Much more on this from Jennifer Rubin:
According to the Telegraph’s account, the meeting began with the president presenting a list of 13 demands to Netanyahu. These included a complete freeze on Jewish building in eastern Jerusalem. When Netanyahu did not immediately accede to this diktat, Obama left him saying he was going to go eat dinner with his wife and daughters. Netanyahu and his party were left to wait for over an hour for Obama’s return. The paper claims that as Obama left, he told the prime minister to consider “the error of his ways.” Yediot Ahronot reported that Obama merely said, “I’m still around. Let me know if there is anything new.” A second brief meeting followed, which apparently consisted of the president restating his demands. As a punishment for Netanyahu’s failure to immediately bend to Obama’s ultimatum, there was no joint statement issued about the meeting and no press coverage of the visit. Friday’s Ma’ariv describes the scene thusly: “There is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage. Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea.”
Do not cross the Obama ego.

Hat tip: Hot Air

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)

"...the first step of a long, slow march to insolvency,..." and other good news... ahem, did I say, "good"

Friday, March 26, 2010

Anti-ObamaCare Campaign Ad

I'm not a huge fan of the Republicans, but since no other political party is running candidates in November, Republicans are the only alternative we will have to the Democrats. And I think that this advertisement is effective, and is probably a good start. This is the line they need to take in order to maximize gains in November.

But they'd better mean it...

If player doesn't work, try this link:

Friday, March 26, 2010

Social Security Underfunded NOW!

Unless something is done, Social Security is projected to spend more money in benefits than it takes in this year. Until now, that was not projected to happen until 2016.

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Analysts have long tried to predict the year when Social Security would pay out more than it took in because they view it as a tipping point — the first step of a long, slow march to insolvency, unless Congress strengthens the program’s finances.

“When the level of the trust fund gets to zero, you have to cut benefits,” Alan Greenspan, architect of the plan to rescue the Social Security program the last time it got into trouble, in the early 1980s, said on Wednesday.
This is a big deal, people, and it's a VERY good example of why we definitely do NOT need to add on another entitlement program... like ObamaCare.

This could have a lot of repercussions in upcoming months and years.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

ObamaCare Taxes Will Kill Jobs

One of the goodies in the ObamaCare bill is a 10% tax on tanning salons. Not that it makes much sense, but the tax increase starts in July. Expect some tanning salons to close over this, and some employees to lose their jobs.

The tanning tax will go into effect July 1 and will apply to electronic products designed for tanning that use one or more ultraviolet lamps with wavelengths between 200 and 400 nanometers. Other sunless tanning options such as spray tans and tanning lotions are not included in the tax.

"This is going to close tanning salons," said Joseph Levy, vice president of the International Smart Tan Network, which has 3,000 member salons. "You can't just pass on a tax like this to customers and not have it hurt your bottom line."

Levy estimates that about 9,000 jobs are in jeopardy and more than 1,000 salons are at risk of being forced to close their doors. The tax also targets middle-class and female business owners, with about two-thirds of tanning salons in the U.S. owned by women, he said.
But hey, as the President assured us MANY times, ObamaCare was necessary to create jobs and repair our economy...

A Successfull Shot ??? ...but who were they firing at?

Do you think now is the time to dig out that old saying, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Pakistan's navy announced on Friday that it had successfully test-fired a series of missles...

Bush Wipes Hand On Clinton

I have no clue as to why...

In other news...

Thursday, March 25, 2010

"This is Massachusetts which apparently still lives."*

*You may have to listen to minute 34:43 before you get up to that line but the minutes preceding it are very, very good...please do not miss a word of this outstanding speech.

"Have you seen the flag with the broken snake?..."

...and it gets better as he moves along!

More from Hillsdale...

Imprimis delivers yet another outstanding essay...from a speech delivered in Washington, DC on March 5...

America's War On Islamist Terror...Or Is It?
ANDREW C. MCCARTHY is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. For 18 years, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the South District of New York, and from 1993-95 he led the terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. Following the 9/11 attacks, he supervised the Justice Department's command post near Ground Zero. He has also served as a Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and an adjunct professor at Fordham University's School of Law and New York Law School. Mr. McCarthy writes widely for newspapers and journals including National Review, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today, and is the author of the book Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered in Washington, D.C., on March 5, 2010, in the “First Principles on First Fridays” lecture series sponsored by Hillsdale College's Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.

Copyright © 2010 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.

“YOU ARE HEREBY commanded to show cause.” The general studied the document in his hands. It was a writ of habeas corpus. A federal judge was presuming, in the midst of war, to order him to report to the courthouse the following morning and explain the basis on which the U.S. Army was holding a prisoner of war.
Habeas corpus: “You shall have the body.” It is known as “the Great Writ,” an inheritance from the Magna Carta and British common law that was formally established in the American colonies in the 1690s. When the Constitution was adopted in 1787, it became part of our fundamental law, enshrined in Article I, Section 9: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The writ, in short, is a time-honored bulwark against tyranny.
But to return to our story: Louisiana had only been a state for about three years when, in early 1815, General Andrew Jackson authorized the arrest and detention of Louis Louailler. “Old Hickory” had just saved the Republic by defeating the British forces of General Sir Edward Pakenham in the decisive Battle of New Orleans. The Treaty of Ghent, which formally concluded the War of 1812, had actually been signed by British and American foreign ministers over two weeks earlier. But news of the treaty did not reach the U.S. in time to forestall the battle. It was the one great American victory of the war.
Just as Jackson hadn’t known about the formal armistice, neither did he know what the British army would do. Would it regroup and attempt another assault? So he imposed martial law. That did not please Mr. Louailler, who took to the newspapers to attack Jackson’s decision. Perceiving this as an incitement, Jackson had Louailler arrested. Supporters of the imprisoned man appealed to the Honorable Dominick Augustin Hall, the U.S. District Judge in Louisiana.
Hall, being a jurist, had no responsibility for national security—a responsibility assigned by the Constitution to elected officials. The judge’s only duty was to ensure that any litigants properly before him were afforded due process. But Judge Hall was of a mind that he, not General Jackson, personified the rule of law—security or no security.
General Jackson was of a different mind. Instead of responding to the writ as directed, he had Judge Hall arrested and, after a time, escorted by troops several miles outside the city limits and set free.
We’ve come a long way from Andrew Jackson to Barack Obama—and an even longer way from Louis Louailler to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called Christmas bomber.
* * *
It has become fashionable these days to invoke the “rule of law” as if it means the rule of lawyers—and in particular, the rule of judges. But that has never been the term’s meaning. In the U.S., the rule of law is embodied in the Constitution and resides in the statutes, treaties, rules, and regulations adopted pursuant to the Constitution. The rule of law does not refer either to judges or to elected officials, who are themselves servants of the Constitution.
It has also become trendy in recent years, especially among our legal elites, to declaim piously that “the Constitution is not suspended in wartime.” And, of course, no true patriot believes that the Constitution could ever be suspended. But the Constitution is not—nor has it ever been—the imposition of judicial rule. Indeed, the Constitution imposes strict limitations on the judicial power, just as it does on Congress and the executive branch. It has never been the case that where judicial power ends, anarchy begins.
General Jackson may have been wrong to lock up Louis Louailler in 1815. In fact, the military court that tried Louailler acquitted him. But Jackson was not wrong in determining that it was his decision to make—not as a tyrant, but within the constraints of military protocols in wartime. When formal word of the peace treaty reached New Orleans, Jackson immediately reinstated civilian control. But until that time, he—not the civilian courts—was responsible for keeping order. In the state of war, those courts were inadequate for that task—unless one believes that Judge Hall, with his writs, was a match for His Majesty’s armed forces, then thought to be the mightiest on earth.
In doing as he did, General Jackson was applying a principle stated with clarity almost a century later by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for a unanimous Supreme Court in the case of Moyer v. Peabody:
When it comes to a decision by the head of the State upon a matter involving its life, the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the necessities of the moment. Public danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process.
When the life of the state is imperiled, that is, the Constitution does not become suspended; it adapts. In times of armed conflict, it imposes the laws and customs of war, which—under those circumstances—are as consistent with the rule of law as judicial processes are in peacetime.
On this point, it is worth pausing to recall why we have a Constitution. After achieving independence, our country proved unsuccessful in governing itself under the Articles of Confederation. Paramount among the reasons for this was the attempt under the Articles to provide national security by committee—something that proved utterly ineffective in dealing with threats from England, Spain, and the Barbary Pirates. The Constitution remedied this potentially fatal weakness by placing all executive power, including the power of commander-in-chief, in a single elected official—the president—who could act with great energy and dispatch.
The Framers of the Constitution understood that the rights we cherish would be little more than parchment promises unless we could defend ourselves and defeat our enemies. Moreover, they understood that—given human nature—we would always have enemies. Unlike opponents of the war against Islamist terror today, they did not believe that we would be able to define our enemies out of existence by not uttering their names—or rationalize them out of existence by insisting that their hostility is somehow our own fault. Nor did the Framers believe that we would be able to indict our enemies into submission in our civilian courts. They believed that we would have to defeat them, which means being able to enforce the protocols necessary to wage war successfully.
These protocols are the laws of war, and they are older than the U.S. itself. They include requiring combatants to wear uniforms, to carry their weapons openly, to be part of a regular armed force, and, most importantly, to refrain from intentionally targeting civilians. They also define wartime powers and privileges. Enemy combatants, for example, may be captured and detained until the conclusion of hostilities. Fighters who adhere to the laws of war are entitled to various protections upon capture. By contrast, fighters who flout the laws of war—such as non-uniformed terrorists who target civilians—are unlawful combatants and may be prosecuted by a military commission for war crimes.
This is not a judicial system, and it is not intended to be. But it is every bit a legal system. And throughout our history—at least until recently—this has been well understood. Since 9/11, however, anti-war lawyers have challenged the idea of a separate legal status for unlawful combatants. Here they are up against not only common sense but history.
* * *
President Lincoln, of course, suspended habeas corpus upon the outbreak of the Civil War. (Not as often mentioned is the fact that Congress—which was out of session at the time—later endorsed Lincoln’s action.) When Lincoln’s action was eventually brought before the Supreme Court, the issue was not whether habeas corpus could be suspended in case of rebellion—as we have seen, that is clearly provided for in the Constitution—but which elected branch of government could suspend it. Chief Justice Roger Taney concluded in the case of Ex parte Merryman that because the Suspension Clause is in Article I, it must have been understood as a power of Congress rather than the president—a reasonable interpretation, though hardly indisputable. What was unreasonable about the decision was Taney’s claim that if the courts were open and functioning, even in wartime, federal judges—not the political branches—should have the final word on what actions could be taken in defense of the nation. That claim had no constitutional support—it was a power-grab pure and simple, and a foolish and undemocratic one.
At the time Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, the survival of the Union hung in the balance, with Confederate sympathizers sabotaging railways and otherwise impeding the movement of Union forces and supplies. It is for just such exigencies that the Suspension Clause exists. As Lincoln reasoned in a message to a special session of Congress on July 4, 1861, if the writ of habeas corpus—“fashioned with such extreme tenderness to the citizens’ liberty”—were as sacrosanct as Taney contended, it would allow “all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces, lest that one be violated.” Taney’s claim is preposterous on its face. What of the President’s obligation “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”? What of the central purpose of government “to provide for the common defense”? What becomes of our rights if the structure so carefully crafted to defend them vanishes?
President Roosevelt grappled with similar challenges during World War II. In June 1942, when the outcome of the war was anything but clear, eight German saboteurs were captured after landing on the coasts of Long Island and Florida. They had been sent by Hitler to commit acts of terrorism against civilian infrastructure, and Roosevelt decided to make an example of them. He wasn’t concerned with the fact that the federal courts were open and functioning. Nor was he swayed by the fact that one of the saboteurs was an American citizen. He directed that all eight of them be detained as enemy combatants and tried by a military commission. Nor did he perceive the need to festoon the proceedings with trappings of a martial setting: the trial took place in an FBI conference room in what is now the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building.
The saboteurs’ defense lawyers naturally cried foul, filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court and claiming that this military commission violated the Constitution. Upon hearing of the petition, Roosevelt summoned Attorney General Francis Biddle and directed him to tell the Chief Justice that he did not care what the Supreme Court thought; that the Constitution made him, not the justices, responsible for the lives of the American people and the successful prosecution of the war; and that he would not be releasing the prisoners, regardless of the Court’s disposition of the case.
This provided a judicial “king has no clothes” moment of clarity such as we have not had in the ensuing 68 years. The fact is that courts have no power to enforce their edicts. Roosevelt was willing to bet, if it got down to brass tacks, that the American people would agree that the president they had elected—and who would have to face their judgment again in the next election—should be prosecuting the war, rather than a tribunal of unelected judges. In the event, the Supreme Court agreed, and in the case of Ex parte Quirin it upheld all of Roosevelt’s actions. Most of the saboteurs were subsequently executed, following military trial, approximately seven weeks after their capture.
How do we get from the decisive actions of Jackson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt to the Obama administration’s stunning mishandling of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? Recall that this terrorist tried to detonate a chemical bomb on an airplane—an attack that would have killed all 288 innocents onboard and an untold number of Americans on the ground. Recall that he was a trained operative of al Qaeda—a transnational terrorist network with which we are at war. Recall that he was a Nigerian national sent from Yemen to attack us, and had no claim whatsoever on the protections of civilian due process. What’s more, our intelligence community tells us that Yemen is now one of the prime launch points of Islamist terror. Abdulmutallab had spent four months there. He knew the training camps, the trainers, and the identities of other terrorists (evidently, scores of them). In light of these facts, his capture alive should have been one of the great intelligence coups of the war. Instead, he was questioned for a mere 50 minutes before being given Miranda warnings and a lawyer—at which point he invoked his supposed right to remain silent, was consigned to the civilian justice system, and was charged in an indictment that gave him plea-bargaining leverage in any further negotiations over what he would tell us.
This approach was not only unnecessary, it was wrong. The terrorist could and should have been designated an enemy combatant and interrogated without the interference of a lawyer or the complications of a civilian prosecution. Even if one believed—as the Obama administration says it believes—that it is important to our reputation around the world to endow him with the rights of the Americans he was trying to slaughter, there was no legal requirement that that be done immediately. He could have been turned over to civilian authorities two or three years from now, once his intelligence reservoir was fully tapped. We’d have lost nothing in the meantime except the ability to introduce any confession at trial—and no confession is needed when a terrorist tries to bomb an airplane in front of nearly 300 witnesses.
* * *
Robert Jackson—the U.S. Attorney General from 1940-41, a Supreme Court Justice from 1941-54, and the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials—wrote the following in a 1948 Supreme Court case, Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman S.S. Corp.:
The very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities, nor responsibility and have long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.
The Constitution of Justice Jackson—like the Constitution of Presidents Jackson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt—is that of a free, self-governing people. Such a people does not surrender control of the most fundamental political decisions—such as those concerning national defense—to officials who are not politically accountable. Nor should our elected officials voluntarily surrender control of those decisions. We must reject the idea of entrusting our security to judicial processes or we shall eventually find ourselves neither secure nor free.

Obama Knows Best ... But We Shall Overcome... We The People that is

From  The Arrogance Of Power

An excerpt...
In America today our own government as caricatured by the Democrat Party of Barak Obama, Nancy Peolosi and Harry Reid has decided they know best.  Even though the vast majority of Americans said loudly, “We don’t want what you’re selling!” they’re forcing a socialized, collectivist agenda down our throats.  With the only bi-partisan feature of their cradle-to-grave nanny state being the opposition of both Republicans and Democrats, they’ve succeeded in gaining a legislative victory.  But Americans know how to stand against the arrogance of power.  Now is the time for all lovers of liberty to rally around the Constitution and the limited form of government it guarantees.  Without violence, within the traditions of our great Republic, we must stand together or we’ll all hang separately.  Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Look to American History.  Educate yourself in what this country was founded to be.  Look into the eyes of these totalitarian wannabees and say all together now, “NO!” to the arrogance of power.  Keep the peace.  Keep the faith.  We shall overcome.
More from Dr. Owens
"And the rot goes all the way to the top.  Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee charges the Obama administration may have broken the law by offering Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) a job if he wouldn’t challenge Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) in a primary.  Rep. Sestak admits the administration offered him a high-ranking government job if he’d stay out of the race.  Rep. Sestak made the accusation twice on national television.  Democrats seem determined to prove Lord Acton’s famous quote, “All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” ...
"The damage the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate causes before we drain their swamp will hang like a mill stone around the neck of our nation.  It will take more than a stake of holly or a silver bullet to bring these Progressive policies down.  It will take a populace educated in the founding documents of our Republic.  A people determined to re-establish the last best hope of mankind.  A people dedicated to resuscitating a nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.  It will take citizens resolved that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."... 
Read the full article here

White House Transparency...what a joke!

White House: Transparency? Are you kidding?

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
03/24/10 5:47 PM EDT

The Obama White House did not allow the press to cover the president's signing of the executive order created to win Rep. Bart Stupak's vote for Obamacare.  At the daily briefing, reporters wanted to know why no press photographer or reporter was allowed in. Press secretary Robert Gibbs told them they should be happy with a picture from the White House photographer, Pete Souza -- a photo produced and selected by the White House. It will be a "nice picture," Gibbs assured reporters.
Reporters tried to appeal to the White House's professed commitment to openness and transparency. Gibbs was having none of it. The White House wanted to limit coverage of the executive order, so in the spirit of openness and transparency it simply shut the press out. This is how Gibbs' back-and-forth with reporters went:
"The president is signing an executive order on abortion that is a pretty big national issue," a reporter asked. "Why would that be closed press, no pictures?"
"We’ll put out a picture from Pete [Souza]," Gibbs said.
"But what about a picture from the actual national media, not from -- " the reporter started to follow up.
"On, the picture from Pete will be for the actual event," Gibbs answered.
"Right, but what about allowing us in, for openness and transparency?"
"We'll have a nice picture from Pete that will demonstrate that type of transparency."
"Not the same, Robert," the reporter said. "Never has been."
"I know you all disagree with that," Gibbs answered. "I think Pete takes wonderful photos."
Gibbs' suggestion that the press corps thinks Souza is a bad photographer set off the reporters. That's not what they were saying; the point was that the press was not allowed in.
"Whoa, whoa, whoa," the reporter said. "Don't twist this -- it's not an attack on Pete."
"Well, I don’t know why you’d want to attack Pete, Chuck," Gibbs said, "but I’m going to stand up here and defend Pete’s -- "
"It's not transparent and it’s a vital issue."
"And you will have a lovely picture from Pete."
"You really think that’s all it’s worth, is a photograph, on an issue this important?"
"No, I think you’ll be able to see the President sign the executive order."
"Not hear anything anybody has to say?"
"You'll have a nice picture."
And here it is: a nice picture, exactly what the White House wanted you to see, and nothing more.


And this from Pundit & Pundette     [Note from Norm:  Why can't the guy answer a simple question?  Gibbs has got to be the biggest nincompoop ever to occupy the office of the Press Secretary.]

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Gibbs provokes press corps

Spokestool Robert Gibbs puts in a full day of obfuscation and distortion in the service of his master. First up, patent nonsense as he attempts to justify the executive order: