Navy SEALs Charged For Capturing A Murderous Terrorist?

Since when was the idiotic complaint of a terrorist more important than supporting the men and women who put themselves in harm's way so that we sleep peacefully at night?

From Fox News:

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com. ... Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it. Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Awwww. The poor little Islamic jihadi who beheads non-Mohammedans and kills women and children got his feelings hurt because someone punched him!

Whoever is running this investigation and pushing these chages needs to be thoroughly investigated and when wrong-doing is discovered (i.e. prosecutorial misconduct) they should be hand-cuffed and frog-marched off to prison!

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist
Rowan Scarborough
FoxNews.com
November 25, 2009

Some Aspects Of Obama's Speech To The Muslims

Anyone who listened to Barack Obama's speech in Egypt knows exactly where he stands on issues involving the Muslim world. He is clearly for the Muslims and against us mainstream Americans.

One of his biggest whoppers was saying, "If you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."

Now, why would Obama tell such a huge lie? Does he actually think that the Arab Muslims will believe that?

Debbie Schlussel has the numbers:

At one point during the Presidential campaign, Obama said that we are not a Christian nation (despite the numbers given above). He even lashed out at John McCain for saying that we are a Judeo-Christian nation. Today, Obama says we are a Muslim nation? Must be that fuzzy math that the Democrats insist on teaching in public schools. The numbers show that among nations with Muslim populations, America is ranked 34th.

Obama also went on to blame the U.S. for the problems in the Arab world and said that colonialism was the root cause. But America never had any colonies in the Arab world. So, how can we be responsible for something we didn't even get involved in?

Instead of bashing America, Obama had the opportunity to build up America's image by citing the many times when Americans came to the aid of the Muslim world. He could have talked about Kosovo, Bosnia, the aid we sent to the tsunami victims in Inodnesia and southern Thailand and a whole bunch of other examples. But, no. Instead, Obama had to show how much contempt he has for the country he is supposedly leading by trashing us on foreign soil yet again.

Obama talked about a new understanding of Islam. But where was his call for Islam to launch a new understanding of America? A man who truly had the best interests of America at heart would have done exactly that.

Obama also said, "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." Is that why Jews are not allowed in Muslims countries? Is that why Iran recently passed a law making it a capital crime to be a Christian? Is that why many Muslim nations force their women into subservient roles and require them to hide their faces? If a Muslim preached Islam on the streets here in the United States, no one would bother them. (First Amendment, you know.) But, if a Christian preached the Gospel or a Jew preached the Torah on the streets of Iran or Saudi Arabia, they'd be charged with heresy and face the death penalty. Obama must think we are really stupid if he expects us to believe that the Mohammedans are tolerent of other religions or other cultures.

Obama said that we Americans overreacted to the 9/11 attacks where 3,000 innocent people were killed by 19 Muslim terrorists. And yet he said nothing about how Arab Muslims were dancing in the streets in celebration of the success of the attacks. A rationally thinking human being would call the dancing in the streets an overreaction, but Obama, preferring to blame America first, would never come to such a logical conclusion.

In terms of extremism, Obama could have called on Saudi Arabia to stop supporting the Wahabbis, a sect that promotes hatred and violeance as a means of extending the rule of Islam. No, Obama instead preferred to blame America for the hatred that Muslims feel towards us.

Clearly, Obama wants to prop up the Mohammedan world at the expense of those of us living here in the West.

Did you vote for that last November? Whether you did or not, that is what you are getting.

You can access a very good analysis of the speech on-line here:

The Lies in Obama's Speech Exposed!
Christopher Logan
Islam In Action
June 4, 2009

Terrorist Training Camps In America, One Right Here In Virginia

This should be another wake-up call to all Americans. There could be a terrorist training camp right in your backyard. We've got one here in Virginia in a town called Red House.

A documentary movie produced by the Christian Action Network tells the story.

From Robert Spencer at Human Events Online:

“We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America.” So said the Pakistani Sheikh Muburak Gilani, leader of the jihad terrorist group Jamaat ul-Fuqra. And the way that he and his organization are “dealing with evil at its roots” is to set up jihad terror training camps all over the United States -- often under the noses of government and law enforcement officials who are either indifferent or too hamstrung by political correctness to do anything about it.

According to Gilani, the terrorist group he leads has more than 35 communes and 3,000 members spread across the United States.

More:

The documentary reveals that these compounds are dedicated to the training of Muslims in terrorist activities. Most of these camps are tucked away in remote rural areas -- Hancock, N.Y., Red House, Va. -- as far away from the watchful eye of law enforcement as possible. And what goes on in them is truly hair-raising: a training video that the network obtained shows American Muslims receiving training in how to fire AK-47 rifles and machine guns, and how to use rocket launchers, mortars, and explosives, as well as training in kidnapping, the murder of hostages, sabotage, and subversive operations.

So, why doesn't the government or law enforcement do anything about it?

[T]he State Department doesn’t include Jamaat ul-Fuqra on its Foreign Terrorist Organization Watch List.

Old Media has even run hit pieces on the film claiming no evidence to back up the story on the screen. Well, if Old Media actually did good research on Jamaat ul-Fuqra, in addition to the quotes by Gilani noted above, they would have discovered the following:

[T]he Colorado Attorney General’s Office, ... currently has posted on its website a page about Jamaat ul-Fuqra. “In addition to being suspected of committing numerous acts of domestic terrorism,” it says, “FUQRA members in the United States have been suspected of committing fraud against various governmental entitlement programs in an effort to financially support their activities.” And “FUQRA or its members have been investigated for alleged terrorist acts including murder and arson in New York, Detroit, Philadelphia, Toronto, Denver, Los Angeles and Tucson. UL FUQRA is suspected of more than thirteen firebombings and, at least, as many murders within the United States.”

And given that we elected a pro-Muslim President whose sole strategy in the War On Terror is to "listen and learn," it looks like he will only learn about these camps when he listens to reports that domestic terrorist attacks have broken out and killed hundreds or even thousands more innocent Americans.

Do you have a terror training camp in your backyard? I suggest you watch this movie to find out.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Terror Training Camps On American Soil
Robert Spencer
Human Events Online
February 19, 2009

The Leftist Double-Standard Against The Jews

If leftists didn't have double-standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all. The typical leftist (socialist, communist, Democrat, etc.) usually holds very low standards for their own kind while holding their political opponents to much higher standards. For example, leftists were all over Florida Rep. Mark Foley for the lewd text massages he was exchanging with Congressional pages, but felt that there was absolutely nothing wrong when Rep. Barney Frank ran a gay prostitution ring out of his Washington D.C. apartment.

That's a prime example of the double-standard.

The latest example of left-wing hypocrisy comes from Hamas firing rockets that deliberately targeted Israeli civilians for which Israel had to act in self-defense and target Hamas sites in Gaza.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Rabbi Marvin Hier spells out clearly and conscisely exactly what the double-standards are and show how arrogant those leftists are who hold them. From his column:

Just look at the spate of attacks this week on Jews and Jewish institutions around the world: a car ramming into a synagogue in France; a Chabad menorah and Jewish-owned shops sprayed with swastikas in Belgium; a banner at an Australian rally demanding "clean the earth from dirty Zionists!"; demonstrators in the Netherlands chanting "Gas the Jews"; and in Florida, protestors demanding Jews "Go back to the ovens!" ... At the U.N., no surprise, this double-standard is in full force. In response to Israel's attack on Hamas, the Security Council immediately pulled an all-night emergency meeting to consider yet another resolution condemning Israel. Have there been any all-night Security Council sessions held during the seven months when Hamas fired 3,000 rockets at half a million innocent civilians in southern Israel? You can be certain that during those seven months, no midnight oil was burning at the U.N. headquarters over resolutions condemning terrorist organizations like Hamas. But put condemnation of Israel on the agenda and, rain or shine, it's sure to be a full house.

Exactly. The leftists in the U.N. are perfectly okay with the terrorist organization Hamas launching rockets at Israeli civilians, but will not tolerate Israel defending itself from such terrorist attacks.

More:

Red Cross officials are all over the Gaza crisis, describing it as a full-blown humanitarian nightmare. Where were they during the seven months when tens of thousands of Israeli families could not sleep for fear of a rocket attack? Where were their trauma experts to decry that humanitarian crisis? There have been hundreds of articles and reports written from the Erez border crossing falsely accusing Israel of blocking humanitarian supplies from reaching beleaguered Palestinians in Gaza. (In fact, over 520 truck loads of humanitarian aid have been delivered through Israeli crossings since the beginning of the Israeli counterattack.) But how many news articles, NGO reports and special U.N. commissions have investigated Hamas's policy of deliberately placing rocket launchers near schools, mosques and homes in order to use innocent Palestinians as human shields?

That is the hallmark of an Islamic terrorist: no concern for anyone's safety, not even their own people. Hamas has no interest in defending Palestinians. Their only interest is gaining power for themselves, even if it means doing that which will kill their own.

Does the rest of the world see this? No! They only feel their own hatred for Israel and the Jews. So much so, that they will make every effort to ensure that Israel's enemies have the time and resources to rest and re-arm for the next round of terrorist strikes.

Rabbi Hier goes on:

And then there are the clarion calls for a cease-fire. These words, which come so easily, have proven to be a recipe for disaster. Hamas uses the cease-fire as a time-out to rearm and smuggle even more deadly weapons so the next time, instead of hitting Sderot and Ashkelon, they can target Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The pattern is always the same. Following a cease-fire brought on by international pressure, there will be a call for a massive infusion of funds to help Palestinians recover from the devastation of the Israeli attack. The world will respond eagerly, handing over hundreds of millions of dollars. To whom does this money go? To Hamas, the same terrorist group that brought disaster to the Palestinians in the first place.

Blame for the Gaza crisis rests solely and squarely on the heads of Hamas. Were it not for their irrational hatred of the Jews and their brazen terrorist attacks against innocent civilians, it would not have been necessary for Israel to rise in defense of herself.

As Golda Meir once said: ""There will be peace in the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate the Jews"."

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Jews Face A Double Standard
Rabbi Marvin Hier
The Wall Street Journal
January 8, 2009

John David Powell: Don't Underestimate Race And Trust In Choosing A President

I just got a hold of this article. It is a gem that contains nuggets of wisdom that will go a long way to helping people see clearly what is happening in the politcal arena right now and what will happen in the years to come.

John David Powell takes a look at a couple of the issues we have been facing in this election and how the Obama campaign responded to them compared to how other campaigns responded in the past.

Let's start with playing the race card:

[T]oday, less than two weeks from Election Day, it’s easy to understand why some non-black voters don’t want others to know they do not support Obama. Who can blame them when any criticism or questioning of the candidate of change results in immediate old-school accusations of racism?

I've even had some comments left on certain posts of this blog accusing me of racism despite the fact that the issue of race was never brought up in those postings. Just the fact that I am opposed to a socialist candidate was enough justification for commenters to bring out the race card and a braod-brushed, unsubstantiated charge. As Dustin Hoffman said in Hook: "Bad form."

And we always seem to come back to domestic terrorist William Ayers:

And that brings us to the second factor, the issue of trust. Obama never really condemns the past and current political views of fellow Chicagoan Bill Ayers, pointing out, instead, that Ayers’ terrorist activities occurred when Obama was 8 years old, and, therefore, have no connection to Obama today. If that’s true, then Obama’s position negates the argument of some black people who push for reparations because their ancestors were slaves. That’s because slavery occurred before those living today were born, and, therefore, has no connection to anyone today.

That is a dead-on-target shot that the Obama campaign cannot dodge. If Barack Obama cannot be held accountable for being a friend and business partner to a man who committed terrorist acts when Obama was 8 years old, then neither can white people in general be held accountable for something that occurred long before any of them were even born. To hold such a double standard seems to be standard for the Democrats though. They hold a low standard for themselves and high standard for everyone else.

But what is Obama hiding by not being completely forthcoming with his past? And what is he afraid will happen if his past is brought up and scrutinized by the MSM? He certainly can't be afraid of losing the election. Powell looks at this too:

But Citizen Obama does not fully trust the American people to know his full and true relationship with Ayers, because he does not trust the American people to look at his life and accept him as our president. The American people knew George W. Bush grew up around such neo-con luminaries as Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, but we elected him twice to the presidency. The American people knew Bush was an average college student, and at one time was what some would call a drunkard who even lost his driver’s license for drunk driving, but we elected him twice to the presidency. The American people knew Bush was an unsuccessful businessman and person not glib or quick on his feet, but we elected him twice to the presidency. The American people only know about Obama what Obama wants us to know. And mistrust in the judgment of the American people may tip enough votes to McCain, a candidate the American people know well.

Yes, we knew more about George Bush in 2000 than we know about Barack Obama in 2008. We also know more about John McCain than we know about Barack Obama because John McCain is not afraid of people looking into his past.

That's trust.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Don't Underestimate Race And Trust In Choosing A President
John David Powell
MensNewsDaily.com
October 21, 2008

Should Telecoms Be Punished For Exposing Terror Plots?

I wonder how Shakespeare would write the answer to that question. Maybe something along the lines of: "'Tis a notable issue then that the usurpers of our secure quickness have found themselves met with agents of protectiveness who resolutely refuse to stead in silence." Or words to that effect. In plain English, the answer is a resounding: "No!"

Writing for TownHall.com, Cliff May has the following:

During the 1990s, thousands of terrorists were trained in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and elsewhere. The government did next to nothing about that. Terrorists groups and the regimes backing them were seldom infiltrated. Neither terrorists nor their masters were effectively monitored. ... But after 9/11/01, one of the steps our intelligence officials took was to go to the big telecommunications firms and ask for help. Another attack could be coming – maybe more after that. The officials wanted access to data that might contain clues – dots they might be able to connect. The idea was not to have a federal agent listening in on your calls to Uncle Moe in Toledo. The idea was to gather huge quantities of information, “meta-data,” and mine it – seeking out patterns that might indicate terrorist connections or activities.

And those efforts have been very effective. But only groups like terrorist supporters and the ACLU are against it.

More:

An important point: The Supreme Court has held for decades that telephone record information—as opposed to the content of phone calls— triggers no Fourth Amendment privacy interest. You have no expectation of privacy in the numbers you dial because you expect the phone company to keep records of those numbers. What if you wanted to challenge a phone bill? You’d be pretty peeved if the phone company did not have records of the calls you made, when you made them and how long you stayed on the line. I do not believe this kind of intelligence gathering outrages normal Americans. I think most Americans say: “Good for government and good for the telecoms. They did their duty. They helped protect us” But the ACLU and some other groups that call themselves “civil liberties advocates” do claim to be outraged. Also outraged – or perhaps just excited – are the plaintiffs’ attorneys who have nearly 40 lawsuits pending before federal courts. If these lawyers prevail, tens of billions of dollars will be extracted from such firms as AT&T, Cingular Wireless, Bell South, Sprint and Verizon Communications.

Anyone care to guess which political party these trial lawyers mostly support?

Trial lawyers are among the most generous donors to the Democratic Party -- but leave aside whether that may explain House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refusing to let House members vote on a bill to protect the telecoms from being sued for contributing to the effort to thwart terrorists.

But this little gem is priceless:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, defended the telecom companies last month, telling his colleagues: "What is the big payoff for the telephone companies? They get paid a lot of money? No. They get paid nothing. What do they get for this [for cooperating with intelligence officials to prevent terrorism]? They get $40 billion worth of suits, grief, trashing, but they do it.”

And this warning is the ounce of prevention that is worth much, much more than the pound of cure:

As the Washington Post reported, there is “one thing on which both sides agree: If the lawsuits go forward sensitive details about the scope and methods of the Bush administration’s surveillance efforts could be divulged for the first time.” Divulged not just to the media – but also to terrorists intent on murdering you and your children. For having written that, I will be accused of “fear-mongering.” So be it. If America’s experience with terrorism teaches anything, it’s that we have more to fear than fear itself. When politicians cave to special interests who want to make national security policy – and billions of dollars – in courtrooms, that should raise fears, too. And if it doesn’t outrage you, maybe nothing will.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Listen Up: Should The Telecoms Be Punished For Helping Protect You From Terrorists?
Cliff May
TownHall.com
March 6, 2008

Some Cartoons

Whose Side Is Old Media On?

Over at the American Thinker, Alan Fraser has penned a good one about Old Media and their constant barrage of bad news concerning the War on Terror. It begs the question: Whose side are they on?

Well, let's take a look:

From the beginning of the War on Terror, the mainstream media has been working to bring home the bad news on the war, virtually to the exclusion of any good news. Even if they've had to fabricate it on occasion. Do you remember the "Mai Lai Massacre of the Iraq War?" It was a Time Magazine cover story in June of 2006. Christopher Matthews interviewed Congressman Jack Murtha (D-PA) on national television, and Murtha said that Marines, in cold blood, had executed more 20 innocent civilians in Haditha, Iraq. The media's story has been falling apart ever since.

Old Media jumped all over Mutha's comments as if they were gospel, but now that the truth has come to light and Murtha himself is the target of a slander suit, Old Media has become very quiet and withdrawn about the issue.

Alan continues:

On the front page of the January 26th Wall Street Journal appeared: "The Waiting -- Just Four U.S. Soldiers are Missing in Iraq. For Their Parents, it's a Lonely Vigil." This is a depressing and heart-rending story about the lives of those families whose solider sons are missing in Iraq. It's a subject especially disturbing to military families. In a time of war, this could be a good story to run if it were written to, let's say, provide a little balance to what otherwise might be an overwhelming supply of gung-ho-support-the-troops kind of stories. You know, a little sobering counterpoint to a plethora of overly flattering articles about the troops and the war. But do you think that's what's going on here? Of course not. There is no balance because there are virtually no favorable stories being written about the troops. From the MSM to Hollywood the media have an overwhelmingly negative view of our troops and they make that clear to us every day as they portray them as stupid, pathetic, often victims, often murderers, or against the war. And boy do they ever love stories about the infinitesimally small number who have turned against the war. The effect of such an article is to demoralize.

Which is exactly what Old Media has been trying to do, and their biggest cheerleaders for doing so have been the terrorists themselves. An excerpt of a letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi, July 9, 2005:

"I say to you: that we are in a battle and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma. And that however far our capabilities reach, they will never be equal to one thousandth of the capabilities of the kingdom of Satan that is waging war on us."

So, whose side is Old Media on?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Whose Side Are They On?
Alan Fraser
The American Thinker
February 8, 2008

Middle-Eastern Illegal Aliens Nabbed In Mississippi

I've lost count of how many times liberals became indignant at the suggestion that our open border with Mexico is a perfect pathway for terrorists to come into the U.S. and with the help of local Mexican authorities, a pathway for them to bring weapons and equipment in. Although the libs have nothing to back up their indignation with, we Conservatives can point to drug smugglers shooting at Border Patrol agents killing one recently, U.S. citizens beng attacked by armed illegals and trucks full of illegal drugs being driven into the U.S.

Well, we have a new story here about OTM (other than Mexican) illegals and we really should perk our ears up at it. From One News Now:

Operation Uniforce was conducted during a two-week period this month by a special Border Patrol task force targeting I-20 because federal agents believe it is a new corridor for smugglers to ferry illegal aliens to the East Coast. A similar operation was conducted on I-10 last year at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Mobile, Alabama. According to the Border Patrol, greater scrutiny of the I-10 corridor prompted smugglers to move further inland to I-20 -- which is 800 miles from the Mexican border. While most of the illegal immigrants nabbed came from Mexico, two individuals from "special interest" countries -- one Egyptian and the other a Palestinian from the West Bank -- were also apprehended. Rodney Hunt with the Mississippi Federation for Immigration Reform and Enforcement says people are concerned that terrorists are entering the U.S. across the porous border. "And I think this just shows [that] these people from these special interest countries ... [are not just] ... people coming here taking jobs from Americans, but we have potential ... terrorists," warns Hunt.

Those two were found with one group of illegals. How many more of their compatriots are roaming the United States unchecked because they were never found out?

I would love to be able to pose a question to both the Dem and GOP candidates about their positions on this one.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Middle-Eastern Illegal Aliens Nabbed In Mississippi
Chad Groening
OneNewsNow.com
January 30, 3008