Commentary by James Shott
These days talk of government excesses is routine. A list of recent infractions contains things like the Internal Revenue Service using its resources to persecute applicants for non-profit status and the National Security Agency collecting data on every American’s phone calls and email.
Government excesses have been growing for a long time, and since 19 Muslim terrorists hijacked four airliners and successfully crashed three of them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the U.S. has been taking strong measures to detect potential terrorist threats, and these are by far the most threatening excesses.
The first of these was the USA Patriot Act, created and passed less than two months after the 9-11 attacks, and signed into law by President George W. Bush. Things have not improved since that fateful law passed.
The problem with such measures is that while they may or may not help prevent a terrorist attack, they present a frightening opportunity for government abuse. Americans are rightly distrustful of such mechanisms, and our Constitution prohibits our government from adopting liberty-crushing measures like these.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) was passed and signed into law by President Barack Obama, and greatly expanded the power and scope of the federal government to fight the War on Terror, including codifying into law the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Including US citizens. Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill.
This is not the first time such extraordinary misuse of the military has been considered. In 2002 a similar discussion arose, but was ultimately quashed by Mr. Bush.
Those features in the NDAA are unacceptable, even in the name of fighting terrorism. Prior to the NDAA the Posse Comitatus Act prohibited Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. Americans also enjoyed the protections of the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The intention was to prevent precisely what the 2012 NDAA enacted into law.
Nevertheless, Mr. Obama signed the NDAA into law, saying, “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
However, according to Michigan Democrat Senator Carl Levin, Mr. Obama demanded that American citizens be included under the detention law and that the President of the United States have exclusive authority to invoke the statute. “The language which precluded the application of Section [1021] to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” Sen. Levin said after the NDAA was signed into law.
Critics all across the political spectrum rightly opposed the NDAA because of elements in section 1021.
While many government excesses and cases of misbehavior go along uninterrupted, a federal judge appropriately put a stop to the offending elements of the 2012 NDAA only months after it took affect.
Federal Judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction striking down those sections of the NDAA that sought to provide the president the power to indefinitely detain citizens without benefit of their rights.
Judge Forrest concluded that Section 1021 “…failed to ‘pass Constitutional muster’ because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.” In a statement clearly directed to lawmakers, she added, ”Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little – it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass constitutional muster.”
The Obama administration, however, then fought successfully to appeal Judge Forrest’s injunction, and a 2013 version of the bill contains the same intolerable provisions as the 2012 version, and was also signed by President Obama.
Despite Mr. Obama’s comforting words, despite the bi-partisan opposition to section 1021, Mr. Obama demanded that language exempting America citizens and lawful residents from the provisions of Section 1021 be removed, he fought for and won keeping the Section alive in the 2012 version, and signed the 2013 version with those provisions contained in it.
No matter how much you may trust Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama, or any future president, no president can be allowed to have the absolute authority provided in the NDAA to detain citizens without due process, or to set the US military against the people. No individual can be allowed that authority. Ever!
There goes “innocent until proven guilty,” a major protection for citizens against tyranny. Erik Kain, writing on Forbes.com, says: “We’re talking about the stripping away of our most basic freedoms. We’re talking about a potential state that can call me a terrorist for writing this blog post and then lock me up and throw away the key.”
A majority of the US House and Senate approved these measures. Is this what you expect of your elected representatives?
Cross-posted from Observations
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Terrorism. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Terrorism. Tampilkan semua postingan
Death to Nidal Hasan and the better food in schools movement?
On November 5, 2009, US Army Major Nidal Hasan, a Muslim and psychiatrist at the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas, opened fire on his fellow soldiers inside the center, screaming “Allahu Akbar,” and killing 13 soldiers and an unborn child in her mother’s womb, and wounding 30 others.
While the victims were military personnel trained in the use of weapons, they were unarmed, forbidden from carrying on base the weapons many would use when deployed. Fortunately, Sgt. Kimberley Munley, a civilian police officer, arrived and wounded the jihadist doctor, interrupting his murderous rampage, but he shot Sgt. Munley three times, and just as the terrorist was about to finish her off, another civilian officer, Sgt. Mark Todd, shot him, and ended the killing spree.
This murderous attack left 13 dead, eight widows, one widower, 12 minor children without a father, 18 parents who lost children, 30 soldiers and one civilian police officer wounded.
There’s little positive from that event, other than that Nidal Hasan is now paralyzed from the waist down, and will likely never walk again.
Despite concerns about Hasan’s radical Islamist leanings, revealed when he was an intern at Walter Reed Medical Center, later as a physician in a PowerPoint presentation to other Army doctors, and Islamic abbreviations and phrases on his business card, the Army did not see fit to remove him from duty, or give him the punishment he so rightly deserved. In fact, an email from an Army investigator reveals the ugly politically correct nature of military service today: "Had we launched an investigation of Hasan we'd have been crucified."
Inexplicably, the charges the Department of Defense filed against Maj. Hasan ignored his Islam-based terrorist attack, but was instead labeled “workplace violence,” as if he had merely started a fight with a co-worker or thrown a chair at his boss. Such a designation deprives those soldiers killed and injured in this terrorist attack the benefits they are entitled to and would receive had accurate charges been filed.
During his opening statement at trial, in which he was convicted on all charges, Maj. Hasan apologized, not to the victims and their families, the nation or the Army, but to his fellow jihadists for not destroying more innocent life, and admitted shooting the 13 soldiers, and said he wanted the death penalty. Last week the jury sentenced him to death.
As one who believes in the death penalty for certain vicious crimes when guilt is not in question, in this case I hope that the death penalty for Nidal Hasan, a painless lethal injection, is set aside, as it has been for those in the military since 1961.
He deserves to live out his miserable life in abject misery, not in the glory of Islamic jihadist martyrdom for which he so badly hungers. Too bad that murderers, rapists, and others among the worst scum of humanity are treated so well when they are condemned to an American prison for their vicious crimes.
* * * * *
America’s First Ladies have always been advocates for important issues in our country. Rosalyn Carter championed mental health, Nancy Reagan fought against drug abuse, Barbara Bush worked to increase literacy, Hillary Clinton pushed for health reform, Laura Bush advocated for improvements in education, and Michelle Obama has worked to have a positive effect on childhood obesity.
Given the overweight nature of the US population generally, and that of the younger generation specifically, who can logically argue that a better menu in the nation’s public schools is a bad thing?
However, this particular effort has been met with resistance, and even outright rebellion, with school kids refusing to eat the better food being served in cafeterias, and school systems losing money on the deal as a result, and bailing out of the program.
One example of the growing national rebellion against the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which set new nutrition standards for school cafeterias and changed the way children are qualified for school meal programs, occurred recently at a contentious meeting of the Harlan County, Kentucky school board.
Board members were treated to a raft of complaints about school meals, which were called crappy and served in portions that critics say are too small. Someone said the meals tasted like “vomit,” and one parent said, “kids can’t learn when they’re hungry.”
Parents criticized the brown wheat bread, the skim or one-percent-fat milk, and the nonfat chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milk.
Where this effort has gone wrong is that it attempts to mandate through law the way kids eat, and even though the standards set by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act are nutritionally superior to previous standards, school kids liked the old food and they don’t like the new food, and therefore don’t eat it.
In it’s own way this is a citizen rebellion against an over-reaching state: the people are against the government trying to tell them how to eat, among other things.
Our government has no business doing this. Perhaps this mild revolution will get the point across. But probably not.
Our government has no business doing this. Perhaps this mild revolution will get the point across. But probably not.
"The Street Was Covered with Blood and Bodies" Remembering The Sbarro Bombing August 9, 2001
Hat Tip to Yid With Lid
Twelve years ago Palestinians blew up a pizza place in the heart of Jerusalem. One month later, other Islamist terrorists blew up the World Trade Centers in NY, the Pentagon Building in Washington DC, and were foiled in their attempt to destroy the Capital building by the brave passengers of Flight 93.
It is important to remember these acts not simply to memorialize the innocent victims who's only crime was to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, but as a reminder that terrorism still suckles at the teat of political correctness and Western World appeasement.
Although Secretary of State Kerry has forced the Palestinians into talking, they still have no desire to make peace. Those "peace-loving, moderate" terrorists of Fatah, run by Palestinian Authority's (PA) President Abbas, claim to the world they are looking to make peace with their Israeli neighbors. The truth is the moderates do not run the PA, it is the radicals who still run Fatah, its ruling party.
Witness the fact that the PA almost nothing has been done to prepare the Palestinians for a compromise peace and two-state solution alongside Israel. In fact Jews and Israel are demonized and terrorists are honored. In schools, children are taught that the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true and there are TV programs glorifying those who participated in mass-murder.
Terrorist Ahlam Tamimi has been described as the person who drove drove the suicide bomber to the Sbarro pizza shop in Jerusalem in August 2001. But that is an understatement.
On the day of the massacre (9th August 2001), she personally transported the bomb (10 kg) from a West Bank town into Jerusalem, concealed inside a guitar case. Taxi cabs brought her and an accomplice by the name of Al Masri, a young, newly-religious fanatic, to an Israeli security checkpoint and from there into Jerusalem.
To reduce suspicion, they dressed as Israelis and the bomb was not detected. Tamimi, who inspired, planned and engineered the Sbarro attack, personally led her "weapon" - Al Masri - to the target she had carefully selected at Jerusalem's busiest intersection.
The target was the Sbarro pizza restaurant,because it was located in the heart of Jerusalem and on a hot summer vacation afternoon it would be teeming with women and children. Tamimi instructed Al Masri to wait fifteen minutes before detonating the explosives to give her sufficient time to flee the scene safely. He followed her orders. As to this being (as some journalists have implied) an act of momentary madness or lack of sound thinking, take into account that a short time prior to Sbarro attack.
Tamimi carried out a 'dry run', placing an explosive inside a downtown Jerusalem supermarket (Hamashbir Lazarchan) which exploded causing damage but resulting in no injuries.
Fifteen people were murdered in the attack, 7 of them children. Ahlam Tamimi was captured, jailed for the murders, but released as part of the Giliad Shalit deal despite the fact she showed no remorse for her mass-murder.
The names of the dead are:
When Yassir Arafat started on his murderous rampage in 1964 (three years before the 6 day war), he was treated like the animal he was. Then slowly through a combination of Arab Oil power and the world's continued hatred of Jews, the murderous rampage was treated with appeasement, and the Islamic world was taught that terrorism is a legitimate means of political expression.
And they learned well. That appeasement of Palestinian Terror directly lead to 9/11/11 and the War on Terror the Western World still fights today.
The Sbarro bombing was not the first of these horrible murders, or the most deadly. A little over a month later another terrorist attack, this time in the United States captured the world's attention, and the United States became actively involved in the war against terror.
After 9/11 for the first time in its history, the US treated a terror attack in Israel as n act of war against civil society in the entire world (at least until the Republicans lost congress in 2006 when things began to revert).
After election day 2008 under the leadership of new President Barack Obama the US seemed to revert back to the pre-9/11 mentality. This country stopped fighting the war against fanatical Islamists, at least the stopped fighting to win. Twelve years after Sbarros, and almost 12 years after 9/11/11 it seems the Islamists have the United States on the run.
This President does all he can to force Israel to make one-sided concessions to "moderates" in Fatah who continue in their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Via his secretary of state Obama does all he can to force Israel to make one-sided concessions to a Fatah who still promotes mass-murderers like the one who blew up a Sbarros pizza place in Jerusalem as heroes.
Islamist hatred is fed with dollars and euros. They continue to close their eyes to the fact that the "Palestinian problem" is all about the Western World, funding a people who are being taught by their leaders that blowing up innocent men, women and children having a slice of pizza, is a heroic act.
Until the world recognizes the fruits of their appeasement, horrors like the Sbarro bombing will continue to happen in Israel, Europe, the US and elsewhere throughout the world.
Twelve years ago Palestinians blew up a pizza place in the heart of Jerusalem. One month later, other Islamist terrorists blew up the World Trade Centers in NY, the Pentagon Building in Washington DC, and were foiled in their attempt to destroy the Capital building by the brave passengers of Flight 93.
It is important to remember these acts not simply to memorialize the innocent victims who's only crime was to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, but as a reminder that terrorism still suckles at the teat of political correctness and Western World appeasement.
Her eyes, I think, will stay with me forever. Imploring, beseeching, full of so much sadness. I think the shock of where and how she was, was sinking in. I can't begin to describe all that was in those eyes.This horrible bombing was part of what has become known as the second intifada. Israel and the Palestinians had been close to a peace deal where Arafat would get almost everything he asked for, but neither the terrorist or his people were ready for peace so Arafat authorized a wave of horrible homicide bombings.
Yesterday; Thursday, August 9th the 20th of Av, on my way to work, I found myself walking down Yaffo street. Hungry, I decided to stop and grab a quick bite... at Sbarro's Pizza.
In the past 5 years I have frequented this establishment exactly twice. Walking into Sbarro's there is a larger area for sitting in the front, but the back looked a bit cooler and quieter, so I decided to grab a seat in the back. That decision saved my life.
Waiting on line, when they brought me the baked Zitti I asked for, it was cold. So I asked the woman behind the counter if she'd mind warming it up. "Ein Ba'ayah", no problem, she said with a smile. I will always wonder if that was her last smile on earth... A couple of moments later, a fellow from behind the counter came to the back with my baked Ziti. Then he started to speak to someone at one of the tables... That baked Ziti saved his life.At about 2PM, I both felt & heard a tremendous explosion, and day turned into night. And then the screaming began. An awful, heartrending sound; the sound of people coming to terms with a whole new reality, of people not wanting to comprehend that life has changed forever. Those of us sitting in the back were spared, but I was afraid of panic, so I started yelling at everyone to quieten down; not to panic. The ceiling looked like it might cave in, but there is always the danger of a second explosion, detonated on purpose shortly after the first... But then I smelled smoke, and was suddenly afraid the restaurant mightbe on fire. So we started climbing our way through the wreckage to the front.
Would there be another explosion? Would the roof collapse? Were we making the wrong decision, climbing through? There are moments that last a lifetime... There are no words to describe what the front of Sbarro's Pizza looked like in the immediate aftermath of that explosion. A woman was lying near the steps to the back. Her eyes were staring straight at me, following me. So full of pain and longing, sadness and despair. I dropped down becide her trying to ellicit a response to see if she could speak. And then I watched the life just drain out of her. I tried to get a pulse, to no avail. She died there, on the steps in front of me. She was lying by the table I had decided not to sit at...
There were bodies everywhere, and those images are in my mind; they won't let go. A child's body under the wreckage; a baby-carriage; limbs and a torso; A woman holding a motor-cycle helmet and screaming next to a person on the floor who had obviously been someone she was with... And then the mad rush to help the ambulance and emergency crews get the wounded out. They were obviously afraid of a second bomb, so there was no medical effort inside beyond getting the wounded on to stretchers and out. A religious Jew missing at least two limbs in tears and shock; what do you say? "yehiyeh Be'Seder" it'll be all right? Will it?
I happened to sit a bit to the left as you walk towards the back, and so the wall behind me shielded me from the blast. Another fellow whom we went back in to get wasn't so lucky. Sitting only 5 or 6 feet to my left, he caught the full force of the blast and was thrown in the air. When we got him on the stretcher he was bleeding profusely and was missing a leg... There are no words to describe what that man's hand, clenched around my arm, felt like. He just kept looking from me to his leg and back again. I started saying Tehillim ...
So many mixed emotions fill my head today. I came home last night and gave each of my children a very long hug... But there are so many families today who are waking up to the reality that life will never be the same. 17 funerals with friends and families saying goodbye to those they loved so, whose only crime was a desire for a slice of Pizza on a beautiful Jerusalem afternoon... A Personal Account of the Bombing, by Rabbi Binny Freedman
Click here if the video fails to load.
Although Secretary of State Kerry has forced the Palestinians into talking, they still have no desire to make peace. Those "peace-loving, moderate" terrorists of Fatah, run by Palestinian Authority's (PA) President Abbas, claim to the world they are looking to make peace with their Israeli neighbors. The truth is the moderates do not run the PA, it is the radicals who still run Fatah, its ruling party.
Witness the fact that the PA almost nothing has been done to prepare the Palestinians for a compromise peace and two-state solution alongside Israel. In fact Jews and Israel are demonized and terrorists are honored. In schools, children are taught that the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true and there are TV programs glorifying those who participated in mass-murder.
 |
| Terrorist Ahlam Tamimi |
Terrorist Ahlam Tamimi has been described as the person who drove drove the suicide bomber to the Sbarro pizza shop in Jerusalem in August 2001. But that is an understatement.
On the day of the massacre (9th August 2001), she personally transported the bomb (10 kg) from a West Bank town into Jerusalem, concealed inside a guitar case. Taxi cabs brought her and an accomplice by the name of Al Masri, a young, newly-religious fanatic, to an Israeli security checkpoint and from there into Jerusalem.
To reduce suspicion, they dressed as Israelis and the bomb was not detected. Tamimi, who inspired, planned and engineered the Sbarro attack, personally led her "weapon" - Al Masri - to the target she had carefully selected at Jerusalem's busiest intersection.
The target was the Sbarro pizza restaurant,because it was located in the heart of Jerusalem and on a hot summer vacation afternoon it would be teeming with women and children. Tamimi instructed Al Masri to wait fifteen minutes before detonating the explosives to give her sufficient time to flee the scene safely. He followed her orders. As to this being (as some journalists have implied) an act of momentary madness or lack of sound thinking, take into account that a short time prior to Sbarro attack.
Tamimi carried out a 'dry run', placing an explosive inside a downtown Jerusalem supermarket (Hamashbir Lazarchan) which exploded causing damage but resulting in no injuries.
Fifteen people were murdered in the attack, 7 of them children. Ahlam Tamimi was captured, jailed for the murders, but released as part of the Giliad Shalit deal despite the fact she showed no remorse for her mass-murder.
The names of the dead are:
- Giora Balash, 60, of Brazil
- Zvika Golombek, 26, of Carmiel
- Shoshana Yehudit Greenbaum, 31, of the U.S.
- Tehila Maoz, 18, of Jerusalem
- Frieda Mendelsohn, 62, of Jerusalem
- Michal Raziel, 16, of Jerusalem
- Malka Roth, 15, of Jerusalem
- Mordechai Schijveschuurder, 43, of Neria
- Tzira Schijveschuurder, 41, of Neria
- Ra'aya Schijveschuurder, 14, of Neria
- Avraham Yitzhak Schijveschuurder, 4, of Neria
- Hemda Schijveschuurder, 2, of Neria
- Lily Shimashvili, 33, of Jerusalem
- Tamara Shimashvili, 8, of Jerusalem
- Yocheved Shoshan, 10, of Jerusalem
When Yassir Arafat started on his murderous rampage in 1964 (three years before the 6 day war), he was treated like the animal he was. Then slowly through a combination of Arab Oil power and the world's continued hatred of Jews, the murderous rampage was treated with appeasement, and the Islamic world was taught that terrorism is a legitimate means of political expression.
And they learned well. That appeasement of Palestinian Terror directly lead to 9/11/11 and the War on Terror the Western World still fights today.
The Sbarro bombing was not the first of these horrible murders, or the most deadly. A little over a month later another terrorist attack, this time in the United States captured the world's attention, and the United States became actively involved in the war against terror.
After 9/11 for the first time in its history, the US treated a terror attack in Israel as n act of war against civil society in the entire world (at least until the Republicans lost congress in 2006 when things began to revert).
After election day 2008 under the leadership of new President Barack Obama the US seemed to revert back to the pre-9/11 mentality. This country stopped fighting the war against fanatical Islamists, at least the stopped fighting to win. Twelve years after Sbarros, and almost 12 years after 9/11/11 it seems the Islamists have the United States on the run.
This President does all he can to force Israel to make one-sided concessions to "moderates" in Fatah who continue in their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Via his secretary of state Obama does all he can to force Israel to make one-sided concessions to a Fatah who still promotes mass-murderers like the one who blew up a Sbarros pizza place in Jerusalem as heroes.
Islamist hatred is fed with dollars and euros. They continue to close their eyes to the fact that the "Palestinian problem" is all about the Western World, funding a people who are being taught by their leaders that blowing up innocent men, women and children having a slice of pizza, is a heroic act.
Until the world recognizes the fruits of their appeasement, horrors like the Sbarro bombing will continue to happen in Israel, Europe, the US and elsewhere throughout the world.
Data mining breeches our Founder’s concept of liberty and privac
Collecting data from phone calls of Verizon customers is one thing. Collecting email information on millions of Americans is something else. Both of these activities stir concern and break the bounds of constitutionality, but the invasion of privacy is far greater in the collection of email data.
Phone call data consists of phone numbers, dates and call duration, but not the conversation itself. Email data, on the other hand, not only has email addresses and date information, but the actual message as well, which often includes names and attached text and media files.
4
The potential for misbehavior is enormous, particularly with email data, given the nature of the information available to prying eyes. Some comfort may be taken from the idea that intelligence personnel who use this information are not susceptible to political influences unlike, say, Internal Revenue Service workers. That does not relieve the concern for our privacy, however.
Hardly anyone doesn't want to the government to find plotting terrorists or discover terrorist plans before they are acted upon, even if it involves tapping phones, capturing emails or other covert measures. But the routine collection of massive amounts of data in the hopes of finding a couple of useful pieces of information is over-the-top and unjustified. Its use has increased since the practice was first introduced after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and has increased exponentially under the Obama administration, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
The way it is supposed to work is that when the government has reason to believe that one or more individuals – like let’s say Irv Huffington or Ahmed Ali-Yahoo – may be planning an attack, it goes to court to seek an order allowing it to tap their phone or take whatever actions it proposes to do. It doesn't simply start collecting the records of millions of people hoping to find the Huffington or Ali-Yahoo needle among millions of data bits in the haystack.
Here's what the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That language is precise and unambiguous. It does not allow judges to give anyone, or anyone to just take the information of millions of Americans in the hope of finding something hidden away among huge collections of data.
In order to get permission to breech a citizen's privacy, the government must request permission by offering a compelling reason and support that assertion under oath, describing explicitly the place and persons under suspicion. Nowhere in the 4th Amendment is the term "fishing expedition" mentioned or implied, nor is there language allowing nosing around in the private lives of millions of citizens who empower the government because it makes things easier, and it does not depend upon what the meaning of "is" is.
The Founders viewed "general warrants," or dragnet searches such as we are witnessing today, as tyrannical. That view is not mitigated by the advent of terrorist acts that kill dozens, hundreds or thousands, nor by the amazing technological advances since the mid-18th century; general warrants still are tyrannical.
The United States has Constitution protections for a reason: because the Framers understood from first-hand experience how government can slither into impropriety, tyranny and oppression unless it is clearly and firmly prevented by statute from doing so. The U.S. Constitution was created not to limit what the people may do, but to limit what the government may do.
We are told, and many of us believe, that in order to be safe in these perilous times, we must give up much of our liberty and privacy for security, but Benjamin Franklin expressed this idea about that: Those who willingly give up liberty for security will have neither, and deserve neither.
It is a point of shame for the citizens of the United States that so many Americans have no functional knowledge of the principles upon which our nation was created or of the meaning or power of the US Constitution. That is a prime reason that so many on the political left are able to mis-think so many things with such great success.
As a nation we have grown lazy and tone deaf as our government has grown to gargantuan proportions and ridiculous levels of expense, and burst through the top and sides of the constitutional box our much-smarter-than-we-are Founding Fathers built for it.
When they look out on the US landscape and see that some things that aren't working well, they think becoming more like left/liberal Europe is the answer, without even the suspicion that the reason things aren't working is because they have been trying for decades to become more like Europe and less like the United States of America, which under the US Constitution became the freest, most prosperous and most successful nation in human history, while liberal socialist and communist governmental models have always failed.
The depths of the scandalous Benghazi episode are becoming clear
The following timeline of events is what we know about the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya:
• April 5, 2011: Christopher Stevens arrives in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to forge ties with the forces battling Moammar Gadhafi. President Obama appoints him as ambassador to Libya on May 22, 2012.
• February: The U.S. embassy requests and is granted a four-month extension, until August, of a Tripoli-based “site security team” composed of 16 special forces soldiers who provide security, medical and communications support to the embassy.
• March: State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom sends a cable to Washington asking for additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, and later says he received no response. He repeats his request in July and again gets no response.
• April 6: Two fired Libyan security guards throw an IED over the consulate fence.
• May 22: An Islamist attack on the Red Cross office in Benghazi is followed by a Facebook post that warns “now we are preparing a message for the Americans,” and another a month later highlights Ambassador Stevens’ daily jogs in Tripoli in an apparent threat. The Red Cross closed the office.
• June 6: Unknown assailants blow a hole in the consulate’s north gate described by a witness as “big enough for 40 men to go through,” and four days later, the British ambassador’s car is ambushed by militants with a rocket-propelled grenade. The British close the consulate soon thereafter.
• July: The anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” is posted on You Tube.
• Aug. 14: The US security team leaves Libya, despite Ambassador Steven’s desire that they remain, according to team leader Lt. Col. Andy Wood.
• In the weeks before Sept. 11, Libyan security guards are reportedly warned by family members of an impending attack. On Sept. 8, the Libyan militia tasked with protecting the consulate warns U.S. diplomats that the security situation is “frightening.”
• Sept. 10: Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri calls on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al Libi, killed in a June drone strike in Pakistan.
The next night, Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans, including two who disobeyed orders and came to help defend the consulate, are murdered in an attack that was unquestionably not the result of an obscure anti-Islam video.
Even dedicated Obama apologists cannot ignore the evident rising danger leading up to Sept. 11 that included violence serious enough to close the Red Cross office and the British consulate, and the direct violent attacks on the US consulate, and yet the needed and requested security enhancements were not provided.
It gets worse. From The Hill: "High-level staffers removed vital pieces of information tying terrorist organizations to attacks. They knew early on that radical Islamic terrorists participated in the attack. The former Deputy Chief of Mission to Libya, Gregory Hicks, said in the [Congressional] hearing, 'none of us should ever again experience what we went through in Tripoli and Benghazi on 9/11/2012.' He went on to say he had personally told former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at 2 a.m. the night of the attack that it was a terrorist attack. Gregory Hicks also testified that Secretary Clinton's claiming the attack was incited by a YouTube video caused Libyan officials to hinder the FBI's arrival to the scene." For his forthrightness Mr. Hicks was demoted by the State Department.
Some question the veracity of the three witnesses who testified at the Oversight & Government Reform Committee. This is a predictable, if foolish, effort to discredit these witnesses. But these people are not bystanders; they are not people who are going to report on hearsay; they are not political operatives. In fact, Gregory Hicks is a registered Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary. These people were directly involved in different capacities before, during and after the attack. They are totally credible, and deserve not only our respect and appreciation, but our attention to their message.
So what went wrong? There are three possibilities: massive bureaucratic incompetence; the administration was asleep at the wheel; or the administration put political considerations ahead of doing the right thing. Negative repercussions of an Islamist terrorist attack on a US facility on the iconic date of Sept. 11, right before a presidential election, drove the administration to concoct an implausible scenario to try to deflect attention from the reality that al-Qaeda had indeed not been vanquished, contrary to Barack Obama's boasting to the contrary.
In answer to Hillary Clinton's asinine question: "What difference ... does it make?" It makes a huge difference. Four people died as a result of your and/or the administration's mishandling of this event, Ms. Clinton, and the people you worked for deserve to know who screwed up, and why.
We hired Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and every other public servant to act in the best interest of the American people and the nation, and expect them to put their personal political considerations aside. That clearly did not happen in Benghazi. There is no greater disservice.
US negligence in securing the southern border puts us all in danger
Do you have locks on the doors to your home and/or business, and do you lock them? Do you lock your car when you park it at work, at the mall, and other places? Do you insist that people who come to your home knock on the door or ring the bell and be invited in before entering? Would you be offended or angered if people set up housekeeping in your basement or outbuilding without your permission? Would you order them to leave and call the police to have them removed if they refused?
If so, you are among the scores of millions of sensible Americans who understand why we must strengthen border security and revamp our dysfunctional immigration system. And that must be done before taking any sort of action to give illegal immigrants legal status of any description.
The administration wants us to believe that the border is really not so bad: "I can tell you having worked that border for 20 years, it is more secure now than it has ever been. Illegal apprehensions are at 40-year lows," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said. Please forgive some cynicism, but that could be achieved by ordering the Border Patrol to apprehend fewer illegals.
But as it turns out, she's just wrong. Customs and Border Protection released data showing that arrests are actually up 13 percent compared with the same time last year when the number was 170,223. It is 192,298 this year.
This begs the question of where Ms. Napolitano -- who "worked the border" as U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, the state's Attorney General, and its Governor -- gets her information. But perhaps it’s not the source of information that is Madam Secretary's problem; instead it is her perverse perspective. In 2009 she said on CNN's "State of the Union" that entering the country illegally is not a crime. No, really. That's what she said. That statement should have sunk her as Homeland Security secretary.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said her state’s border with Mexico is still not secure and called for additional resources to improve border security. Following what she termed an "extensive" aerial tour, she said the border with Mexico continues to be “a gateway” for drug smuggling and unlawful crossings. She called for more fences, drones, Border Patrol agents and National Guard troops.
“The ranchers will tell you, if you sit down and talk to them, that they’re fearful, that the Border Patrol is too far north,” Gov. Brewer said. “They need to get closer to the border because they let [illegal immigrants] go so far [into the state], and then they just sort of blend in." "They’re destroying their land and destroying their cattle, they’re destroying their water. They’re frustrated.”
Texas Senator John Cornyn agrees: "People are coming from around the world through what they know is a porous border to come to the United States without us knowing who they are, what their motives are," he said. "This is a national security problem."
The Boston Marathon bombing reminded us that the threat of terrorism is very real. And the negligence of the federal government in handling border security provides no assurance that along with people looking for work and a better life, and the drug cartels and thugs looking for markets and victims, there are not also terrorists slithering across the border while the government is busy not paying attention.
About the only people who do not acknowledge the disgraceful state of border security are those in Washington like Secretary Napolitano whose responsibility it is to secure it. A March poll of 1,014 adults by ABC News and The Washington Post reflects that eight-in-ten Americans support stronger border security.
But of course the "everybody who disagrees with me is stupid" crowd demurs. They not only think lax border security is a good thing, but also believe that those who think we should actually control who comes into the US are racists. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that 22 percent of liberal participants hold that view.
These folks believe that it is racist to control who gets into the US, and that the country would be better off if we just opened the borders and let anyone in who wants to come in. They may also believe that if you disagree with Barack Obama about anything, you are also a racist. It has been found that these beliefs were arrived at using a very high level of third grade playground logic.
Perhaps since the feds won't block illegal immigrants from crossing the border we should round them up and send them to live with those 22 percent who hate secure borders and love lawbreakers.
The feds get a big fat F in "paying attention to important things." They've allowed millions to expend minimal effort to illegally enter our country; they designed and carried out the deadly "gun walking" fiasco known as Fast and Furious; they ignored numerous warnings about rising danger in Benghazi that ultimately killed four brave Americans; and did not pick up on clear indications of radicalization of the accused Boston Marathon bombers. And next year Obamacare takes effect.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
