Obama Undermining America: 2009 Archives


The overwhelming majority of Americans know we are at war.

The would-be Christmas bomber reminded everyone of that fact.

So why did the government take the Christmas bomber into the criminal law system and read him his rights as if he were a U.S. citizen and tell him he had the right to remain silent?

We need information! The bomber has already told us that there are dozens, maybe more, already trained in Yemen ready, willing and able to launch similar attacks at American targets. Don't we want to know that?

One more or less learned U.S. lawyer Josh Marshall argues that's the way it should be, what the Obama Administration is doing is the right thing. Marc Thiessen questions that:

Why is the Obama administration telling Abdulmutallab that he has the “right to remain silent”? Why are they not interrogating him to find out what follow-on attacks may be coming? Is Josh okay with the decision to let this terrorist, who tried to kill hundreds of Americans, keep his secrets to himself? And will he stand up and defend that decision if another terrorist who trained with Abdulmutallab in Yemen succeeds in blowing up another plane?

Andrew McCarthy, who successfully prosecuted the blind sheikh behind the first World Trade Center bombing, explains why what the Obama administration is doing is gravely damaging to our national defense.

UPDATE: A new Rasmussen poll finds that 58% of the American public want the Christmas bomber waterboarded! Also,

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters think the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim to blow up the airliner as it landed in Detroit should be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act. Only 22% say it should be handled by civilian authorities as a criminal act, as is currently the case.

The public's priority is defending Americans. The president should do what the public wants and what his oath to the Constitution requires.



Former vice president Dick Cheney is very concerned about the failure of the White House to confront the war on terror (it won't even use the term "war on terror") seriously.

As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war.

He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, "war on terror," we won't be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe. Why doesn't he want to admit we're at war? It doesn't fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn't fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency - social transformation--the restructuring of American society. President Obama's first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.

The enemy knows it's at war. Pretending that we aren't at war is a prescription for disaster and human tragedy.



Why doesn't Obama want to admit the United States is being attacked by Islamic supremacists?

doesn't Obama want to admit we're in a war we didn't choose with an enemy that has been fighting all others for 1400 years?

Why is Obama weakening our national security by treating Islamic terrorists as ordinary criminals instead of the Islamic enemy combatants they are?

Andrew McCarthy, perhaps the leading American expert on the inadequacy of the criminal justice system in fighting the Islamic supremacists dedicated to the destruction of America, devastates Obama's statements on how he has changed Muslim views of the U.S.:

Hadn't Abdulmutallab heard that we are closing Gitmo? Hadn't he heard that we're phasing out military-commissions so we can show the world that we give even the worst mass-murderers civilian trials with all the rights of American citizens? Hadn't he heard that President Obama has banned torture (yes, yes, I know, actually Congress banned it 15 years ago — details, details . . .)? Hadn't he heard that the president has called for "a new beginning" in America's relationship with the Muslim world? Hadn't he heard that this is our new, smarter strategy to safeguard the nation from man-caused disasters?

I suspect he's heard all those things.



Yuh, sure.




Just because we have a new president who wants to be especially friendly with the Muslims of the world doesn't mean that the 1400-year war of Islam's true believers against the rest of the world has stopped. Almost every day evidence of the continuing war crops up, though often the national media doesn't report it or put it in the context of the global war that it is.

Syrian-born, but now an American doctor living in California Wafa Sultan appeared on al Jazeera television awhile ago and shocked viewers by saying straight out what is going on between Islam and the West. It isn't a "clash of civilizations" at all: It is a war between civilization and barbarism.

Today's editorial reminds us that among the 1.3 billion Muslims of the world is a significant number (15% is one estimate by a leading Muslim leader, that's 200 million) are following Mohammed's command to wage war to conquer the world for Islam. It is a war on civilization and we ignore that reality at our peril. But this is precisely what the the U.S. is currently doing with its banishment of words such as "terror" and "war on terror" and the refusal to identify who the enemy is. The nation's safety depends on knowing who is waging the war against us and acting accordingly to defend ourselves at home and abroad..

Terror: A Global War

Investor's Business Daily

Posted 12/07/2009 07:30 PM ET

GWOT: The arrest of a Danish cartoon terror plotter for an even more lethal role in 2008's Mumbai terror attack reminds us the war on terror is global. So why is this being treated as a mere law-enforcement matter?

David Copeland Headley, 49, a Pakistani-American resident of the north side of Chicago, was arrested in October for plotting the terror-killings of the editors of Jyllands-Posten, a Copenhagen-based newspaper that ran unflattering cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in 2006.

A month later, the public learned it wasn't his first time. Headley, 49, a failed businessman and convicted drug dealer who'd changed his name from Daood Gilani, was arrested again on Monday, as an agent in the attacks at India's Oberoi and Taj hotels in Mumbai.

Headley was the advance man for the Pakistani terrorists, casing and filming Mumbai along the terror route as well as the hotels for months before they launched their multiday killing spree. The massacre that followed left 166 dead, including six Americans.

What's stunning here is that these incidents have thus far been viewed through a local lens — India's problem, Denmark's affair, America's issue, Pakistan's woe. They shouldn't be.

The same faces with the same Islamofascist motives are turning up no matter where or what sort of attack happens. It points to a ruthless enemy at war with the world, not a string of local crimes.

Yet the Danish cartoon imbroglio was viewed as an issue of civil rights and freedom of speech. The India massacre was dismissed as a function of its Kashmir dispute with Pakistan. The Afghanistan-Pakistan war is viewed as a nation-building venture rather than ground zero in the war on terror — which is what it is.

Remember 2001's shoe bomber Richard Reid? He was seen as a lone misfit from London, until it was revealed that the mosque he attended was part of a Pakistan-based Islamofascist cult. Led by Mubarak Gilani, mosque supporters murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and had links to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind. (The Indian press reports that Gilani is a tribal name, meaning Headley could have links to this group, too.)

And just last October, a German passport belonging to Said Bahaji, a "Hamburg cell" associate of lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, was among documents found by Pakistani forces in a Waziristan town used by the Taliban as a command base.

So much for the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan supposedly being about "nation building," and not about the global war on terror and hate-filled Islamic fundamentalism.

These "coincidences" only make sense when seen in the context of a global war that's centered in the region. But that's been obscured by those politicians all too eager to put their heads in the sand.

Oh, the White House pays lip service to this: "This case serves as a reminder that the terrorist threat is global in nature and requires constant vigilance at home and abroad," said David Kris, assistant attorney general for national security, in an official statement.

But why doesn't this come from a national leader? Even Attorney General Eric Holder would be a better choice to reinforce the global nature of the threat we face.

The real voice that should be heard recognizing of the fact that we are in fact at war against an implacable enemy is President Obama.

Our president will, by happy coincidence, soon be in Copenhagen, the very city where the Danish newspaper is published. He'll miss an important opportunity if he doesn't explicitly highlight the arrest in Chicago as part of a war on civilization — not a police matter.



Chris Matthews of MSNBC was disturbed that President Obama did not get much of an enthusiastic response from the West Point cadets Obama chose to give his Afghan speech to. How did Matthews characterize those training to defend our country?

It's time for Matthews to hang it up.



Former Army intelligence operative Ralph Peters blasts Obama's Afghanistan speech as setting troops up to fail with his exit deadline. "If you're going to tell the Taliban to be patient because we're leaving, what's the point in upping the blood ante?"

What is Obama saying to his various listeners:

To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I've written off.

To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp.

To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered.

To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country.

To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda).

Read it all.



Charles Krauthammer has reduced to print his analysis of the absurd ratioale of Attorney General Eric Holder for moving the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York City.

While it seems increasingly clear part of the agenda of the Obama administration is to blacken the reputation of pre-Obama America abroad, it is also increasingly clear that the administration lacks moral clarity, sound judgment and the ability to think and speak coherently.

Thus, Krauthammer:

Travesty in New York
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 20, 2009

WASHINGTON -- For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the "propaganda of the deed." And the most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11 -- not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic.

And now its self-proclaimed architect, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life -- and KSM, a second act: "9/11, The Director's Cut," narration by KSM.

September 11, 2001 had to speak for itself. A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.

Continue reading . . .



Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson rather dispassionately examines Attorney General Holder's decision to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a trial in a civilian court such as American citizens are entitled to. His conclusion is that his decision is a "grave mistake." Rather, it's a "deadly decision," not a mistake at all.

Holder/Obama want the terrorists to have their soapbox to the Islamic world, so we will have more to apologize for. How many Americans will die because of this decision?

Does anyone think Holder would have made this decision without discussing it first with Obama?

November 18, 2009

Eric Holder's Grave Mistake

By Michael Gerson in the Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- Eric Holder -- distinguished prosecutor, judge, foe of public corruption, basketball enthusiast, mentor to disadvantaged youth -- seemed a reassuring choice for attorney general. When Holder affirmed during his confirmation hearing that America remains at war with terrorists, Sen. Lindsey Graham enthused, "I'm almost ready to vote for you right now."

So how did Holder become the most destructive member of Barack Obama's Cabinet?

Holder launched his tenure by showing disdain for the work of career federal prosecutors when it fit his ideological predispositions. In 2004, a task force from the Eastern District of Virginia investigated allegations of misconduct against the CIA and found insufficient evidence of criminal conduct or intent. Holder ignored the views of these respected prosecutors and appointed his own special prosecutor, appeasing a political constituency that wanted the CIA to be hounded and punished. As a result, morale at a front-line agency in the war on terror has plunged. What possible reason could a bright, ambitious intelligence professional have to pursue a career in counterterrorism when the attorney general of the United States is stubbornly intent on exposing and undermining his colleagues?

Now Holder is displaying an exaggerated respect for the work of career federal prosecutors in New York, also when it fits his ideological predispositions. He is asking them to make the case against five 9/11 conspirators, in a circus atmosphere, with an uncertain chain of evidence (gathered on a battlefield), under a cloud of torture allegations that Holder himself has encouraged.

There is one serious argument for this course: that a civilian court will provide greater legitimacy for the imposition of the death penalty than a military tribunal. But the guilt of these terrorists is not in question. And it is difficult to imagine that those repulsed or impressed by Khalid Sheik Mohammed's confessed crimes will care much about the procedures surrounding his sentencing.

In exchange for a marginal public relations advantage, America will be subjected to the airing of intelligence sources and methods, to the posturing of mass murderers fully aware of their terrorist star power, to the possibility of mistrial and procedural acquittal, and to an increased threat of revenge attacks against New York City. Holder seemed to concede this last complication by asserting that New York is "hardened" against possible terrorism. If I were a New Yorker, that would fall into the category of chilly comfort.

In the end, Holder made a decision memorable for its incoherence. He declared American military tribunals constitutional and appropriate for some terrorists -- then awarded 9/11 mastermind Mohammed a presumption of innocence and the full O.J. Simpson treatment.

In the original plan for the terrorist attacks, according to the report of the 9/11 Commission, Mohammed was supposed to be on the only hijacked plane that landed. He would kill all the males aboard, then make a dramatic speech to the world. At his trial, he will now get his wish.

Holder's choices do not reflect the normal policy shifts between administrations. It is not typical that seven former directors of the CIA have publicly denounced Holder's assault on the institution they served. It is not typical that Holder's immediate predecessor, Michael Mukasey, has called the plan for trials in Manhattan a risky "social experiment" that will raise the risk of attack "very high." Something unique and frightening is taking place: The ACLU is effectively being put in charge of the war on terror.

Holder contends that if people will "in a neutral and detached way, look at the decision ... and try to do something rare in Washington -- leave the politics out of it and focus on what's in the best interest of this country -- I think the criticism will be relatively muted." Holder clearly views himself as Atticus Finch, dispassionately defending the rule of law against the howling mob. In fact, Holder is taking the legal path blazed by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who defined legal objectivity as indifference to the soiled interests of his country. Holder's liberal principles have become "detached" from the real-world struggle against terrorism: Let justice be done, though the heavens, and buildings, fall.

Wartime American presidents such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt have understood that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. So enemy combatants consistently have been judged by a different and harsher legal standard than American citizens. Whatever his initial assurances, Holder does not believe America is at war with terrorists. Even worse, he seems determined to undermine those who do.



Charles Krauthammer details how incomprehensible the Obama decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civil court in New York City is. It will be the biggest propaganda boost for Islamic terrorism possible. (Ignore O'Reilly's constant interruptions.) It will be sure to galvanize terrorist recruitment.

Is there is any way for this to be a plus for America? Krauthammer says Obama's decision is "unfathomable." "Inconceivable" that this administration would allow this to happen. The proper venue is a military tribunal, such as other seized terrorists will be tried by.

Congress has 45 days to object to moving any Guantanomo detainee to American soil, so it is possible that Congress could head off this disaster.

As Andrew McCarthy has pointed out, the only conceivable reason for doing what Obama is doing is to provide material for European leftists to charge Bush administration officials with war crimes. And, in the process, the Islamic threat to Americans mushoom.



The question that must be coming to every American's mind:

Why does Obama hate us?
Barack Obama's America-effacing presidency

By: Paul Mirengoff

Sunday Reflections Contributor in the Washington Examiner November 15, 2009

On the morning after the deadliest instance of Islamist terrorism in the United States since 9/11, President Obama warned the American public not to "jump to conclusions" about the motives that impelled Nidal Hasan's rampage of mass murder at Fort Hood.

By the time Obama issued this warning, it had already been reported that Hasan yelled "Allahu akbar" before he opened fire. This assertion of the supremacy of Allah is invoked by Islamic terrorists worldwide before they kill.

It was also known that Hasan's fellow participants in an Army program on public health had complained to military authorities about Hasan's anti-American propaganda. Hasan had made a presentation that justified suicide bombing and argued that the war on terror is a war against Islam.

Yet no conclusions were warranted, as far as Obama was concerned."We cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing," our "philosopher in chief" intoned.

Obama has not always been cautious about jumping to conclusions. When a white police officer in Cambridge, Mass., arrested an African-American Harvard professor, the president was quick to proclaim that the officer had "acted stupidly."Obama was soon forced to back away from that statement, which was based on ignorance of the facts.

There is no underlying inconsistency between these seemingly divergent responses. Both are founded on the same antipathy Obama harbors toward America.

Obama prematurely concluded that the professor's arrest was improper because this conclusion comported with his view that American law enforcement officers habitually harass black Americans. In Hasan's case, it was imperative to resist the obvious connection between Islamism and the killings because, in Obama's view, Americans habitually are on the verge of persecuting Muslims.

As the president's wife once put it, America is "just downright mean."

Our malevolence is not confined to relations with our own minority groups, either. In our president's opinion, we are global miscreants.

For example, Obama has insisted that to compensate for our past arrogance, we need to negotiate, even absent any preconditions, with our worst enemies, including Iran. Applied to Russia, this has meant going hat in hand to the Kremlin and agreeing, among other concessions, to abandon missile defense for Russia's Eastern European neighbors in the hope of demonstrating that we have turned over a new leaf.

Obama must therefore believe that the thuggish, autocratic, expansionist Russian regime is more sinned against than sinning in its relations with the United States. But if Russia is our victim, are there any regimes as to which we hold the high moral ground? Judging by Obama's foreign policy to date, only Israel, Honduras, and perhaps Great Britain come to mind.

It might be argued in our defense that the United States faced down the Soviet Union, paving the way for the triumph of freedom in Central and Eastern Europe. But this fact apparently does not impress Obama. When heads of state gathered in Berlin last week to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Obama was absent.

Obama did appear in Berlin via video. But the president omitted from his remarks any mention of the Soviet Union or communism, Harry Truman, or Ronald Reagan. As my blog partner Scott Johnson put it, Obama neither "decried the villains nor saluted the heroes of the story." That's because we were the heroes.

Obama reportedly is contemplating a visit to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. It's a long trip, but the venue is perfect for Obama's signature public hand-wringing on behalf of his country.
Obama's antipathy toward America should come as no surprise. Although he has lived a rich and varied life, there has been one constant - exposure to the left's disparaging narrative about America.

Obama grew up in a radically left-wing household, attended elite colleges where a jaundiced view of America is orthodox, and spent the remainder of his formative years as a community organizer alongside the likes of former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and the "God damn America" ranting Jeremiah Wright.

No wonder Obama is serving up a "God damn American lite" presidency.

What will be the consequences of that presidency? Domestically, we can expect the president to continue trying to remodel the American economy along radical lines..And given his mistrust of his countrymen's instincts, we can expect attempts to curb personal freedom.

Fortunately, in the domestic realm, Obama cannot implement very much of this agenda without the "consent of the governed," as expressed through their elected representatives. Thus, Obama can be constrained.If the electorate chooses not to constrain him, he will have earned the right to work his radical transformation.

In the area of foreign and national security policy, however, Obama can operate largely unchecked. And a weak, guilt-ridden policy toward our foreign adversaries is almost certain to produce grave consequences.

To some extent, we have seen this act before. The damage of just four years of Jimmy Carter's America-effacing presidency included Soviet expansion, communist inroads in Latin America, the replacement of a friendly government with a virulently anti-American theocracy in Iran, and a prolonged hostage crisis that came to symbolize the new American impotence.

But although Carter was ambivalent about America, his efforts to promote democracy abroad showed that he thought we had something to offer to world. Obama will not grant America even that.

Emulating Carter the ex-president, rather than President Carter, Obama has shown essentially no interest in human rights or democracy promotion. His belated support of the Iranian protesters following this summer's election could hardly have been more lukewarm.

It seems that, in Obama's view, all we have to offer the world is our non-interference in its affairs, except perhaps when it comes to bullying our allies.

In the past, we have offered much more. We defeated fascism and communism, liberated Europe in two world wars, and took the lead in fighting back against Islamist extremism.
A country burdened by a battered self-image will be incapable of any such achievements. We will suffer for it, and so will the world.

Sunday Reflection contributor Paul Mirengoff is a lawyer in Washington and a principal author of Powerlineblog.com.



Is Mark Steyn the only sane person writing about jihadism who will bluntly describe the insanity he sees and hears in this diversity and multiculturally plagued society?

Who else has the spine to call Army Chief of Staff General Casey "brain-addled" for his incredibly appalling, morally bankrupt statement that if Fort Hood turns out to be a setback for diversity it would a worse outcome that the massacre itrself?.

Mark quotes his fellow warrior in the fight for freedom of speech in Canada Ezra Levant who made this chilling observation:

Ezra Levant, my comrade in a long battle to restore freedom of speech to Canada, likes to say that the Danish cartoons crisis may one day be seen as a more critical event than 9/11. Not, obviously, in the comparative death tolls but in what each revealed about the state of Western civilization. After 9/11, we fought back, hit hard, rolled up the Afghan camps; after the cartoons, we weaseled and equivocated and appeased and signaled that we were willing to trade core Western values for a quiet life. Watching the decadence and denial on display this past week, I think in years to come Fort Hood will be seen in a similar light. What happened is not a "tragedy" but a national scandal, already fading from view.

Mark in full.

Mark Steyn: A jihadist hiding in plain sight
By MARK STEYN in the Orange County Register
2009-11-13 11:55:01
Shortly after 9/11, there was a lot of talk about how no one would ever hijack an American airliner ever again - not because of new security arrangements but because an alert citizenry was on the case: We were hip to their jive. The point appeared to be proved three months later on a U.S.-bound Air France flight. The "Shoebomber" attempted to light his footwear, and the flight attendants and passengers pounced. As the more boorish commentators could not resist pointing out, even the French guys walloped him.

But the years go by, and the mood shifts. You didn't have to be "alert" to spot Maj. Nidal Hasan. He'd spent most of the past half-decade walking around with a big neon sign on his head saying "JIHADIST. STAND WELL BACK." But we (that's to say, almost all of us; and certainly almost anyone who matters in national security and the broader political culture) are now reflexively conditioned to ignore the flashing neon sign. Like those apocryphal Victorian ladies discreetly draping the lasciviously curved legs of their pianos, if a glimpse of hard unpleasant reality peeps through we simply veil it in another layer of fluffy illusions.

Continue reading . . .



We used to wonder what Obama was up to. Now we must wonder why.

Once again he is taking action that endangers all American citiziens.

He is putting on trial in an American courtroom the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11, who, with his collaborators in prison at Guantanamo, asked to be executed. Andrew McCarthy, who successfully prosecuted those behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, outlines the damage that Obama is doing:

This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss [Barack Obama] — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution.

The continuing of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign.

It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.

Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.

Let's take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.

Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.

So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence.

That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it.

The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts.

And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.



One of the great acts of liberation was tearing down the Berlin Wall in 1979. A major commemoration was planned for today to celebrate that day of freedom. Due to the power and commitment of the United States, half of Europe became free.

However, the president of the United States had better things to do and coudn't bring himself to attend an event honoring the good that America had done.

The New York Post editorializes on his shameful absence. The editorial was wrong in one respect -- its headline. This wasn't a blunder. This was the act of a man who can't bring himself to praise America for what it did before his presidency. It should be titled "Obama's Berlin Wall Shame."

Berlin Wall blunder

November 9, 2009

World leaders past and present will be in Berlin today for the 20th an niversary of the fall of communist repression's most visible symbol: the 112-mile concrete wall that split the city for more than a quarter-century.

Conspicuously absent: the president of the United States, Barack Obama.

Obama's folks say he's too busy to accept German President Angela Merkel's invitation to attend today's festivities

It's pathetic that Obama won't be there -- and telling, as well.

After all, it was one of his own supposed heroes, President John F. Kennedy, who famously flew to Berlin in 1963 and denounced the wall as "an affront to history" when he memorably proclaimed to all the world: "Ich bin ein Berliner."

And it was another predecessor, Ronald Reagan, who even more famously stood before the heinous barrier and declared: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Less than two years later, the wall had tumbled.

But, then, Reagan -- like JFK -- viewed the Cold War as a defining battle between freedom and oppressive totalitarianism. And it was a war, he said, that the West, led by America, had to win.

For Reagan, that meant ongoing confrontation with what he rightly called "the Evil Empire." By openly declaring that America would never allow the Soviet bloc to triumph, he paved the way for the collapse not only of the Berlin Wall but of communism itself.

It was also, he understood, the triumph of American exceptionalism, leadership and strength.

All of which runs counter to Obama's view of America's global role -- and how to deal with adversaries.

For Obama, America is but one nation among many, no different -- or more exceptional -- than any other. Its record is one that, increasingly, he has felt compelled not to extol but to apologize for.

And, for this president, ideologies bent on America's destruction must be met not with resistance but with rhetoric, outreach and "understanding."

The Cold War, in this view, is an irrelevant historical relic -- an example of American paranoia and fear-mongering prolonging a conflict that could have been resolved with warm-and-fuzzy speechmaking and the soft-pedaling of political differences.

Gone, it seems, are the days when America championed freedom, led by presidents whose oratory was matched by commitment and determined action.

It's not only shameful -- but dangerous.



This from an interview on Monday, November 9, 2009:

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is the author of nine books on Islam and Jihad, a weekly columnist for Human Events and Frontpagemag.com, and has led numerous seminars for the U.S. military and intelligence communities. He is the author of the new book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran.

FP: Robert Spencer, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

What do we now know about the Fort Hood shooting and what conclusions can we make?

Spencer: Jamie, we now know from the testimony of various eyewitnesses that this act was carefully planned. Nidal Malik Hasan some time ago told his landlord he would not be renewing the lease on his apartment. He gave away his furniture along with copies of the Qur’an on the morning of the day he committed mass murder. This indicates that he thought he was going to die – in other words, that he was planning a suicide attack. As he began firing, he shouted “Allahu Akbar.”

We also know that he was disciplined for proselytizing for Islam during his stint at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences. Law enforcement officials flagged Internet postings written by a man named “Nidal Hasan” and he was praising suicide attacks, but they couldn’t be sure that he was the man who had written them. Still, it was in character: one of his colleagues recalled that he had said that Muslims must rise up against the U.S. military, and had spoken approvingly of Sgt. Hasan Akbar, a Muslim soldier in the U.S. military who lobbed a grenade at American troops, killing two, several years ago.

And we know that during a lecture he was supposed to be giving on a medical topic, he instead preached Islam, warning the assembled unbelievers of hellfire in such lurid Koranic terms that some left the hall wondering if he might end up shooting someone someday.

FP: Why does the media and liberal-Left so reflexively deny and ignore these conclusions?

Spencer: They reflexively deny and ignore these conclusions because they are completely sold out to the idea that Muslims, as non-white, non-Christian, non-Westerners, cannot possibly be anything but victims. (The facts that there are white Muslims, and that the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism are not racial issues, but constitute an ideological and societal challenge, are completely lost on them. Likewise the non-white victims of the jihad matter nothing to them.) We can see from the avalanche of “backlash” stories in the mainstream media – even in the absence of any actual backlash – that it is simply impossible for these people to conceive of a paradigm in which Muslims can perpetrate any kind of evil at all. In the lenses through which they view the world, only white Judeo-Christian Westerners can do anything wrong.

FP: What does this massacre, and the media response, indicate about what is coming down the line for our country?

Spencer: The more we remain in denial about how these things happen, and from what wellsprings they come, the more we will see of attacks like this. Why? Because nothing is being done to prevent them. Instead of the endless stories about backlash that we are seeing, we should be seeing stories about authorities calling the American Muslim community to account. We should be seeing stories about authorities demanding transparent, inspectable programs in American mosques and Islamic schools, teaching against the Islamic doctrines that inspired Nidal Hasan. This is not a religious freedom issue – these are political doctrines with a lethal edge, as Nidal Hasan illustrated. It is an entirely Constitutional matter of self-protection to move to restrict it.

But that won’t happen. Political correctness has the media and government in a stranglehold. That will only ensure that nothing will be done to address this problem at its root, and we will see many more Nidal Hasans.



To listen to the media wonder why an Army major would do such a thing as gun down 40 of his fellow soldiers is to wonder what reality they all are living in.

This was the biggest Islamic terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.

The perpetrator was a committted follower of Islam who separates the world into Muslims and infidels. The Koran teaches Muslims to shun infidels and kill them when the opportunity presents itself. When loyalty to America and to Islam reached a point of conflict (in his eyes, going off to Iraq was such), Islam prevailed and he did his duty and expected to reap his eternal reward of orgiastic bliss.

Such is the view of David Warran, an unblinking conservative who writes for the Ottawa Citizen.

Fort Hood: Let's Drop the Political Correctness
By David Warren

For a person with old-fashioned values, and an old-fashioned sense of English word meanings, the reports of the Fort Hood massacre were almost as provoking as what happened there. In the larger view of things, they may be more consequential.

Let me make that latter point plain. I am saying the words and attitudes conveyed in the reporting of a massacre can be, and in this case are, more consequential than the massacre itself.

Having said that, I must not leave the impression I think little of the loss of a dozen human beings, the perhaps permanent maiming of many more, and all the consequences of this horror in the lives of their families and friends. But we must not shed crocodile tears. My heart goes out to the victims, but from a great distance: I know none of them personally, I know no one who knows them.

This is my first objection to the "funeral of Diana" rhetoric we keep getting today, promptly from all affected politicians, whenever something bad happens and people get killed. The knowledge that their "touching remarks" are drafted by hard-bitten speechwriting staff, skilled in the professional emulation of human feeling, is something the public should bear constantly in mind.

But let us not only blame bureaucrats for the people who commission their work. President Barack Obama's display on Thursday made my point more clearly than it usually can be made, for he turned on a dime. He assumed the "presidential grieving tone" over the Fort Hood massacre, the moment after he'd just done an equally scripted segment of light joking banter for the benefit of the Tribal Nations Conference he was addressing. Millions in the television audience must have watched this incredibly cynical "quick flip." I wonder how many noticed it?

We should not allow ourselves to be moved by the cold hearts of professional tear-jerkers because when we reward that kind of thing we help perpetuate an emotional order that is dangerously false. We should instead be annoyed by attempts to manipulate us.

Falsehood has more consequences than the revelation of personal insincerity. What happened at Fort Hood was no kind of "tragedy." It was a criminal act, of the terrorist sort, performed by a man acting upon known Islamist motives. To present the perpetrator himself as a kind of "victim" -- a man emotionally distressed by his impending assignment to Afghanistan or Iraq -- is to misrepresent the reality.

This man was a professional psychiatrist, assigned to help soldiers cope with traumas. Is this the profile of a man with no control over his own emotions? It appears he had hired a lawyer to get him out of the military before his deployment overseas. Is this consistent with spontaneity?

He reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire on American soldiers. Would that perhaps offer a little hint of the actual motive? He shot about 40 people, over 10 minutes, with two pistols, neither of them military issue. Might that perhaps suggest premeditation?

There were reports from within the base (Fox News as usual seized on what other networks didn't), that accused Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had not merely been making anti-war remarks about Iraq and Afghanistan, but adding things like, "Muslims should stand up against the aggressor." Do we still have a category for treason? He has been quoted from Internet postings comparing Islamist suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade. Another clue?

And all this is quite apart from less checkable information that was quickly available through the Internet, painting a much grimmer figure of a man with openly Islamist views, able to rise through the U.S. military, because of the syndrome of political correctness. Time is certainly required to sort through such reports, and separate wheat from chaff, but the initial information alone was inconsistent with the media's clichéd presentation of the "tragedy of a man in despair."

This deadly enemy of the West -- the Islamist ideology which holds all Jews, Christians, other non-Muslims, and a considerable number of Muslims, too, to be human filth in need of extermination -- is well infiltrated. Events like that at Fort Hood prove this, and from what I can see, the problem can only grow with the passage of time.

Getting at Islamist cells, to say nothing of lone, self-appointed jihadis within our society, means getting over the false sentimentality that turns a terrorist incident into an "incomprehensible tragedy" when it is not incomprehensible, and not a theatrical event.



Dr. Sowell says this:

As for the benefit of the doubt, no one-- especially not the President of the United States-- is entitled to that, when his actions can jeopardize the rights of 300 million Americans domestically and the security of the nation in an international jungle, where nuclear weapons may soon be in the hands of people with suicidal fanaticism. Will it take a mushroom cloud over an American city to make that clear? Was 9/11 not enough?

Read it all.


By Thomas Sowell

October 30, 2009

Many years ago, at a certain academic institution, there was an experimental program that the faculty had to vote on as to whether or not it should be made permanent.

I rose at the faculty meeting to say that I knew practically nothing about whether the program was good or bad, and that the information that had been supplied to us was too vague for us to have any basis for voting, one way or the other. My suggestion was that we get more concrete information before having a vote.

The director of that program rose immediately and responded indignantly and sarcastically to what I had just said-- and the faculty gave him a standing ovation.

After the faculty meeting was over, I told a colleague that I was stunned and baffled by the faculty's fierce response to my simply saying that we needed more information before voting.

"Tom, you don't understand," he said. "Those people need to believe in that man. They have invested so much hope and trust in him that they cannot let you stir up any doubts."

Years later, and hundreds of miles away, I learned that my worst misgivings about that program did not begin to approach the reality, which included organized criminal activity.

The memory of that long-ago episode has come back more than once while observing both the actions of the Obama administration and the fierce reactions of its supporters to any questioning or criticism.

Almost never do these reactions include factual or logical arguments against the administration's critics. Instead, there is indignation, accusations of bad faith and even charges of racism.

Here too, it seems as if so many people have invested so much hope and trust in Barack Obama that it is intolerable that anyone should come along and stir up any doubts that could threaten their house of cards.

Among the most pathetic letters and e-mails I receive are those from people who ask why I don't write more "positively" about Obama or "give him the benefit of the doubt."

No one-- not even the President of the United States-- has an entitlement to a "positive" response to his actions. The entitlement mentality has eroded the once common belief that you earned things, including respect, instead of being given them.

As for the benefit of the doubt, no one-- especially not the President of the United States-- is entitled to that, when his actions can jeopardize the rights of 300 million Americans domestically and the security of the nation in an international jungle, where nuclear weapons may soon be in the hands of people with suicidal fanaticism. Will it take a mushroom cloud over an American city to make that clear? Was 9/11 not enough?

When a President of the United States has begun the process of dismantling America from within, and exposing us to dangerous enemies outside, the time is long past for being concerned about his public image. He has his own press agents for that.

Internationally, Barack Obama has made every mistake that was made by the Western democracies in the 1930s, mistakes that put Hitler in a position to start World War II-- and come dangerously close to winning it.

At the heart of those mistakes was trying to mollify your enemies by throwing your friends to the wolves. The Obama administration has already done that by reneging on this country's commitment to put a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe and by its lackadaisical foot-dragging on doing anything serious to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That means, for all practical purposes, throwing Israel to the wolves as well.

Countries around the world that have to look out for their own national survival, above all, are not going to ignore how much Obama has downgraded the reliability of America's commitments.

Iraq, for example, knows that Iran is going to be next door forever while Americans may be gone in a few years. South Korea likewise knows that North Korea is permanently next door but who knows when the Obama administration will get a bright idea to pull out? Countries in South America know that Hugo Chavez is allying Venezuela with Iran. Dare they ally themselves with an unreliable U.S.A.? Or should they join our enemies to work against us?

This issue is too serious for squeamish silence.



Germany's left wing Der Spiegel carries an astonishing criticism of President Obama in today's (October 29th) online edition. HIs silence on what to do in the "AfPak" war, what former Vice President Cheney referred to as "dithering," is "irrititating" NATO allies. They see that the Taliban is increasingly taking control of the conduct of the war as the American strategic vacuum continues. What are NATO allies thinking as they wait?

[A]s Clausewitz wrote, "courage is not simply a counterweight to danger, to be used for neutralizing its effects: It is a quality on its own," and Obama's administration currently creates the impression that it has been abandoned by courage.
The world has been waiting for clear words from the White House for months. Obama has had government and military analysts studying the military and political situation in the embattled Hindu Kush region since early January. He appointed Richard Holbrooke, probably the US's most effective diplomat in crisis situations, to be his special envoy to the "AfPak" region, he has replaced generals and he has deployed more troops. The answers Obama asked his experts to provide after taking office have been sitting on his desk for a long time. But the conclusions vary. Obama will have to make his own decision, one that will shape his political fate.
There is no doubt that hardly a day passes in Europe without criticism of US policy. This has become a trans-Atlantic ritual. But despite this ritual, Europeans are still looking for one thing from the White House: leadership.

We're waiting, Mr. President.

A stinging rebuke of American leadership failure.

10/29/2009 11:54 AM

We're Waiting, Mr. President

Obama Must Provide Better Leadership on Afghanistan
An Editorial by Claus Christian Malzahn

Afghanistan and Pakistan are being shaken by attacks, and the Taliban is dictating the course of the war. US President Obama has been silent about the situation for far too long and European countries like Germany and France are correct to demand better American leadership on the issue of Afghanistan.

Read it all . . .



Dr. Thomas Sowell expresses his dismay


at what Obama is doing to America. We can't say he's astonished, because he warned many times before the election that Obama would be a danger, a threat to American values.

It's hard to pinpoint who is responsible for Obama's mindset. Throughout his life he absorbed a hatred of America, particularly white America (to Obama, that appears to be the same thing).

His mother didn't like America. She lived far from it for most of her adult years. While a Muslim youth in Indonesia attending Friday denunciations of America at his Jakarta mosque, he probably didn't gain a great impression of America. How was it that when he went to Hawaii for schooling his mentor turned out to be a black member of the American Communist Party, which hates America, who told him never to trust "Whitey?"

Obama admits in his book (now it appears Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers wrote it) he "hung out" with black power Marxists in college. We don't know what he studied at Occidental and Columbia, because he has sealed his records, but one can guess it was more of the same.

As a community organizer, he learned the tactics of communist Saul Alinksy on how to undermine and destroy capitalist America. Armed with a law degree, he taught operatives of ACORN how to intimidate bankers into granting mortgages to credit risks they never should have made.

How could he live with "God Damn America" Jeremiah Wright for 20 years if he didn't agree with what he was saying? America was corrupt, evil, an oppressor of the colored races.

His speeches in America but more tellingly overseas showed his distaste, his dislike, his loathing, for America. Many have commented on his "apology tours." He has brought America into the light after a shameful history that blackenend the name of America in the eyes of the world.

Now he is engaged not only in destroying America's economy so it won't be better than Europe's, he wants to make the U.S. a militarily weakling so America cannot again be seen as a threa by the worldt. In the process he is endangering the lives of Americans he swore to protect.

America elected a glib, totally unknown African-American who suddenly emerged from the corrupt shadows of Chicago because it would be "a nice thing" to have a colored president.

What a mistake.

Martin Luther King, Jr must be rolling over in his grave. He was a patriot. He had a dream. It was an American dream.

Obama is an American nightmare.

October 27, 2009
Dismantling America
By Thomas Sowell

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.

How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government-- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year-- each bill more than a thousand pages long-- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question-- and the biggest question for this generation.


Contact: Diane Bronsdon 508 945 9218
C R Facebook
To help us do our part to keep America strong and well informed, just click below. Donate Now!


Michael O'Keffe District Attorney
Leo Cakounes Barn.Cty Commish
Sheriff Cummings
Hot Air
Legal Insurrection
National Review
Power Line
Pajamas Media


Semper Fi Fund
Cape Cod Cares for Our Troops
Wounded Warrior Family Support
New England Center and Home for Veterans
Chatham Info
Monthly Archive