Monday, August 27, 2012

Lance Versus the Losers

I don’t know whether Lance Armstrong used drugs years ago, but enough is enough. Leave him alone.

Lance Versus the Losers

By David Catron on 8.27.12 American Spectator

A man who has never tested positive for any performance enhancing drug is stripped of his titles?

Many hoped the "get Lance Armstrong" movement had finally died last February when the FDA abandoned its protracted investigation into the legendary cyclist's alleged "doping." The embarrassing absence of evidence that Armstrong had engaged in any proscribed activity, plus pressure from lawmakers demanding to know what the investigation had to do with the FDA's core mission, forced its monomaniacal chief investigator to drop it. But this was not good enough for some of Armstrong's antagonists. Travis Tygart, the CEO of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), issued a Captain Ahab-like vow: "Our investigation… is continuing, and we look forward to obtaining the information developed during the federal investigation."

Last Friday, Tygart gleefully announced that his agency had brought down its quarry. It would strip Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and permanently ban him from competitive cycling. Earlier in the week, Armstrong had decided not to participate in arbitration with Tygart's agency because it was an obviously rigged process: "If I thought for one moment that by participating in USADA's process, I could confront these allegations in a fair setting and -- once and for all -- put these charges to rest, I would jump at the chance. But I refuse to participate in a process that is so one-sided and unfair." Based on his refusal to cooperate with its inquisition, USADA immediately rendered its verdict that Armstrong was a doper and a cheat.

If you're not familiar with USADA, its website describes the agency as follows: "The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency… is the national anti-doping organization for the Olympic movement in the United States. The U.S. Congress recognized USADA as 'the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States.'" It also claims to be a "non-governmental agency," but it will probably not come as a surprise that it is funded in part by your tax dollars. You will also note, by the way, that USADA's description of its mission ends with the words "in the United States." As this suggests, it isn't immediately obvious that the agency's jurisdiction gives it the authority to revoke titles awarded in a European bicycle race.

This is a distinction that was not lost on the International Cycling Union (UCI), the governing body for international sports cycling and the entity that administered doping tests while Armstrong competed. Knowing that he never failed any of these tests, UCI has indicated that it is not prepared to merely rubberstamp USADA's precipitous action: "Article 8.3 of the WADC [World Anti-Doping Code] states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr. Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken. Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make."

UCI had previously expressed concerns about the fairness of the USADA investigation. In July, its President wrote, "UCI does not feel comfortable… in terms of due process and even in terms of ethics that are pushed through by pleading the rules of the UCI." USADA's Tygart, responded to this concern by accusing UCI of participating in a vast conspiracy to prevent the truth about Armstrong from seeing daylight: "UCI and the participants in the conspiracy who cheated sport with dangerous performance enhancing drugs to win have a strong incentive to cover up what transpired.… The participants in the conspiracy have lashed out in the press, gone to Congress and filed a lawsuit to avoid a public display of the evidence."

These hysterical statements, in addition to suggesting that Tygart is a power-mad paranoiac, beg the following question: What new evidence does USADA possess that was unavailable to the FDA? Well, as it happens, the answer to that question remains a mystery. Tygart has declined to provide Armstrong's attorneys with the evidence he claims to have gathered against their client: "[They] haven't been allowed to see the evidence against him, including witness names and any expert analysis." Moreover, many of the allegations involve races that occurred so long ago that they fall outside of USADA's eight-year statute of limitations. Tygart, however, says that these time limits don't apply to Armstrong because he continues "to deny drug use."

Tygart is obviously so anxious to bring Armstrong down that he refuses to adhere to universally accepted rules of due process or even to abide by the guidelines established by his own agency. This is why Armstrong finally threw up his hands and refused to continue with the charade. And, as if to confirm USADA's determination to find Armstrong guilty regardless of the evidence, Tygart responded thus: "The evidence against Lance Armstrong arose from disclosures made to USADA by more than a dozen witnesses.… Mr. Armstrong was invited to meet with USADA and be truthful about his time on the USPS team but he refused." In other words, Tygart was perfectly willing to give Armstrong a fair trial before hanging him.

Although Tygart declines to provide the names of his witnesses, the only people who could be in a position to know would be former teammates and a few of the countless cyclists Armstrong defeated in the Tour de France as well as hundreds of other races. Moreover, unlike Armstrong, some of these teammates and competitors have failed drug tests and lost their titles. Several, like the disgraced Floyd Landis, have nursed grudges against Armstrong for years. These people are, to put it bluntly, the losers. And, as Tracee Hamilton succinctly phrases it in the Washington Post, "People lie. Blood and urine usually don't." Lance Armstrong has been tested for drugs more than any other athlete in history, and he has never failed a test -- not once.

As Hamilton goes on to ask, "What is the point of drug testing?" If Armstrong's perfect record of passing such tests can be ignored simply because some monomaniac at the FDA or a paranoiac from USADA can find a few people to testify against him, who is safe from vindictive losers?


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Congressman Akin Should Stay

Yes, Congressman Todd Akin, Republican candidate for US Senate in Missouri, said some unbelievably stupid things this week, but he should stay in the race. If every politician who said something stupid were cast out, there would be no-one left. Vice President Biden says things just as stupid almost every day of the week.

I do not agree with his position on abortion, but there are millions of good people whose religious views correspond with his, and they are welcome in the Republican Party, my party.

I only have one goal for November: beat Obama and elect Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate so that Obama’s march toward a weaker and poorer America can be reversed.

Todd Akin resists pressure from fellow Republicans to drop out of the Missouri Senate race over rape comments.

Last Modified: 21 Aug 2012  Al Jazerra (excerpt)

"Republican US congressman Todd Akin, under fire for controversial remarks on abortion and rape, said on Tuesday that he was not dropping out of the Senate race in the US state of Missouri.

Despite calls from throughout the Republican party for him to step out of his race against Democratic senator Claire McCaskill, Akin vowed to stay in the race, indicating he represents a conservative movement that must be heard.

"We are going to continue in this race for US Senate," he told the Mike Huckabee Show, a radio programme hosted by the former Arkansas governor, an Akin supporter and a favourite of religious conservatives.

Akin has been under fire for his televised comments that women's bodies are able to prevent pregnancies if they are victims of "a legitimate rape."

Asked in an interview Sunday on a local television station, KTVI, if he would support abortions for women who have been raped, Akin said: "It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

'It's clear that I misspoke'

He has since backtracked, a bit, from his comments, saying in a statement on Sunday that he "misspoke" during the interview, though he did not say specifically which points were in error.

"In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it's clear that I misspoke in this interview, and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year," Akin's statement said.

Akin also said he believes "deeply in the protection of all life" and does "not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action". Al Jazerra

Poll finds Akin with slim lead over McCaskill after rape comments

By Alexandra Jaffe - 08/21/12 The Hill (excerpt)

“Two new polls suggest Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) is still competitive in his race for Missouri's Senate seat despite the firestorm over his controversial comments on rape.

A poll released by Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) late Monday still gives Akin a single-percentage-point lead over incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill (D), the same lead he posted in a PPP poll from late May.

A Survey USA poll, however, finds that a majority of Missourians believe he misspoke and want him to drop out, but that Akin still has support among Republicans in the red-trending state….

….The new PPP survey was taken between 6 and 9 p.m. Central Time on Monday — after Akin's comments had been widely publicized and he had been asked by senior Republicans to drop out of the race.

His persistent lead — even as 75 percent of voters and over two-thirds of Republicans in the PPP poll say his comments were inappropriate — is likely due to McCaskill's persistent unpopularity in the state. A majority, 53 percent, of Missourians disapprove of the senator, and the same percentage of independent Missourians disapprove of her as well, indicating she'll have an uphill battle to sway voters to back her in the general election.

Still, Akin has a pretty lukewarm rating with Missourians, too, with a full 58 percent rating him unfavorably. Even those who voted for then-GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in 2008 are largely split over Akin, with 40 percent saying they view him favorably and 39 percent saying they view him unfavorably.” The Hill


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Monday, August 20, 2012

Who Cares About Egypt?

One of the worst aspects of the see-no-evil, liberal press is their non-treatment of the significance of the takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement dedicated to the destruction of Israel and America. Just as outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post ignore or spin the miss-steps and the illegalities of the Obama Administration, so do they misrepresent what is happening in Egypt because the fingerprints of Obama and Clinton are all over this deadly mess.

As Carolyn Glick points out below, it took some time before the enormity of the loss of China to be universally appreciated during the “Cold War”; I think within a year most informed Americans will understand what Egypt is up to. Unfortunately the election of November, 2012 will be behind us before Obama’s stupidity or duplicity in supporting the takeover by Morsi is understood.

Who Lost Egypt?

By Caroline Glick - August 19, 2012 RealClearPolitics (Excerpt)

“In 1949, the Communist takeover of China rattled the US foreign policy establishment to its core. China’s fall to Communism was correctly perceived as a massive strategic defeat for the US….

…Contrast the US’s acceptance of failure in China in 1949, and its willingness to learn the lessons of its loss of China, with the US’s denial of its failure and loss of Egypt today.

On Sunday, new president Mohamed Morsi completed Egypt’s transformation into an Islamist state. In the space of one week, Morsi sacked the commanders of the Egyptian military and replaced them with Muslim Brotherhood loyalists, and fired all the editors of the state-owned media and replaced them with Muslim Brotherhood loyalists.

He also implemented a policy of intimidation, censorship and closure of independently owned media organizations that dare to publish criticism of him.

Morsi revoked the military’s constitutional role in setting the foreign and military policies of Egypt. But he maintained the junta’s court-backed decision to disband the parliament. In so doing, Morsi gave himself full control over the writing of Egypt’s new constitution.

As former ambassador to Egypt Zvi Mazel wrote Tuesday in The Jerusalem Post, Morsi’s moves mean that he “now holds dictatorial powers surpassing by far those of erstwhile president Hosni Mubarak.”

In other words, Morsi’s actions have transformed Egypt from a military dictatorship into an Islamist dictatorship.

The impact on Egypt’s foreign policy of Morsi’s seizure of power is already becoming clear. On Monday, Al-Masri al-Youm quoted Mohamed Gadallah, Morsi’s legal adviser, saying that Morsi is considering revising the peace accord with Israel. Gadallah explained that Morsi intends to “ensure Egypt’s full sovereignty and control over every inch of Sinai.”

In other words, Morsi intends to remilitarize Sinai and so render the Egyptian military a clear and present threat to Israel’s security. Indeed, according to Haaretz, Egypt has already breached the peace accord and deployed forces and heavy weaponry to Sinai without Israeli permission.

The rapidity of Morsi’s moves has surprised most observers. But more surprising than his moves is the US response to his moves.

Obama administrations officials have behaved as though nothing has happened, or even as though Morsi’s moves are positive developments.

For instance, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, one administration official dismissed the significance of Morsi’s purge of the military brass, saying, “What I think this is, frankly, is Morsi looking for a generational change in military leadership.”

The Journal reported that Egypt’s new defense minister, Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sissi, is known as a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. But the Obama administration quickly dismissed the reports as mere rumors with no significance. Sissi, administration sources told the Journal, ate dinner with US President Barack Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan during Brennan’s visit to Cairo last October. Aside from that, they say, people are always claiming that Morsi’s appointments have ties to Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood.

A slightly less rose-colored assessment came from Steven Cook in Foreign Affairs. According to Cook, at worst, Morsi’s move was probably nothing more than a present-day reenactment of Gamal Abel Nasser’s decision to move Egypt away from the West and into the Soviet camp in 1954.

Most likely, Cook argued, Morsi was simply doing what Sadat did when in 1971 he fired other generals with whom he had been forced to share power when he first succeeded Nasser in 1969.

Certainly the Nasser and Sadat analogies are pertinent. But while properly citing them, Cook failed to explain what those analogies tell us about the significance of Morsi’s actions. He drew the dots but failed to see the shape they make.

Morsi’s Islamism, like Mao’s Communism, is inherently hostile to the US and its allies and interests in the Middle East. Consequently, Morsi’s strategic repositioning of Egypt as an Islamist country means that Egypt – which has served as the anchor of the US alliance system in the Arab world for 30 years – is setting aside its alliance with the US and looking toward reassuming the role of regional bully.

Egypt is on the fast track to reinstating its war against Israel and threatening international shipping in the Suez Canal. And as an Islamist state, Egypt will certainly seek to export its Islamic revolution to other countries. No doubt fear of this prospect is what prompted Saudi Arabia to begin showering Egypt with billions of dollars in aid.

It should be recalled that the Saudis so feared the rise of a Muslim Brotherhood-ruled Egypt that in February 2011, when US President Barack Obama was publicly ordering then-president Hosni Mubarak to abdicate power immediately, Saudi leaders were beseeching him to defy Obama. They promised Mubarak unlimited financial support for Egypt if he agreed to cling to power.

The US’s astounding sanguinity in the face of Morsi’s completion of the Islamization of Egypt is an illustration of everything that is wrong and dangerous about US Middle East policy today…. RealClearPolitics

There are reports today that Muslim Brotherhood thugs are assassinating by crucifixions Morsi opponents.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Pussy Riot in Context

There isn’t much to like about the three young women – or rather, I should say, there isn’t much to like about the vulgar ways they chose to express their protests against the obvious excesses of the Putin rule in Russia. There isn’t much to like until you read the statements each of these young women read to the court upon their sentencing. I urge my readers to go here and read their statements, which rival articles and speeches made by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine or Abraham Lincoln.

Pussy Riot: Putin v punk

The band's trial will not be the last as prosecution becomes the Russian government's weapon of choice against dissent
17 August 2012 The Guardian

You are the president of a large country with a growing economy, intent on keeping your name up there in the lights. You pride yourself on your popularity, your sense of history, and the fact that you personify the destiny of your country (or so you keep telling yourself). A criminal court sentences three young women, two of them mothers, to two years in prison for staging a 40-second punk feminist stunt inside your country's official church and the world's social network sites go mad. Two years of gulag for Vladimir Putin's enemies, they scream. Demonstrations erupt on the streets outside your embassies. Ageing celebs queue patiently to condemn you. There is even someone offering knitting patterns for Pussy Riot's balaclavas. The punk feminist band becomes a global brand before it even releases its first album and you a pariah so sullen that not even botox conceals your scowls. Mr Putin did not so much shoot himself in the foot on Friday, as fire a Kalashnikov into his size 8s.

Pussy Riot must have offended many Russian Orthodox believers by screaming lyrics such as "Shit, shit, the Lord's shit" behind the iconotasis of the Church of Christ the Saviour. An opinion poll released by the independent Levada research group found that only 6% of Russians polled sympathised with the women and 51% felt either indifference, irritation or hostility. Similar umbrage would have been taken inside St Paul's or the Vatican. And those who doubt that may well wonder what tension would have been caused by a flash-mob invading a mosque at Friday prayers.

How many museums around the world would have looked the other way as a number of couples – including a heavily pregnant Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, one of the three convicted on Friday – were filmed having sex to illustrate how Muscovites were being screwed by their government? The British Museum? The Louvre? The Metropolitan? The wish to punish anarchists is not Russian alone.

But the wish to crush political dissent, in this way and at this time, is Mr Putin's alone. Pussy Riot had two points to make, both of them valid: that the Orthodox Church provides intellectual and religious cover for Mr Putin's increasingly messianic political brand; and that this man is driving Russia straight up a cul de sac. The agent of stability is becoming the obstacle to change. The omens are not good. Mr Putin has no policies to offer a generation that has been politically awakened. He is not ready for dialogue with any part of country, and he is all about reinforcing central control. He has lost his grip on his popular image so he is forced back on an essentially conservative base. The result is that in his third term as president, Mr Putin has a real problem re-establishing himself as a leader for Russia as a whole.

The Pussy Riot trial will not be the last. Criminal prosecutions will become the weapon of choice against political activists like the anti-corruption blogger Aleksei Navalny, journalists who face stiffer penalties for libel, websites, or foreign-funded NGOs. Of course the world reaction is selective and partial. Would that Sergei Magnitsky, the lawyer whose corruption investigation led to his death in prison, have produced the same reaction as the Pussy Riot verdict. That does not change the verdict that all Mr Putin has to offer the next demonstration, called for September, is a bigger stick.

It need not be this way. Mr Putin still has time to climb out of the hole he has dug himself into. He could call early parliamentary elections, because it was the rigged Duma elections last year that triggered the current crisis. He could let a popularly elected prime minister run the country. He could retreat from the political frontline, and still fashion a role for himself as father of the nation. To continue as he is doing, as the only and increasingly unsteady hand on Russia's tiller, spells disaster.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Why the Polls Are Way Off

When I see polls that show Obama leading or tying Romney, I think back to two experiences I had in 2008, both occurring on Route 75 in Florida. Both times I had McCain bumper stickers on my rear bumper, and both times cars with Obama stickers on tried to run me off the road.

What brought this to mind is an article in today’s American Thinker concerning the reluctance of Romney supporters to put Romney stickers on their cars or Romney signs in front of their houses. People who do are having their cars keyed or their tires slashed or worse.

I think the fear of some sort of retaliation is also showing up in poll results. After all there have been several reports of Romney donors being targeted by federal agencies and/or being outed on websites. Here is one of the reports from Fox News:

“An Idaho businessman singled out by the Obama campaign for giving $1 million in support of Mitt Romney is now the focus of IRS and Labor Department audits.

Frank VanderSloot, in an interview with on Tuesday, said he received the initial audit notice from the IRS last month. Two weeks later, he got one from the Labor Department stating the agency would be looking into records related to foreign employees working at his Idaho Falls cattle ranch.

It might all be a coincidence, he said -- but the timing was peculiar.

VanderSloot gave the pro-Romney money last year to the super PAC “Restore of Future.” Then in April, he was identified along with seven other donors on an Obama campaign website as “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.”

At the time, VanderSloot spoke out and accused the campaign of targeting him unfairly. Then came the audits.”  FoxNews

I am making contributions to Romney on his website, but I am not going to display a bumper sticker or a sign. If I am polled, I am going to say that I am undecided. People who read my blog are well aware of the candidate and party I support.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Why Should We Care About Egypt?

The following article may be a little over-the-top, and the author forgets about the role of the Tunisian shopkeeper who set himself on fire, but the author does lay out the scary facts of what we are facing and why. He also reminds us of the disgraceful roles played by liberals, Carter, Clinton and Obama, none of whom can seem to recognize the dangers posed by militant Islamists to the safety and future of Americans. Liberals attack Christians for their moral code while they cheer a Muslim culture and religion that stones women and homosexuals and beheads non-believers.

I must say, though, that possibly a belated understanding of the whirlwind President Obama and Sec. Clinton have helped to unleash may now be occurring, as we struggle to understand events in Syria – particularly how we in the West seem to be standing by and helplessly watching the massacres take place.

A better understanding of the aims of the Muslim Brotherhood (who are the leading force in the revolt against Assad in Syria) may be raising cautions and holding back a rush to assist the rebels. If the same process now playing out in Egypt happens also in Syria, we in the West are in even deeper trouble.

      Fiasco: Islamists purge Egyptian Army

By James Lewis August 14, 2012 American Thinker

Don't expect our navel-gazing media to take much notice, but our national security has just hit an Arctic iceberg, scraping long rows of steel rivets from our luxury ocean liner, and leaving a long, gaping gash in our bottom. Thousands of tons of icy seawater are pouring into the ship while you are reading these words, but Washington is too transfixed by the election to take notice. Until Election Day 2012, Obama's dance band will just keep playing happy tunes on our crazily tilting deck.

Still, the rest of us had better turn our attention to Egypt, where radical Islamists have just conducted a massive Blitzkrieg against the Egyptian Army, police, intelligence apparatus, and now the media.

Those Muslim fascists were put into power a few weeks ago, with the direct aid and support of the Obama administration and Hillary's State Department. Obama told us that the new dictator of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, was a fine human being, and besides that, the Egyptian Army would keep most of the power anyway. So who cares that the Muslim Brotherhood always wants to wipe out Israel and America?

Reminder: Egypt has been the Arab pillar of peace in the Middle East for the last 30 years, after the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty was signed by Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin. For making peace with Israel, Sadat was quickly assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, but his successor Hosni Mubarak kept the peace for three decades -- until Barack Hussein Obama ordered him in the most humiliating way to resign, in public, telling him that "Now means now!" Mubarak resigned and was put on trial on national television in his hospital bed behind iron jail bars, to rub in the humiliation even more.

Obama's call for Mubarak's downfall started the phony-baloney "Arab Spring," which has now killed tens of thousands of Arabs from Libya to Syria, as radical Islamists are driving out the moderates all over the Arab world. The "Spring" has killed maybe 50,000 people so far. Some Spring. As al-Qaeda just boasted, "[t]hat 'Arab Spring' will become an 'American Winter.'" They are right.

This is Alinsky-style community organizing for the whole Middle East. It is what Obama delicately calls an "organic" revolution. Islamist warmongers have now taken over Egypt.

And if you've forgotten, the equally fanatical Iranian warmongers are now building nuclear warheads for their high-tech missiles. Egypt will have its own nukes as soon as the Saudis buy them from Pakistan. The Saudis are run by their own Sunni radicals, and between Qatar and Saudi, the Gulf States practically own Egypt today. Don't ask about women's right or human rights, because in the Middle East they are back in the 7th century.

If you don't think Islamic fascists are warmongers, you've forgotten Iran's daily chants in all the schools and public rallies: Death to Israel! Death to America!

That means us, friends. Plus anybody who doesn't surrender. Islam means "surrender." (Not peace.)

Liberals keep telling us that those daily death chants all over Iran are really hard to interpret, but indoctrinated Muslims seem to understand it well enough. Iran's last war killed a million people, and the ayatollah said it practically killed him to stop it.

Obama's Middle East policy is now headed straight for the bottom. As we know, the One never admits a mistake, and he will certainly deny this historic fiasco, too. The media have already started a CYA publicity campaign.

What Titanic?

What iceberg?

What unemployment?

What recession?

What Muslim revenge?

George W. Bush did it.

Why, that Romney-Ryan ticket is full of capitalist racist tax-cheating criminals out to kill women, the middle class, the elderly, your health care, and LGBTs. And Rep. Allen West beats up on white women.

As George Will put it, our government is now ruled by "unhinged smarminess."

But you knew that already.

So back to reality.

Notice that Obama is following in the footsteps of Jimmy "Crazy Legs" Carter, who brought in the first Islamist reactionary regime in Iran, after shafting our close ally, the modernizing shah of Iran. The Carter administration lied about the radicalism of Ayatollah Khomeini -- or it lied to itself, which is worse -- and when Khomeini took power, he killed off the opposition, including the shah's army, police, and intelligence services, except for the ones who surrendered.

We've just seen the identical farce play out in Egypt, thanks to Obama.

Oh, and ten years ago it played out, step by step, in Turkey, which is now ruled by a party that celebrates "neo-Ottomanism."

The people of Greece, the Balkans, the Middle East, and North Africa remember the old style of Ottomanism very well, and they are not too happy about the "neo" brand. That includes the Russians.

NATO surrendered Turkey to neo-Ottomanism, just as Jimmy Carter surrendered Iran to Khomeini-style radicalism, just as Hillary and Barack just surrendered Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Charles Krauthammer just wrote that we are seeing an Islamic ascendancy, but that's a mild way of putting it. What we are seeing today, over and over again, is Islamofascist appeasement in Europe, the United States, North Africa (Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria), and in Afghanistan, where Obama is negotiating a humiliating defeat to the Taliban.

Nobody seems to remember that those same Taliban gave Osama bin Laden a safe haven to plot and implement the 9/11/01 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Bill Clinton knew all that after the 1993 truck bombing of the Twin Towers by the Blind Sheikh, but he just kicked the can down the road to George W. Bush.

George Bush is still being burned in effigy for trying to fix what the Democrats sabotaged during the Clinton years.

It was Karl Marx who said that history always repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. But he forgot about all the other times, when history repeats itself as profound ignorance, unconquerable arrogance, deliberate sabotage, and dismal stupidity.

Those times are beyond farce. They are not funny anymore.

Today's fiasco in Egypt will surely come back to haunt us, just as the 9/11 assault saw those chickens coming back to roost. But Obama's Reverend Jeremiah Wright twisted one little fact: it's not the exercise of American power that comes back to haunt us, but our liberals' cowardice and preemptive surrender.

Don't forget.

The liberal media will do everything in its power to make you forgetful and confused. They are already working on it.

Don't forget.

You owe it to your country and to the future.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Romney Proves His Mettle

The biggest internal problem facing us is that we have a president and a party that is studiously ignoring the fact that out-of-control entitlements and other benefits are rapidly turning the United States into a third-world country. Their way has been to buy votes with handouts – handouts that we are financing with borrowed money – much of it from China.

Will we face up to this, or will we continue this course until we collapse? Now that Paul Ryan will be Romney’s running mate, at least we now have the chance to bring these issues out into the open and, hopefully, decide.

Substance and Style

By Deroy Murdock August 11, 2012 National Review

For his running mate, presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney wisely selected the distinguished House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.). In essence, this is the first major decision of a Romney administration. It is a superb one.

Ryan refreshingly combines a command of the substance of public policy with the style needed to communicate free-market solutions in an appealing fashion. Unlike the last Republican vice-presidential nominee, Ryan will have no problem speaking persuasively and specifically about the federal Leviathan’s every activity and expenditure.

Agree or disagree with him, no one can accuse Ryan of lobbing platitudes around Washington. Instead, he has authored the last two budgets adopted by the House of Representatives. Harry Reid and his Democratic majority must justify the fact that the Senate killed both of these budgets, unanimously defeated President Obama’s last two spending plans, and illegally has refused to pass any such blueprint of its own since April 29, 2009. Ryan’s Path to Prosperity would put Washington on a diet — if not the crackers-and-tap-water menu it deserves, at least not Team Obama’s free-of-charge, come-one-come-all, 24-hour gourmet smorgasbord.

Ryan is ideally suited to battle the Left on Medicare, a battle they surely will try to turn into Gettysburg 2012. They will accuse Romney and Ryan of wanting to gut Medicare, unplug sick seniors from their intravenous drips, and force them to dehydrate in the sun-drenched parking lots of eldercare centers across America. In the most vile, despicable, and revolting political ad since Lyndon Johnson notoriously intimated that Barry Goldwater would kill a flower-picking little girl in a thermonuclear exchange, liberals showed a Ryan-like congressman hurling an old lady from her wheelchair into a ravine, surely to her death. Democrats likely are crafting commercials that will make the throw-Granny-off-a-cliff spot look like Ryan’s family album.

To that, Ryan will respond: First, no one over age 55 will be affected by any proposed changes to Medicare. Second, just as every member of Congress does now, those under 55 will have the option — if they wish — to purchase health plans that reflect their tastes and preferences, rather than a single plan dictated by our masters in Washington. Third, based on their economic needs, the federal government will provide financial assistance to help them buy such coverage. The rich will get less help; the poor will get more. Fourth, any senior who finds this unattractive is welcome to remain in Medicare as we know it.

Absent such reforms, Ryan will explain, it won’t be Granny going over the cliff. It will be the entire Medicare system — with the rest of the federal budget and much of the American economy tumbling soon thereafter.

Ryan also will be able to expose Obama and the entire Democratic Left for their monumental, breathtaking hypocrisy on Medicare. Any Republican who suggests saving $100,000 in Medicare expenses by replacing Kleenex with generic tissue would be accused of launching a pneumonia pandemic against seniors.

Meanwhile, to finance Obamacare, Democrats swiped $500 billion (with a b) from the Medicare Trust Fund and plopped it into Obamacare’s coffers. This half-trillion-dollar robbery from Medicare occurred with no one on the Left calling 911 to report this crime. Indeed, they cheered it on.

Even more fraudulently, Team Obama simultaneously dedicates these (un)Affordable Care Act funds to underwrite future Medicare benefits.

“So,” Rep. John Shimkus (R., Ill.) asked Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a March 3, 2011, House hearing, “are you using it [the $500 billion] to save Medicare, or are you using it to fund health-care reform? Which one?”

Secretary Sebelius admitted: “Both.”

“So,” Shimkus responded, “you’re double-counting.”

Ryan is perfectly prepared to educate Americans on the Democrats’ cynical thievery and, finally, put them on defense on Medicare.

Atop his substance, Ryan also brings style to the ticket. Ryan is Congress’s handsomest member, and his youthful energy and general exuberance are infectious. His smiling optimism will make it very hard for Democrats to portray him as a nasty, cold, heartless Granny killer. While Senator Rob Portman (R., Ohio) looks like someone with an Excel spreadsheet where his heart is, Ryan indubitably has ventricles and an aorta in his chest. Try as they will, Democrats will struggle to twist Ryan into the vicious caricature into which they often transform Republicans.

Ryan also can talk tough without being mean. His speech this morning in Norfolk, Va., before the USS Wisconsin deftly offered solid hits on Obama’s record without the snarls that might rattle independents or fragile centrists.

Ryan smoothly refuted Obama’s notorious slap at job creators. As Ryan put it today: “If you have a small business — you did build that.”

He nicely threw Obama’s entire class-warfare theme back into the president’s face. As Ryan said: “We Americans look at one another’s success with pride, not resentment, because we know, as more Americans work hard, take risks, and succeed, more people will prosper, our communities will benefit, and individual lives will be improved and uplifted.”

Ryan concisely critiqued Obama’s entire approach as president and contrasted it with his and Romney’s plans. As Ryan stated: “We won’t duck the tough issues . . . we will lead! We won’t blame others . . . we will take responsibility! We won’t replace our founding principles . . . we will reapply them!”

In naming a running mate with intellect, gravitas, seriousness of purpose, courage, charm, and communications skills, Romney’s recruitment of Ryan recalls another Republican “R” — Reagan.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Thursday, August 09, 2012

Whose Smearing Who?

The bias shown by the mainstream media in favor of Obama may be embarrassing and difficult to overcome, but it is not lethal. Treating a top aide to Hillary Clinton differently than all others in security matters is not only illegal, it is potentially dangerous. The Muslim Brotherhood has the same aims and demonstrated capacity for wholesale murder as does al Qaeda.

Huma Abedin’s Brotherhood Ties Are Not Just a Family Affair

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHYJuly 27, 2012 Family Security Matters

Senator John McCain's claim that concerns about Huma Abedin are a smear based on "a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations" proves more embarrassing by the day. In fact, to the extent it addressed Ms. Abedin, the letter sent to the State Department's inspector general by five House conservatives actually understated the case.

The letter averred that Abedin "has three family members - her late father, her mother and her brother - connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations." It turns out, however, that Abedin herself is directly connected to Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure involved in the financing of al-Qaeda. Abedin worked for a number of years at the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs as assistant editor of its journal. The IMMA was founded by Naseef, who remained active in it for decades, overlapping for several years with Abedin. Naseef was also secretary general of the Muslim World League in Saudi Arabia, perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world. In that connection, he founded the Rabita Trust, which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al-Qaeda.

You ought to be able to stop right there.

A person is not required to have done anything wrong to be denied a high-ranking government position, or more immediately, the security clearance allowing access to classified information that is necessary to function in such a job. There simply need be associations, allegiances, or interests that establish a potential conflict of interest.

Government jobs and access to the nation's secrets are privileges, not rights. That is why the potential conflict needn't stem from one's own associations with hostile foreign countries, organizations, or persons. Vicarious associations, such as one's parents' connections to troublesome persons and organizations, are sufficient to create a potential conflict.

In this instance, however, before you even start probing the extensive, disturbing Brotherhood ties of her family members, Huma Abedin should have been ineligible for any significant government position based on her own personal and longstanding connection to Naseef's organization.

Specifically, Ms. Abedeen was affiliated with the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, where she was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. The journal was the IMMA's raison d'etre. Abedin held the position of assistant editor from 1996 through 2008 - from when she began working as an intern in the Clinton White House until shortly before she took her current position as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's deputy chief of staff.

The IMMA was founded in the late 1970s by Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was then the vice president of the prestigious King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. The IMMA's chief product was to be its journal. For the important position of managing editor, Naseef recruited his fellow academic Zyed Abedin, who had been a visiting professor at the university in the early 1970s.

To join the IMMA, Dr. Abedin moved his family, including infant daughter Huma (born in 1976), to Saudi Arabia from Kalamazoo, Michigan. Zyed's wife, Saleha Mahmood Abedin (Huma's mother), is also an academic and worked for the journal from its inception. She would eventually take it over after her husband died in 1993, and she remains its editor to this day. Huma Abedin's brother Hassan, another academic, is an associate editor at the journal.

The journal began publishing in 1979. For its initial edition, Abdullah Omar Naseef - identified in the masthead as "Chairman, Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs" - penned a brief introduction relating the IMMA's vision for the journal. Zyed Abedin appeared as managing editor in the journal's second edition in 1979, proclaiming in a short introduction his "deep appreciation to H.E. Dr. Abdullah O. Naseef, President, King Abdulaziz University, for his continued guidance, support, and encouragement." (I am indebted to the Center for Security Policy, which obtained some copies of the journal, going back many years.)

Not long after the journal started, Naseef became the secretary general of the Muslim World League, the Saudi-financed global propagation enterprise by which the Muslim Brotherhood's virulently anti-Western brand of Islamist ideology is seeded throughout the world, very much including in the United States.

We are not talking here about some random imam in the dizzying alphabet soup of Islamist entities. In the pantheon of Islamic supremacism, there are few positions more critical than secretary general of the Muslim World League. In fact, one of the MWL's founders was Sa'id Ramadan, the right-hand and son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood's legendary founder.

The MWL manages the "civilization jihad" - the Brotherhood's commitment to destroy the West from within, and to "conquer" it by sharia proselytism (or dawa), as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Brotherhood's top sharia jurist, puts it.

Nevertheless, the MWL has a long history of deep involvement in violent jihad as well.

It was under MWL auspices in 1988 that Naseef created a "charity" called the Rabita Trust. The scare-quotes around "charity" are intentional. To direct the Rabita Trust, Naseef selected Wael Hamza Jalaidan. A few years earlier, Jalaidan had joined with Osama bin Laden to form al-Qaeda.

This would surprise you only if you waste your time listening to John McCain, Version 2012 - as opposed to John McCain, Version 2011, who professed himself "unalterably opposed" to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Under the Brotherhood's interpretation of sharia, which is explained in such works as Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, all Muslims are supposed to donate a portion of their income. This obligation, known as zakat, is usually referred to as "charity" by Islamists and their Western pom-pom waivers. But it is not charity; it is fortification of the ummah - the notional global community of Muslims.

As Reliance instructs, zakat can only be given to Muslims, and one-eighth of it is supposed to be donated to "those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster." Remember that the next time you hear the ubiquitous claim that Muslim charities are being misused as "fronts" for terrorism. This is not a "misuse" and they are not "fronts." Under sharia, the streaming of donations to violent jihadists is quite intentional.

A month after the 9/11 attacks, Naseef's Rabitah Trust was formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States government. Ultimately, branches of the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and the International Islamic Relief Organization - other "charities" with roots in the MWL - were also designated as foreign terrorist organizations under federal law. This, too, should have not been a surprise. In 2003, in connection with a terrorism prosecution in Chicago, the Justice Department proffered that Osama bin Laden had told his aide Jamal al-Fadl that the Muslim World League was one of al-Qaeda's three top funding sources. (Fadl later renounced al-Qaeda and cooperated with federal prosecutors.)

Throughout the time that he ran the MWL and the Rabita Trust, Naseef kept his hand in at the IMMA. In fact, he continued to be listed on the masthead as a member of the "advisory editorial board" at the IMMA's journal until 2003. We might hazard a guess why his name disappeared after that: in 2004, he was named as a defendant in the civil case brought by victims of the 9/11 atrocities. (In 2010, a federal court dropped him from the suit - not because he was found uninvolved, but because a judge reasoned the American court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.)

Huma Abedin was affiliated with the IMMA's journal for a dozen years, from 1996 through 2008. She overlapped with its founder, Naseef, for at least seven years - it could be more, but I am assuming for argument's sake that Naseef had no further involvement in his institute once his name was removed from the masthead.

The case against Ms. Abedin's suitability for a high-level position with access to the nation's secrets gets much worse if you add in her family ties.

To summarize what I've already outlined here at Ordered Liberty: her parents were recruited by Naseef to head up the IMMA; her mother is an active member of Muslim Brotherhood organizations - including the Muslim Sisterhood and two entities that are part of Sheikh Qaradawi's Union of Good, another designated terrorist organization; there is persuasive evidence that her father was a member of the Brotherhood - e.g., the intimate tie to Naseef and his widow's membership in the Muslim Sisterhood (which is substantially comprised of wives and female relatives of prominent Muslim Brothers); her mother is a tireless advocate of sharia law as preached by Qaradawi and the Brotherhood; and her brother, who is also affiliated with the IMMA's journal, was a fellow at an Islamist institute (the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies) on whose board sat both Naseef and Qaradawi.

Nevertheless, the family ties to the Brotherhood only further elucidate what is already patent: Huma Abedin's connection to Abdullah Omar Naseef, by itself, would have been more than enough justification to deny her a security clearance. That would have made it inconceivable that she could serve as deputy chief of staff to the secretary of state.

Ms. Abedin has very disturbing connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. Though she is not a policymaker, she is an important adviser, and during her three-year tenure, federal government policy has radically shifted in the Brotherhood's favor, to the point that the Obama administration is not only embracing the previously shunned Brotherhood but issuing visas to members of formally designated terrorist organizations.

The question is not whether the five House conservatives were off-base in asking for an investigation into ties between administration officials and Islamist organizations. The question is why the other 430 members of the House haven't joined them - and why John McCain, John Boehner, and other Republican establishment luminaries are championing the Muslim Brotherhood's side of the dispute.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Wednesday, August 08, 2012

Boy Scouts Hold Firm, Thank God

One of the downsides of living a long time is that over and over again you see instances of the stupidities of people. One of these stupidities is the objections some people have to the Boy Scouts not allowing homosexuals to be Scout leaders. Wow! That’s what you really want: a homosexual man with private access to little boys; not my boys, thank you.

What brought this to mind was a couple of articles in the Providence Journal recently. One article was about former Eagle Scouts who were returning their Scout medals to show their opposition to Scout policy on homosexuals. The tone of this article was, “wasn’t it wonderful that these men would do this?”. Amazingly, juxtaposed right beside this article was the following one that completely undercut the first article and showed the wisdom of the Scout policy even though it also showed how difficult it is to protect the boys:

Boy Scout files reveal continued abuse

August 5, 2012 Associated Press

Los Angeles --

Internal documents from the Boy Scouts of America reveal more than 125 cases in which men suspected of molestation allegedly continued to abuse Scouts, despite a blacklist meant to protect boys from sexual predators.

A Los Angeles Times review of more than 1,200 files from 1970 to 1991 found suspected abusers regularly remained in the organization after officials were presented with sexual misconduct allegations.

Predators moved from troop to troop because of clerical errors, computer glitches or the Scouts' failure to check the blacklist, known as the "perversion files," the newspaper said.

Abusers remain

In at least 50 cases, the Scouts expelled suspected abusers, only to discover they had re-entered the organization and were accused of molesting again.

In other cases, officials failed to document reports of abuse in the first place, letting offenders stay in the program until new allegations came to light, the Times reported.

One scoutmaster was expelled in 1970 for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy in Indiana. After being convicted of the crime, he went on to join two troops in Illinois between 1971 and 1988. He later admitted to molesting more than 100 boys, was convicted of the sexual assault of a Scout in 1989 and was sentenced to 100 years in prison, according to his file and court records.

In 1991, a Scout leader convicted of abusing a boy in Minnesota returned to his old troop shortly after getting out of jail.

In response to the Times' findings, the Scouts issued a statement that said in part:

"The Boy Scouts of America believes even a single instance of abuse is unacceptable, and we regret there have been times when the BSA's best efforts to protect children were insufficient. ... We are committed to the ongoing enhancement of our program, in line with evolving best practices for protecting youth."

The "perversion files" naming suspected child molesters include admissions of guilt as well as unproven allegations. They are used to vet applicants for volunteer and paid positions. The confidential documents have come to light in recent years in lawsuits by former Scouts, accusing the group of failing to detect abuses, exclude known pedophiles or turn in offenders to authorities.

Secrecy stressed

Scouting officials say they've used the files to prevent hundreds of men who had been expelled for alleged sexual abuse from returning to the organization. The Boy Scouts have fought in court to keep the records from public view, saying confidentiality was needed to protect victims, witnesses and anyone falsely accused.

Many of the files will soon be made public as a result of an Oregon Supreme Court decision. The Associated Press, the New York Times, the Oregonian and other media outlets petitioned for the release of 1,247 files from 1965 to 1984 that had been admitted as sealed evidence in a 2010 lawsuit.

The Times analyzed a set of files that were submitted in a California court case in 1992. Their contents vary but often include biographical information on the accused, witness statements, police reports, parent complaints, news clippings, and correspondence between local Boy Scout officials and national headquarters.



AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Saturday, August 04, 2012

Cartoons Starring Harry Reid and HIS Missing Tax Returns

All cartoons left-click to enlarge
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Friday, August 03, 2012

A Gun Enthusiast Wants Some Limits

As someone who supports and belongs to the NRA, who holds a Concealed-Carry Permit in Florida, and who constantly demands respect for the Second Amendment, let me say that I strongly support the bill introduced by the Democrat, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, to limit magazines to 10 rounds. Unfortunately, unless it gains support from a lot more people like me, it looks like it is going nowhere.

One of the common denominators of recent mass shootings was the use of high capacity magazines or clips allowing the shooters to fire at least 30 rounds before having to reload. This was true of James Holmes at Aurora, of Jared Loughner at Tucson (where Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was so brutally maimed), of Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, and, to some extent, also of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold at Columbine.

I am a shooter; I visit the range in Florida at least once a year, but I can see no reason why limiting the size of magazines to 10 rounds would interfere with my pleasure or my attempts to maintain my proficiency. If there are gun enthusiasts who enjoy activities that involve the use of magazines with capacities of 33 rounds or 100 rounds, I say forcing you to reload once in a while is a small price to pay to save some lives. After all, Jared Loughner was only stopped when he paused to reload. It is truly unfortunate that he had already gotten off 30 rounds, and the damage was done.

I am well aware that there are countless numbers of high-capacity magazines out there already, but making their sale and transfer illegal will put a large dent in their availability to people with mental disorders.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

Important Article about Islam’s Dangers from Left-wing Politico

It is unusual that a left-wing organization like Politico would publish an article like this, since liberal Democrats tend to excuse the savagery of Islam while condemning non-existent threats from Christians, let alone giving a platform to Newt Gingrich to make this argument. Newt is not one of my favorites, but when he is right, he is most articulate.

In defense of Michele Bachmann, Muslim Brotherhood probes

By: Newt Gingrich July 29, 2012 Politico

The recent assault on the National Security Five is only the most recent example of the fear our elites have about discussing and understanding radical Islamists.

When an orchestrated assault is launched on the right to ask questions in an effort to stop members of Congress from even inquiring about a topic — you know the fix is in.

The intensity of the attack on Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) as well as Republican Reps. Trent Franks of Arizona, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Tom Rooney of Florida and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia is a reminder of how desperate our elites are to avoid this discussion. Yet consider this rush to silence questions in light of our history of unpleasant surprises during the Cold War.

Given all the painful things we learn about people every day and the surprises that shock even the experts (the head of the FBI anti-spy effort was a Russian spy, for example), you have to wonder why people would aggressively assert we shouldn’t ask about national security concerns.

Remember the shock in 2001 when we learned that FBI agent Robert Hanssen had been spying for 22 years — first for the Soviet Union and then the Russian Federation. This disaster came just seven years after the 1994 arrest of Aldrich Ames, a CIA counterintelligence officer who was a Soviet spy for eight years.

Why should we assume we’re in better shape today, when political correctness is passionately opposed to tough counterintelligence screening? It’s as though our leaders have forgotten every lesson of the 1930s about fascism, Nazism and communism and every lesson from 1945 to 1991 about communism.

We have replaced tough mindedness about national security with a refusal to think seriously and substituted political correctness and a “solid” assurance that people must be OK because they are “nice” and “hard working” for the systematic, intense investigations of the past.

I’m not suggesting that our primary threat is espionage. Our greatest problem is getting the wrong analysis, advice and policy proposals. It is the bias of the advisers and the disastrous policies they propose that are our gravest danger at this stage of the long struggle with radical Islamists.

Our elites refuse to even consider that the advice they are getting is biased, tainted, distorted — or just plain wrong.

The underlying driving force behind this desperate desire to stop unpleasant questions is the elite’s fear that an honest discussion of radical Islamism will spin out of control. They fear if Americans fully understood how serious radical Islamists are, they would demand a more confrontational strategy.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned last week, “The West is asleep on this issue.” Islamist extremists, Blair asserted in an interview with The Telegraph, seek “supremacy, not coexistence.”

A young John F. Kennedy wrote “Why England Slept” to try to understand how the leadership of a nation could ignore, repress and reject warnings about Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.

A future JFK may write “Why Washington Slept” to explain our current period. The case of the National Security Five would be a good chapter on the desperation of the elites to avoid reality and their determination to smother any wake-up call, which might make them come to grips with Blair’s warning.

This desperate avoidance of reality is not new. After Maj. Nidal Hasan shouted, “Allahu Akbar” (“God is great”) in Fort Hood, Texas, and killed 12 soldiers and one Army civilian while wounding 29 others, there was pressure to avoid confronting his acts as inspired by his support for radical Islamism.

An American of Palestinian descent, Hasan had been in touch with a radical American cleric in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki. He declared Hasan a hero. Al-Awlaki was himself declared a “specially designated global terrorist” and, with presidential approval, was killed by a predator missile.

Yet, despite the evidence, Wikipedia reports, “One year after the Fort Hood shooting, the motivations of the perpetrator were not yet established.”

It did offer suggestions about motivation, however. For example, “A review of Hasan’s computer and his multiple email accounts has revealed visits to websites espousing radical Islamist ideas.” Talking about Islam, he said, “Nonbelievers would be sent to Hell, decapitated, set on fire and have burning oil poured down their throats.”

A rational person would have some hints about what motivated a terrorist killing spree.

If even Wikipedia could reach some conclusion about motivation, you would think the national security system could do the same. Not so.

The Defense Department official report instead focused on Hasan’s actions as though they were “workplace violence” rather than terrorism. President Barack Obama, in his speech at Fort Hood, described the attack as “incomprehensible.”

Despite every effort by our enemies to communicate why they hate us and why they want to replace our world with theirs, our leaders find their motives “incomprehensible.” Clearly, Obama hasn’t understood Blair’s warning.

An even more bizarre example of ignoring reality was New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s initial response to news that a car bomb had been found in Times Square. Bloomberg is mayor of the city attacked on Sept. 11 — so did he shrewdly identify the probable perpetrator? Of course not.

Bloomberg opined it was a “homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged, person or someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.”

Just as Bloomberg was desperately avoiding blaming radical Islamists, the New York Police Department noted the similarities to a 2007 jihadist car bombing in London. A Taliban video from Pakistan claimed responsibility for the car bomb. The person being looked for was a U.S.-naturalized citizen from Pakistan.

Given that evidence, Bloomberg’s will to hide from the truth illustrates the challenge that the National Security Five face in raising appropriate and even frightening questions.

The case of the Pakistani-American car bomber has yet another lesson for those willing to learn it. At his sentencing, Faisal Shahzad asserted, “If I’m given 1,000 lives, I will sacrifice them all for the life of Allah.” He had apparently planned to build another car bomb in the next two weeks. The Pakistan Taliban had given him $15,000 and five days of explosive training just months after he became a U.S. citizen.

As Fox News reported: “The judge cut him off at one point to ask him if he had sworn allegiance to the United States when he became a citizen last year. ‘I did swear’ Shahzad answered, ‘but I did not mean it.’”

Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum clearly understood the threat. She stated in sentencing: “The defendant has repeatedly expressed his total lack of remorse and his desire, if given the opportunity, to repeat the crime.”

Shahzad was not some desperate representative of poverty or repression. His father had been vice chief of the Pakistani Air Force.

This was the bomber Bloomberg was confused about.

The reaction to the National Security Five and their request for investigations by the inspectors general must be seen in this context of willful avoidance and denial.

In fact, there is a good deal in the Obama administration’s national security and foreign policy to ask about. One theme of the inspectors general letters is the administration’s courting of individuals viewed as leaders by the U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood. A recent terrorist finance trial produced 80 boxes of evidence related to the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood network in North America over the past 40 years.

Unlike the Cold War, the primary focus of concern in government today is not espionage but influence. In the Cold War, there was value to learning secrets. The right spy at the right place could give one side or the other a big advantage.

This long war with radical Islamists is a very different struggle. There are many nuances and long-term developments. Much of the struggle involves ideas and language alien to most American leaders and unknown even to most of the State or Defense Department professionals.

So the right or wrong adviser can be enormously powerful. Getting the right advice can be everything.

Therefore, whose advice we rely on becomes central to national security. Asking who the advisers are, what their prejudices are and what advice they give is a legitimate — indeed, essential — part of any serious national security system.

It was this question that the National Security Five focused on. They were right to do so and it weakens national security for them to be attacked for simply asking basic questions.

One clear example of the Obama administration’s indefensible bias is its decision to co-sponsor the Global Counterterrorism Forum, which explicitly excluded Israel.

Launched on Sept. 22, 2011, by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, this forum brought together 29 countries and the European Union. Yet it excluded the country that has been the most frequently attacked and has the most experience defeating terrorism.

On June 7, 2012, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) condemned the U.S. government for giving in to demands to exclude Israel.

To make matters worse, Maria Otero, the undersecretary for civilian security, democracy and human rights, gave a speech “in which she notably failed to mention Israel and Israelis as victims of terrorism.”

Isn’t it legitimate to ask: Who advised Clinton to launch a counterterrorism initiative that excluded Israel?

Isn’t it also legitimate to ask: Who advised Otero to give a major speech on terrorism and ignore the attacks on Israel and Israelis?

The anti-Israeli bias in the Obama administration shows up in strange ways. Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standard reported in August 2011 that the “White House has apparently gone through its website, cleansing any reference to Jerusalem being in Israel.”

It seems the Obama administration even went back to public documents from earlier administrations to pretend this White House’s rejection of Jerusalem as part of Israel had been prior administrations’ policies. This is the Orwellian nature of the Obama system.

Its hostility to the city of David being considered Israel’s capital was displayed as recently as Thursday in the following colloquy between reporters and Jay Carney, White House press secretary:

Reporter: “What city does this administration consider to be the capital of Israel? Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?”

Carney: “Um … I haven’t had that question in a while. Our position has not changed. Can we, uh …”

Reporter: “What is the capital [of Israel]?”

Carney: “You know our position.”

Reporter: “I don’t.”

Lester Kinsolving, World Net Daily: “No, no. She doesn’t know, that’s why she asked.”

Carney: “She does know.”

Reporter: “I don’t.”

Kinsolving: “She does not know. She just said that she does not know. I don’t know.”

Carney: “We have long, let’s not call on …”

Kinsolving: “Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?”

Carney: “You know the answer to that.”

Kinsolving: “I don’t know the answer. We don’t know the answer. Could you just give us an answer? What do you recognize? What does the administration recognize?”

Carney: “Our position has not changed.”

Kinsolving: “What position?”

Carney then moved on to another question.

Isn’t it legitimate to ask: Who advised the Obama administration to erase Jerusalem from Israel?

Isn’t it fair to ask: Who went back and forged public documents and who told them to do it?

Another example of these legitimate questions, consider the strange case of Louay Safi.

Safi ran the Islamic Society of North America (an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas financing case) and who was himself an unindicted co-conspirator in the Sami Al-Arian terrorism case (involving Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist org). As Andy McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor in terrorism cases, explained, “So what happens? Pentagon hires him as expert to teach Islam to our troops before they deploy from Fort Hood! And now, of course, he is the leader of the [Muslim] Brotherhoods’ government-in-waiting for Syria. You just can’t make this stuff up!”

Isn’t it appropriate to ask: Who were the Muslim chaplains approved by this extremist? How did he get chosen to be in such a key position? What system of checking for extremism broke down so badly, or is so biased, that it allowed members and allies of radical Islamist organizations to play key roles in the U.S. government?

Part of the reaction to the National Security Five raising questions about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood has come from a deliberate effort to deny the importance and the radicalism of the Muslim Brotherhood as a worldwide network.

The level of self-deception necessary to misunderstand the Muslim Brotherhood verges on a psychosis.

The organization’s motto is “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Our elites discount all these words — and refuse to take them seriously.

Yet doesn’t the lesson of Munich in 1972, New York City on Sept. 11, Hasan at Fort Hood, the Times Square car bomber, the bombings in Iraq this week — the list is endless — show that these words matter?

Consider clause seven of one branch of the Muslim Brotherhood — Hamas.

Perhaps no one in our elites wants to read the Hamas Charter’s clause seven because it is too horrifying. Consider: ”The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind the stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, ‘O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

Apologists for Hamas insist this clause has no meaning. But the Hamas leaders claim they cannot remove it from their charter.

The Muslim Brotherhood, in a 1991 document called the “Explanatory Memorandum,” explained to its own supporters that its goal was “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

This memo cited 29 different allied groups, including the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Students Association and the Islamic Association of Palestine. Leaders in some of these allied groups founded the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Just Friday, the Dubai chief of police warned about a Muslim Brotherhood effort to take over the emirates and seize their oil and natural gas wealth.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a serious worldwide organization dedicated to a future most Americans would find appalling. Seeking to understand its reach and its impact on the U.S. government is a legitimate, indeed essential, part of our national security process.

The National Security Five were doing their duty in asking difficult questions designed to make America safer. Their critics represent the kind of willful blindness that increasingly puts America at risk.

If we do not want a book to describe “Why Washington Slept,” we will have to encourage elected officials to follow the advice of a later Kennedy book and exhibit “Profiles in Courage.”

Bachmann, Franks, Gohmert, Rooney and Westmoreland are showing a lot more courage than the defenders of timidity, complicity and passivity.

Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) is a former speaker of the House.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button