► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Bill Clinton’

Washington Needs a ‘Plan B’ For Confronting Shari’a

by 1389AD ( 144 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Dhimmitude, George W. Bush, Iran, Military, Saudi Arabia, September 11, Sharia (Islamic Law) at September 16th, 2010 - 11:30 am

Clearly, the current Obama administration policy toward Islam and shari’a fails to safeguard the interests of the US and our allies. That policy is based on denial of the real dangers of shari’a. Sadly, the administrations of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush were not much different in that regard.

Yes, I know, Obama wholeheartedly supports the Muslim agenda and cares nothing about safeguarding the interests of the US and its allies, but that is another topic entirely.

Imagining Islam

Andrew C. McCarthy

September 11, 2010 4:00 AM

Wishful thinking will not bring success or security.

If only the fantasy were true: If only there actually were a dominant, pro-American, echt moderate Islam, an ideology so dedicated to human rights, so sternly set against savagery, that acts of terrorism were, by definition, “un-Islamic activity.” Imagine an Islam that, far from a liability, proved an asset (indeed, an indispensable asset) in combating the threat against us. Imagine that we could accurately call the threat mere “extremism” — no “Islamic” (or even “Islamist”) modifier being necessary because the “extremists” truly were a tiny, aberrant band, fraudulently “hijacking” a great religion.

If the fantasy were true, who among us would not be proud to mark the annual observance of September 11 by breaking ground on a $100 million Islamic center cum mosque at the site of the most horrific attack in American history? In the nine years since the atrocities that claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans at the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Shanksville, Pa., such an Islam — if it really existed — would have spearheaded the defeat of America’s enemies.

Such an Islam, over nine long years, would have risen up and made itself heard. It would have identified by name and condemned with moral outrage the imposters purporting to act in its name. It would have honored America’s sacrifice of blood and treasure in the liberation of oppressed Muslim peoples. It would have said “thank you” to our troops. It would have joined America, without ambiguity or hesitation, in crushing terror networks and dismantling the regimes that abet them. It would not have needed trillion-dollar American investments to forge democracies; it would naturally have adopted democracy on its own.

What excruciating truths have we yet failed to grasp on this ninth anniversary of 9/11? The first is that such an Islam does not exist. The second is that, despite this fact, American foreign and domestic policy continues to proceed as though it does exist — and as though it were the only real Islam. That is, nine years after Islamists made their commitment to our destruction as unmistakable as possible, nine years after the non-occurrence of all the wonderful things that would certainly have happened if the Islam of our dreams were the Islam of our reality, our national-security strategy is still steeped in fiction.

Read the rest.

The next article is about what the US should be doing.

Here is an announcement from eaglesoars:

Today a report will be released re: the threat of shariah to the U.S.

The 19-member study group was led by retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence in the George W. Bush administration, and retired Army Lt. Gen. Harry E. Soyster, Defense Intelligence Agency director from 1988 to 1991.

Included in the team of former defense, law enforcement and intelligence officials were Clinton administration CIA Director R. James Woolsey and Andrew C. McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney in New York, a career counterterrorism prosecutor during the Clinton administration.

Frank Gaffney, director of the Center for Security Policy, said the Obama administration’s policy is based on an incorrect assumption. The Team B report seeks to expose flaws in anti-terror programs, including the policy of not referring to al Qaeda and similar groups as “Islamist” to avoid offending Muslims, he said.

Read the rest.

Several of the authors write here:

For more than a half-century, moreover, Shariah Islam has been financed lavishly and propagated by Islamic governmental entities (particularly Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Organization of the Islamic Conference) through the offices of disciplined international organizations, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. We know from an internal 1991 memorandum authored by one of the Brotherhood’s U.S. leaders that its mission is a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house.”

Read the rest.

Team B Report: PDF LINK HERE

(h/t: JacksonTN)

Politicians, feet, fire…some assembly required.


Obama Takes Our Nuclear Deterrent Off The Table

by 1389AD ( 145 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Cold War, Islamic Terrorism, Nuclear Weapons, Russia, Serbia, Sharia (Islamic Law) at September 14th, 2010 - 11:30 am

Obama Nuclear Agenda Faces Post-START Obstacles

Friday, June 25, 2010
By Tom Risen
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Vocal objections from Republican lawmakers to the Obama administration’s nuclear-weapon policy moves to date could signal danger for the president’s future ambitions, experts said (see GSN, June 17).

In a highly touted April 2009 speech in Prague, President Barack Obama said his government would pursue a global nuclear disarmament strategy that included reducing the importance of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security, seeking U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and establishment of a pact banning production of fissile material for weapons.

The Defense Department one year later issued its latest Nuclear Posture Review. The document reflected the president’s viewpoint — highlighting the administration’s disarmament aspirations but pledging that the United States would maintain a reliable deterrent as long as one was necessary. The document ruled out development of new nuclear weapons and restricted the circumstances in which the U.S. strategic arsenal would be used.

That same month, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the “New START” pact, which would obligate each nation to cut its deployed strategic nuclear forces to 1,550 warheads — down from a maximum of 2,200 ordered under a 2002 deal — and 700 delivery vehicles.

Both documents have faced opposition from GOP members on Capitol Hill.

“While the administration pursues deep cuts in our nuclear forces in the hopes that others will follow, Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs continue unabated,” said Representative Michael Turner (R-Ohio), ranking member of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other conservatives have criticized provisions in the posture review, concerned they could limit the “spectrum of options” to maintain and use the nuclear deterrent.

The review pledged that Washington would not use its strategic arsenal against non-nuclear weapon states that have joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and meet their commitments under that regime. It also indicated that a nation would be likely to face a “devastating conventional military response” rather than a nuclear strike for using biological or chemical weapons against the United States or allied nations.

“One reason that we got rid of chemical and biological weapons is that we were told that we would always have the nuclear deterrent available,” McCain said with fellow Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl in an April 6 statement criticizing the Pentagon report. “The Obama administration must clarify that we will take no option off the table to deter attacks against the American people and our allies.”

Read the rest.

When a deterrent is no longer a deterrent

To put it mildly, I am no fan of John McCain. But on this occasion, with the utmost reluctance, even I must give the devil his due and admit that he is correct.

I am also no fan of disarmament, nuclear or otherwise. We don’t live on the Good Ship Lollipop and the sooner we stop pretending we do, the better.

The problem is that Obama is trying to take our nuclear and thermonuclear deterrents off the table. He didn’t bother to ask the rest of us what we thought of that, and I for one don’t like it one bit.

No, we don’t have the Soviet Union threatening us any more. Our thermonuclear deterrent worked very well in holding the Soviet Union at bay, and we never had to use it. But now, instead of the totalitarian, expansionist Communist Bloc, we are faced with a different enemy, the equally totalitarian and even more expansionist threat of Islam. And yes, Islam is at war with everything that is not Islam, and its leaders have issued fatwas against us that comprise both an explicit declaration of war and a mobilization order for enemy forces.

By taking a hard line from the very beginning, we could have prevented the 9-11 attack. The nuclear deterrent is a vital part of any defensive strategy. Had we made it clear that we are likely to uncork some Oak Ridge vintage bottled sunshine on any country that harbors, aids and abets, or exports jihadis who attack the US, even if the culprit has been pretending to be our ally, nobody would have dared attack us. That’s why they call it a deterrent! If your enemies know you WILL use that weaponry if need be, and not necessarily as the very last resort, then it is exceedingly unlikely that you will ever NEED to use it.

On the other hand, if you assure your enemies that you won’t use that deterrent, no matter how much damage they do you by other means, then your deterrent is a deterrent no longer. Once you make that mistake, as Obama did, there will most assuredly come a time when you run out of other options.

Other than surrendering the US to expansionist Islam and creeping shari’a, of course.

But then, weakening the US to the point of surrender was probably the intention of Obama and his handlers all along.

How Bill Clinton forever discredited nuclear nonproliferation

Every country, friendly or otherwise, that watched the US bomb the Serbs in 1999 immediately figured out that such an onslaught will someday happen to them if they don’t have their own nuclear deterrent. Clinton let the genie out of the bottle over a decade ago, and there is no putting it back in.

As a result, nuclear nonproliferation agreements have become the equivalent of gun control writ large: these days, they protect only evildoers who ignore the constraints that others take pains to follow.


Jihadi false flag ops, again

by 1389AD ( 204 Comments › )
Filed under Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Islamic hypocrisy, Kosovo, Military at August 30th, 2010 - 6:00 pm

This post on Jihad Watch describes an attack that could easily have gone much worse:

Afghanistan: Jihadists in U.S. Army uniforms attack NATO base

Quoth Muhammad: War is deceit.” “Insurgents attack 2 bases in east Afghanistan,” by Rahim Faiez for the Associated Press, August 28:

KABUL, Afghanistan – Insurgents wearing U.S. Army uniforms launched pre-dawn attacks Saturday on a major NATO base in eastern Afghanistan and a nearby camp where seven CIA employees were killed last year in a suicide bombing. NATO said there were no coalition casualties and the attacks were repelled.

Afghan police said about 50 insurgents attacked using rifles, heavy machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons, but had been repelled.

After being driven away from the bases, the insurgents approached the nearby offices of the governor and provincial police headquarters but were driven off, said Khost provincial police Chief Abdul Hakim Ishaqzai.

“Given the size of the enemy’s force, this could have been a major catastrophe for Khost. Luckily we prevented it,” he said.

Small arms fire continued through the morning, while NATO helicopters patrolled overhead.

NATO said two insurgents had managed to breach Salerno’s perimeter, but were observed cutting the fence and killed immediately.

Dead insurgents were seen wearing camouflage jackets and pants seemingly identical to those warn by U.S. Army soldiers….

Read the rest.

It always happens whenever we trust Muslims

The following is an excerpt from a 1999 article about another false-flag operation carried out by the narcoterrorist/Islamist KLA, who, under various names and guises, were then, and still are, the local branch of al Qaeda in Kosovo.

This, of course, took place during the aftermath of the Kosovo War. For those not old enough to remember, Bill Clinton arm-twisted NATO into going along with him in his unprovoked war against the Christian Serbs, on behalf of the Muslim KLA.

The KLA obligingly helped him out by masquerading as Serb soldiers to commit acts of violence against civilians, so as to give Clinton some halfway-credible pretext to bolster his shaky rationale for committing the US and NATO militaries to make war on the Serbs.

Masked smiley in a curved frame

Masks!

On December 3, 1999, Agence France Presse (AFP) reported that UN police and KFOR [that is, NATO] troops found illegal weapons, KLA uniforms, and Serb police uniforms in a house “inhabited by members of the future Kosovo Protection Corps” [the successor to the supposedly-disbanded Kosovo Liberation Army or KLA].

Would someone please tell us: what are KLA operatives doing with Serbian police uniforms?

Remember all of those news stories about various war crimes and atrocities that were supposedly committed by Serbian police, often wearing masks, during the NATO bombing and before?

The stories completely contradicted other reports, such as official documents from the German Courts, which ruled that there was no persecution of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. [See note #2 at the end]

Of course, the stories did not offer any hard evidence that the culprits were actually Serbian police.

But these stories certainly were convenient for the NATO sales team, and the mass media, in terms of selling the war against the Serbs. What an effective way to turn public opinion against the Yugoslav nation and the entire Serbian people!

One thought we had at the time: ANYBODY can put on a stolen police uniform. And the KLA wouldn’t have to steal the uniforms either; they could simply manufacture identical uniforms in any clothing factory.

This is all especially eerie because we read a Reuters story dated December 4, 1999 about the fighting going on in Chechnya, in Russia. According to the story the “US-sponsored Radio Liberty” reported that “masked Russian troops had opened fire at close range on the column of refugees.”

“Masked Russian troops”? Again, why the masks? IF they were trying to disguise who they were, why wear Russian uniforms? Unless of course they really anti-Russian troops trying to provide negative media coverage to be played in the West, where the governments (especially the Clinton administration) are supporting the Chechnya rebels behind the scenes because they want to see Russia broken up into edible pieces.

Here is the first half of the AFP story about the uniforms:

Illegal arms cache found in homes of Kosovo Corps members

PRISTINA, Yugoslavia, Dec 3 (AFP) – A stash of weapons was found in a house in southern Kosovo inhabited by members of the future Kosovo Protection Corps, UN police said Friday. UN police officers and members of the NATO-led forces in Kosovo (KFOR) searched two houses in Stimje, where they said they found “anti-tank rockets, anti-personnel land mines, sub-machine guns, thousands of bullets, as well as Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and Serb police uniforms.” They arrested two members of the Kosovo Protection Corps, who police said would be charged with “illegal possession of military armaments.” Police did not specify the number of weapons found, only indicating that the number was “substantial.”

Read the rest.

The take-home lesson

Never fight on behalf of Muslims, and be exceedingly wary of Muslims as enemies. Muslims can never be counted on to follow the ‘normal’ (i.e.,customary European) rules of warfare, though Muslims are always the first ones to complain whenever they can find a way to make it look as though we are not following our own rules.


The Real Importance of Sestakgate

by Phantom Ace ( 96 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Blogmocracy, Democratic Party, Guest Post, Liberal Fascism, Progressives at June 2nd, 2010 - 4:00 pm

Blogmocracy In Action

Guest Blogger: Doriangrey


Ed Rendell governor Pennsylvania elucidated the core principals of the democrat party recently when he said of the Sestak scandal “We need to put this made up controversy behind us so that we can focus on the things that are really important”. He further went on to state, “no crime was committed, this is just politics as usual”.

In this respect Ed Rendell is incontrovertibly correct, violating
18 U.S.C 600 is politics as usual for the democrat party.

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Former President Bill Clinton indisputably violated the letter of the law as well as the spirit when at the behest of the Whitehouse he attempted to seduce Congressman Joe Sestak to drop his already announced bid for the Senate seat held by Arlen Specter.

The Whitehouse confirmed that President Clinton violated 18 USC 600 on their behalf when they issued this statement.

Uncompensated Advisory Board Options. We found that Congressman has publicly and accurately stated, options for Executive Branch service were raised with him. Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated.

White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak. The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Congressman Sestak declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.

Now re-read what 18 USC 600 says.

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity

Are you following this? The Whitehouse (Whoever) by way of former President Bill Clinton indirectly offered Congressman Joe Sestak a position and or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit as an inducement to cease his bid for the Pennsylvania Senate seat held by Arlen Specter.

Ed Rendell and the Whitehouse offered as defense for their actions the first recourse of every criminal, “Everybody else has done this”. As if this somehow makes their actions legitimate. On the contrary, the single and solitary thing this statement does is epitomize the values of the democratic party.

For the democratic party, breaking the law, lying, abusing their authority and deceiving those that elected them to faithfully represent them, is politics as usual. If the Democratic party has a pure embodiment of their moral and ethical priorities it is “The end justifies the means“.

Sestakgate does not lead to former President Bill Clinton, Rahm Emanuel or even Whitehouse counsel Robert F. Bauer, no, just as Watergate led to Richard Nixon, Sestakgate has only one stopping place, it stops at the desk of the President of the United States, Barrack Obama, who either directly or indirectly approved of the violation of 18 USC 600 in an attempt to influence Congressman Joe Sestak.

This is corruption of the most foul and disgusting nature and it emanates from the very top down. It is a corruption so systemic and pervasive that Democrat’s like Ed Rendell can no longer even recognize the putrid stench for what it is and embrace it as a valid and completely acceptable political practice.

This is a crime that unquestionably raises to the level defined by the Constitution of the United States of America as “High Crimes and misdemeanors”. It raises to this level because it demonstrates the full extent of the Democrats abuse of authority and their willingness to violate every single precept of the US Constitution in their quest to obtain and retain power, not for the sake of those governed, but for the sake of obtaining and retaining power itself.

-DorianGrey
(Cross Posted @ The Wilderness of Mirrors)