Tag Archive for: Obama

New York Times admits Obama not born in U.S.?

/in , , /by

The New York Times, in a back handed way, has joined the Obama not born in the United States movement. In the September 8th, 2014 New York Times crossword puzzle the 6 DOWN hint is: First president born outside the continental U.S.

The answer is OBAMA.

08 Sep 14 New York Times Crossword Solution

Image is courtesy of NYTCrossword.com.

NYTCrossword.com states:

“6. First president born outside the continental U.S. OBAMA
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am pretty sure that Barack Hussein Obama II was indeed born in Hawaii. President Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. He is the first president to have been born outside of the continental US.”

A July 2014 Rasmussen poll on conspiracy theories found forty-one percent (41%) of Republicans believe Obama is not an American citizen, compared to 21% of unaffiliateds and 11% of Democrats. Just over 20% of Republicans and unaffiliated adults also are not sure, but only seven percent (7%) of those in the president’s party share that doubt.

Has the New York Times joined with those who believe Obama is not an American citizen? We report, you decide.

Yes, I Blame White Liberals

/in , , , /by

A white teacher said he routinely overhears vulgar and racist comments from students at an all black high school. I blame the black youth’s negative mindset on blacks in the civil rights exploitation business and white liberals with their stomach-turning bigotry of lowered expectations.

We see snooty arrogant superior intellectual sounding white liberal pundits and hosts all over TV touting their absurd narrative that blacks have a right to be angry in racist America and must be coddled. These liberal celebs followed certain steps and behaviors to achieve success. And yet, they claim expecting blacks to follow the same road map to success is racist. Blacks should be repulsed by this liberal narrative which implies that we are inferior. I want to scream, “How dare you lower the bar for me! I “be” as smart as any white person!” Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

I have witnessed the same racist mindset in a white liberal couple who are longtime friends. They have had financial highs and lows in their efforts to run various businesses. They work hard and will take any job to pay their bills. Applying for government welfare is not on their radar. They employed horrible black employees, always making excuses for them; giving them a pass because they were black. I was amazed that they could not see the racism at the root of their low expectations, disguised as compassion.

At every turn liberals send the message that blacks are lesser Americans. Liberals say it is hateful for conservatives/Republicans to expect blacks to speak English correctly, show an ID to vote, refrain from murdering each other and stop dropping out of school. White liberals say asking blacks to refrain from having babies out of wedlock is culturally insensitive and imposes morality on them. Libs ignore the truth that fatherless households contribute to gang membership, black on black violence and poverty. Do you see the pattern? White liberals insinuate that urban blacks are poor uncouth savages. Therefore, a 6’4” 290 pound black thug should be given a pass for robbing a convenience store, assaulting the clerk and attacking a police officer while on his way to grandma’s house.

By the way, 54% of black kids grow up in single parent households which was reported as high as 72% in 2010.

Years ago, I spoke to a class of black students at a Baltimore middle school. Diction was so lazy and poor, I had to ask several students numerous times to pronounce their names before I understood what they were saying. Why was such lazy speech tolerated?

My late Aunt Nee was a pastor and a brilliant black women with only a fourth grade formal education; an avid reader and studier. Aunt Nee did not tolerate lazy or inarticulate speaking from me and my siblings. Etched on my brain is her sending me to the corner store at 7 or 8 years old. “Ask the man for Uneeda Biscuits.” She pronounced each syllable and spelled it. She respected my intelligence.

Politically, white liberals pander to blacks to recruit Democrat voters which furthers their socialist/progressives agenda. Their sales pitch is every problem in the black community is caused by racist white America. Therefore, blacks can not achieve without big government intervention; lowered standards and entitlements to make things fair. I suspect secretly, many white liberals do believe they are superior.

White students are taught to feel guilty for their “white privilege”; instructed to be tolerant of black anger and irresponsible behavior. Black students who do not resent white America are called stupid traitors to their race.

During a debate on TV, a fellow black guest attacked me saying, “I have researched you and you never met a white person you didn’t like.” The liberal host of the TV show said nothing. Imagine the fallout had that same statement been made by a white person to another white person. “You never met a black you didn’t like.”

To all you liberal college professors and intellectuals who say blacks are still suffering the psychological repercussions of slavery, please knock it off. You evil race hustlers are all about exploiting the goodness and fair-mindedness of the American people.

Slavery happened a ga-zillion years ago; get over it.

KIRK KISS UHURAIn the 1960s, my black college buddies and I were huge Star Trek fans. We loved watching the racially mixed crew of the star-ship Enterprise on which race was not an issue. Further making the point was the episode that white Captain Kirk kissed black Lieutenant Uhura which was pretty racy and shocking on TV back then.

Gifting an unworthy black president two terms confirms that Americans long to be united as one nation under God. America’s desire for national unity is sabotaged by liberals. Their modus operandi is to divide Americans into feuding angry voting blocs – rich vs poor, black vs white, employers vs employees; Americans convinced they are victims due to their race, gender or economic standing. Liberals consistently rip open “healed” racial civil rights wounds and pour in fresh salt. Despicable.

Liberals have been feeding black America excrement sandwiches for decades. Sadly, a majority of my fellow black Americans blinded by decades of liberal indoctrination and MSM spin keep consuming their excrement as if it is filet mignon.

For crying out loud, look at what liberals offer us. They did an extreme makeover packaging black thugs Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown; promoting them as heroes to black America. White liberals awarded an immoral black rapper who had 11 babies by 10 women with his own reality TV show titled, “All My Babies’ Mamas”.

Meanwhile, liberals reject and even vilify excellent black role models like world renown retired neurosurgeon Dr Ben Carson and businessman extraordinaire Herman Cain. Why would liberals do that if they truly care about empowering blacks? Why do they offer us low rent faux black role models and reject the real deal?

Black America, you have been sleeping with the enemy, Democrats and white liberals, far too long. It is time to politically get out of bed, shower to wash away the stench of liberal racist low expectations and use Conservatism as the vehicle to speed to the fulfillment of your American dreams.

Obama cuts military pay for a second year in a row

/in , , , , /by

On August 29th, President Obama sent a letter notifying Congress that he is using his authority under law to cap the active duty military pay raise at 1 percent in 2015.

Typically the active duty pay raise is determined by private sector wage growth, measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment Cost Index (ECI). The ECI calls for a 1.8 percent pay raise in 2015.

However, the President has executive authority to make an alternative pay adjustment if he considers it necessary due to national emergency or economic concerns.

This is the second consecutive year the President used his authority to implement a lower pay raise.

From 2000 to 2012, Congress worked hard to eliminate a 13.5 percent military pay gap with the private sector caused by repeatedly capping military raises in the 1980s and ‘90s.

But the restoration of military pay comparability with the private sector is under threat. Pay has been capped for two years, and the administration’s FY 2015 budget proposes to continue caps for a total of six years.

Earlier this year, the House rejected the administration’s pay cap and authorized a 1.8 percent raise in its version of the FY 2015 defense authorization bill and appropriated funding to pay for it. The Senate Armed Services Committee supported the administration’s 1.0 percent cap.

To reverse the President’s decision to cap pay in 2015, Congress would need to override the President’s authority to alter the pay raise from the ECI.

Military Officers Association of America President Vice Adm. Norb Ryan, U.S. Navy (Ret.) responded to the President’s announcement, saying “Pay raises for the military, just like those of average Americans, are important for retention. It’s a fundamental principle of sustaining the all-volunteer force… History has shown that once Congress starts accepting proposals to cap military pay below private sector growth, those caps continue until retention and readiness are compromised.”

Comparability can’t work unless it’s sustained through both good and bad budget times.

EDITORS NOTE: MOAA is asking concerned citizens and veterans to send a MOAA-suggested message and ask Congress to support a 1.8 percent raise that keeps military pay on pace with private sector wage growth.

Boston Muslim running Islamic State’s social media campaign

/in , , /by

Ahmad Abousamra is a Muslim from the Boston area. He is the son of a doctor. He is a computer expert, a graduate of Northeastern University, where he made the dean’s list. If only we could alleviate the grinding poverty and social marginalization of young men like this, they wouldn’t turn to jihad.

“The American computer wiz running brutally effective ISIS social media campaign: College-educated son of top Boston doctor is on FBI Most Wanted list,” by Michael Zennie, MailOnline, September 4, 2014 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

A college educated American citizen with a knack for computers is believed to be one of the men running the brutally effective ISIS social media operation, which is helping to attract hundreds of fighters from across the world – including the U.S., Britain and Canada.

Ahmad Abousamra, 32, was born in France and raised in the upscale Boston suburb of Stoughton. His father is a prominent endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital. He attended the exclusive Xaverian Brothers Catholic high school and made the Dean’s List at Northeastern University.

He graduated with a degree in a technology field then took a job at a telecommunications company.

U.S. officials tell ABC News that he is now putting his skills to work for ISIS, the brutal terrorist organization that has been effectively using 21st century methods like Twitter memes, Facebook posts, selfies and YouTube videos to promote its radical 6th century Islamic ideals.

In 2004, federal authorities say, Abousamra left his American life behind and traveled to Iraq in the hopes of fighting U.S. soldiers as part of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Instead, he was recruited to the groups ‘media wing.’

‘If you do have a European language ability, if you have computer skills, if you are quite clever and you come join ISIS, you are likely to be used for social media output,’ Peter Neumann, the director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, told ABC.

When he returned to the U.S. in 2006, he was questioned by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. He was released without charge and slipped out of the country and back to Syria.

In 2009, he was charged with federal terrorism offenses. He is currently on the FBI’s Most Wanted list and the government has offered a $50,000 reward for his capture.

Most Wanted: The FBI is offering a $50,000 reward for the capture of Abousamra, who is wanted on federal terrorism charges

Most Wanted: The FBI is offering a $50,000 reward for the capture of Abousamra, who is wanted on federal terrorism charges

Brutally effective: ISIS has managed to use 21th century tactics to promote its brutal 6th century worldview

Brutally effective: ISIS has managed to use 21th century tactics to promote its brutal 6th century worldview. For a larger view click on the image.

Authorities now believe Abousamra is in charge of running social media for ISIS, according to ABC.

ISIS has shown remarkable sophistication with its online presence. When the group released its video showing the execution of journalist James Foley, it was simultaneously posted on dozens of online forums, Twitter accounts of other social media sites.

A slew of Twitter and Facebook accounts spread the group’s message by posting pictures of the brutal executions and torture that ISIS terrorist bestow on their enemies – all while staying a step ahead of Silicon Valley’s attempts to shut them down.

Jihadist fighters who join ISIS, meanwhile, project an image of a certain kind of twisted glamour, showing off their new life and posing with weapons and on military vehicles.

‘ISIS understands very well that in order for an act of terrorism to be effective, it needs to actually terrorize people,’ Mr Neumann told ABC.

‘The act of communication that follows the act of violence is almost as important as the act of violence itself.’

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State propagandist was regular worshiper at Islamic Society of Boston

Ex-Muslim and son of imam: Islamic State following “steps of Islam’s prophet Muhammad to the letter”

600 Muslims from Britain now waging jihad for the Islamic State

Italy: 11 Muslims investigated for jihad activities, waging jihad in Syria

Islamic jihadists vow to free Iberian Peninsula from “Spanish and Portuguese occupation”

Obama: We will defeat the Islamic State like we did al-Qaeda

Report: More “Americans” Killed Fighting with ISIS in Syria

Obama’s No-Win Dilemma

/in , , , /by

Most of the nation states of the Middle East, as we know them today, were created in 1916 by the Sykes-Picot Agreement, otherwise known as the Asia Minor Agreement, between Britain and France. The states created include Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. In that agreement, national boundaries were drawn without regard to sects, Shiite or Sunni, and without regard to tribes or clans, setting up an explosive mixture of religious animosities.

After the creation of Iraq and Syria, the French and British drew a line from the Mediterranean due east to Mount Hermon. North of that line, the French created a coastal nation, largely Christian, called Lebanon. While south of that line, between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, the British created a coastal Arab nation which they called Palestine. The territory south of Iraq and east of the Jordan River was divided between two Arab tribes that were allied with the British during World War I, but who didn’t care much for each other. The Sauds were given a large tract of land called Arabia… hence Saudi Arabia… while the Hashemites were given a much smaller territory east of the Jordan River, which they named Trans-Jordan… now Jordan. Thus, six nations were created between the Mediterranean and the Tigris, and south of Turkey. These six nations became seven when the United Nations created Israel in 1947.

As might be expected, the many disparate religious sects found it difficult to occupy the same territory and chaos reigned for most of the next century. For example, in early August we learned that some 40,000 Yazidis, a minority religious sect, had taken refuge on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq. Their choices were to either stay on the mountain, short of food and water, or they could descend the mountain and be slaughtered by terrorists of the Islamic State in Syria (ISIS). The Yazidis were aware that ISIS forces were beheading children elsewhere in Iraq, so rather than risk that terrible fate, many families killed their own children by throwing them off the mountain. Within a week of that report, Yazidi women were also found to be leaping to their death from the mountain rather than face being captured, raped, and sold into slavery.
In other reports, hundreds of Shiite soldiers of the Iraqi military were captured, executed, and buried in mass graves… some of them while still alive. These were the same ISIS jihadists who recently posted a YouTube video showing American newsman James Foley being beheaded by his captors. According to best estimates, some 191,000 people in Syria and Iraq have lost their lives in sectarian fighting since March 2011.

A strong case can be made that the map created in 1916 is now being redrawn through force of arms, and that what is now occurring in the region represents nothing more than a realignment of national boundaries, consistent with religious convictions and backed by the use of terror and military might. It is a struggle in which western powers find it difficult to decide who’s who without a scorecard, or to find any clear national interest amidst all the violence.

It is into this maelstrom of warring factions that the United States and its coalition partners waded in 2003 to depose the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, foolishly believing that the many warring states and factions could be defeated, pacified, or managed. To paraphrase an old Mark Russell line, “Their plan was to make the Shiites and the Sunnis act like Christians.”

What they should have understood, but didn’t, is that no amount of bombing and no amount of ground forces can win a war against the forces of Islam… in the same sense that Germany and Japan were defeated in World War II. The best we can ever hope to accomplish is to contain the forces of Islam in their home countries and to do whatever is necessary to protect our homeland from ISIS-style atrocities. So whatever “strategy” Obama ultimately decides on, it must have an international component and a domestic component… neither of which involve military power.

For example, what few Americans understand about the James Foley video is that it was far more than an unspeakably grisly scene; rather, it was a political statement intended for American audiences as a means of terrorizing them, frightening them into putting anti-war pressure on Congress and the Obama administration.

Even the normally clueless New York Times appears to have recognized the “information warfare” subtleties of the Foley video. In a story dated August 30, the Times reported that, “ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, is using every contemporary mode of messaging to recruit fighters, intimidate enemies, and promote its claim to have established a caliphate, a unified Muslim state run according to a strict interpretation of Islamic law. If its bigotry and beheadings seem to come from a distant century, its use of media is up to the moment.” As crude and cruel as the beheadings were, the video message is proof that radical Islam is far more adept at the use of modern communications than any western power, including the United States.

So why does the United States, the most powerful and resourceful nation on Earth, not have a sophisticated information warfare, or SOFTWAR, capability to use against radical Islam? Why has the Obama administration not spread the word throughout the Muslim world, covertly, that members of ISIS are not good Muslims? Instead, they engage in Hirabah (prohibited war against society), and that their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is a Mufsidoon (an evil-doer condemned by the Koran). Why are we not spreading the word throughout Islam that those who follow al-Baghdadi and ISIS will surely suffer Jahannam (eternal hell fire) unless they repent?

While ISIS is experiencing some success in Syria and Iraq, they should not deceive themselves that the caliphate they are establishing can ever encompass any major portion of the western world. Aside from protecting the lives of U.S. citizens who live and work in the Middle East, our primary national interest is in seeing to it that they do not establish a foothold on our shores.

So, as sympathetic as I may be to any dilemma that might cause Barack Obama some sleepless nights, I understand that no amount of conventional military power will stop the ISIS onslaught in that region of the world. Any time we spend debating whether or not to commit military forces against ISIS, or how much, is wasted time. Instead, we should be spending our time thinking in terms of how to discredit radical jihadists throughout the Muslim world through the skillful use of information technology, and how we might protect our American homeland. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has recently warned, “If we ignore (ISIS), I am sure they will reach Europe in a month and America in another month.” We simply cannot allow that to happen and military power is not the answer.

Instead, we must make the Muslim presence here so unpleasant that they will long for a return to whatever hellhole they came from. To do that, we must make membership or participation in any organization advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government a major criminal offense. In the spirit of Eisenhower’s signing statement as he signed the Communist Control Act of 1954, we must resolve that, “The American people are determined to eliminate from their midst organizations which, purporting to be “religious,” in the accepted sense of that term, are conspirators dedicated to the destruction of our form of government by violence and force…”

To accomplish that end, the Congress should take immediate steps to amend Section 2 of the Communist Control Act of 1954 to read as follows:

The Congress hereby finds and declares that Islam, although purportedly a religious sect, is in fact an instrumentality of a foreign conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to individuals of other religious denominations, but denying to all others the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution…

As a segment of the U.S. population, Islam is relatively small numerically and gives scant indication of its capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in the existence of Islam arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of Islam, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the organization known as Islam shall be outlawed in the United States.

With that statute on the books we can make it very uncomfortable for radical Islamists. With eyes and ears planted in every mosque in America, radical Imams such as Anwar al-Awlaki could be quickly exposed and FBI agents could be on the scene within hours to make arrests.

An old adage tells us that “the enemy of my friend is my enemy,” but, as much as that adage has been applicable throughout history, it does not apply in the Middle East today. Recent events in that part of the world should be enough to convince us that the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy. Other than Israel, we have no “friends” in the Middle East; there are only enemies and potential enemies.

Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.” Will Barack Obama be wise enough to take that advice? We shall see.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of pedestrians waiting at a trolley stop in Oslo, Norway in front of a sign of Nobel Peace laureate Barack Obama Wednesday December 9, 2009. Source: AP.

Witnessing a Failed Presidency

/in , , , , /by

When we elect someone—anyone—to the office of President, it is only natural that we attribute great political skills, intellect, and judgment to that man. We want to believe we have selected someone with the ability to do what must be done in a dangerous and very complex world.

This may explain why Presidents who have presided in times of war are more highly regarded than those that have not. Washington brought the nation into being by patiently pursuing a war with Great Britain, Lincoln saw the Civil War to a successful conclusion, preserving the Union

The last century offered two world wars and several lesser ones, Korea and Vietnam. Voters put Franklin D. Roosevelt in office in 1933 and then kept him there until his death in 1945 just before the conclusion of World War Two. They had no wish to disrupt his conduct of the war with anyone else. It fell to Harry Truman to wrap up World War Two and to pursue the Korean War to repulse communist North Korea’s invasion.

The Vietnam War had its genesis in the JFK years, but it was Lyndon Johnson who committed to it with a massive influx of infantry and massive bombing, neither of which was able to deter the North Vietnamese from uniting the nation. Having lied the nation into the war LBJ concluded at the end of his first term which he had won in a landslide that he should not run again given the vast level of unhappiness with the conflict.

The failure to respond in a strong way to the Iranians who took U.S. diplomats hostage left Jimmy Carter with a single failed term in office. Neither domestically, nor in the area of foreign affairs did he demonstrate strength or much understanding.

After 9/11 George W. Bush used U.S. military strength to send a message to the world in general and al Qaeda in particular. By the end of his second term, a completely unknown young Democrat emerged as the Democratic Party candidate for President by campaigning on a promise to get out of Iraq and offering “hope and change.”

AA - Going from bad to worseBarack Hussein Obama captured the imagination of the voters. He was black and many Americans wanted to demonstrate that an African-American could be elected President. He was relatively young, regarded as eloquent, and seemed to project a cool, self-composed approach throughout his campaign.

The only problem was that he lacked a resume beyond having been a “community organizer.” He had graduated from Harvard Law School, but all of his academic and other public records had been put under seal so they could not be examined. Twice he ran against relatively lackluster, older men who did not possess much charisma, if any.

In his first term, his “stimulus” to lift the economy out of recession was a trillion-dollar failure. By his second term, however, the singular first term “achievement” was the passage of the Affordable Patient Care Act—Obamacare. When finally ready to enroll people it instantly demonstrated technical and policy problems. Obama began to unilaterally make changes to the law even though he lacked the legal power to do so.

The war in Iraq whose conclusion he had ridden to victory in 2008 and 2012 came unraveled and the Syrian civil war in which he had resisted any involvement metastasized into a barbaric Islamic State that seized parts of Iraq and northern Syria.

Halfway through his second term, it was increasingly evident that Obama did not want to fulfill the role of the Presidency to provide leadership in times of foreign and domestic crisis.

On August 28 Gallup reported “Americans are more than twice as likely to say they “strongly disapprove” (39%) of President Barack Obama’s job performance as they are to say they “strongly approve” (17%). The percentage of Americans who strongly disapprove of Obama has increased over time, while the percentage who strongly approve has dropped by almost half.”

His passion for golf became noticeable in ways that went beyond just a bit of vacation time. The time he spent fund raising seemed to be more of a priority than dealing with Congress. Not only did he fail to develop strong political working relations with members of his own party, his churlish talk about the Republican Party began to grate on everyone.

Though no President cares much for the demands of the press, they play an essential role in a democracy. His administration went to extremes to close off access to its members and by striking out at the press in ways that turned it from one that had gone out of its way to support him in the first term to one that actively, if not openly, disliked him in the second.

One characteristic about Obama had become glaringly obvious. He lies all the time. He lies in obvious and casual ways. In politics where one’s word must be one’s bond, this is a lethal personality trait. He dismissed the many scandals of his administration as “phony.”

Given the vast implications of what is occurring in the Middle East, in Ukraine, and elsewhere around the world his response was to interrupt his golf game to give a short speech and then return to the greens. In a recent press conference he said he has “no strategy” to address the threat that ISIS represents.

What Americans have discovered is that they have twice either voted for (or against) someone with fewer skills and even less desire to do the job for which he campaigned. This lazyness combined with his radical liberal politics have finally become obvious even to his former supporters.

His statement that he had no strategy to deal with the threat of the Islamic State and that it was perhaps too soon to expect one to have been formulated has led to the conclusion that he was far less intellectually equipped to be President than many had thought.

Now he must be endured and survived.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image was taken by the AP on May 12, 2014 of President Obama speaking during a press availability in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington.

Defeat ISIS in the comfort of your own home

/in , , , , /by

A three-step political fantasy to protect Americans and help Islam finally to become a religion of peace.

President Obama’s White House statement on Aug. 28 was clear on two things: “ISIS must be defeated” and “we don’t have a strategy yet.”

With this in mind, let me offer a modest proposal that requires no military escalation, no additional defense spending, and no sacrifice of the American troops in the Middle East.

The president has already recognized the beheading of an American journalist as a terrorist attack on the United States and is said to be considering all options to protect Americans from the ISIS threat reaching the U.S. So let’s take him at his own word and propose that his list of “all options” should begin with (1) an end to political correctness and (2) a moratorium on pandering to immigrant groups in order to win elections for the Democrats.

Let’s call them Option One and Option Two. Like it or not, they must be in place before the president can even begin to think about protecting our borders and profiling terrorists at the airports in order to prevent any of the 3,000 members of ISIS who have U.S. or European passports from slipping into America, where they know they have an extensive and well-funded support base.

Which brings us to Option Three: extinguish their support base inside the U.S.

Limited airstrikes overseas have only limited benefits. Under the circumstances, it is similar to shooting at one tentacle of a global monster whose other tentacles have long ago worked their way into America and are recognized by the U.S. government as legitimate entities.

Terrorism in itself is never a goal, but rather a means in the arsenal of an entity whose other means include media, economic, cultural, and political manipulations that can bring down our society more effectively than terrorism alone.

It is this entity than needs to be killed, and here’s how the president can do it if he is really serious.

Let Obama continue praising Islam as a constitutionally protected religion of peace. At the same time he must outlaw Sharia, stripping this pseudo-religious practice of the First Amendment protection. The president must honestly and officially acknowledge that Sharia is, in fact, a hostile, supremacist political ideology of total domination in a purely physical, not spiritual realm.

Let me explain.

How would you like to live in a world ruled by an unelected dictator, where religious beliefs of one denomination are enforced by the state, while all other beliefs are either forbidden or subject to a heavy taxation. Women are decreed as inferior creatures by the government; they are barred from education and must cover themselves lest they invite legitimate harassment and rape by superior males. Charging interest on a loan is a crime and therefore no one gives loans, at least not openly. Music and alcohol are forbidden, but the penal code includes public amputation of arms and legs, as well as stoning to death.

It will be a world of total conformity where all thought is regimented by a few religious texts, which also regulate your daily activities, from nutrition to personal hygiene. The citizens’ highest duty is to impose their way of life on the outsiders, and the highest virtue is death in the name of these ideals. Questioning these rules is a crime and leaving the state religion means death.

What if you were promised that if you submit to such a political system, you will automatically obtain a superior “member” status with unlimited rights to dominate the inferior “non-members”? And if you were to agree, would you be able to describe your motives as purely spiritual and keep a straight face?

There is a big difference between religion (a system of faith and worship) and political ideology (a blueprint for a certain social order). Not knowing the difference is no excuse, and delusions of grandeur don’t make one the master of the universe.

In order to exercise their supremacy, the “believers” must first build a society based on the above blueprint, with an oppressive state to enforce their “right” to dominate others. This alone blows their religious cover and places their intentions into the realm of utopian political ideologues. Their inability to create a functioning civilization with a full set of the above rules has been a source of frustration, resentment, and violent outbursts throughout the centuries.

The latest attempts include the Taliban in Afghanistan, Boko Haram in Nigeria, and most recently the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) who, in spite of their “religious” name, are driven by a very earthly goal of forcing everyone, through mass murder and terror, to submit to their supremacy. In this, they enjoy a broad support of “true believers” worldwide, who flock to the Islamic State from all corners of the earth, hoping to get their piece of the pie in the Utopian totalitarian theocracy they call the Caliphate.

In this and other scenarios, Sharia has always served as a blueprint for a brutal supremacist theocracy. Given that the White House has rejected the word “Islamism” because it might give Islam a bad name, why not actually help Islam save face and declare all past bad behavior to be the result of Sharia?

Once dealing with Sharia as a hostile political ideology becomes fair game, this problem can finally get the treatment of the Ebola epidemic that it deserves. Like the Ebola virus, Sharia is lethal and is prone to deadly outbreaks – as seen in New York, London, Madrid, and thousands of other places around the world, taking hundreds of thousands of lives.

Just like Ebola requires careful quarantine, so does Sharia. Think of the Boston Marathon bombing as a Sharia outbreak. Think of the Fort Hood shooting as a Sharia outbreak. Once the culprit is known and isolated, it will only be a matter of time before all the hot spots are identified, quarantined, and extinguished.

Once the United States rids itself of the Sharia virus, others will follow, leaving fewer and fewer host bodies for Sharia to incubate and destroy.

In case anyone would rush to judgment and label this modest proposal “Islamophobic,” consider that the official separation of Islam-the-religion from Sharia-the-totalitarian-ideology would benefit the proverbial peaceful and law-abiding Muslims in more ways than pandering to Islamic radicals ever could. With Sharia out of the way, Islam can finally have a chance to become a religion of peace in real life and not only in the speeches of double-speaking clerics and politicians.

The Democrats are known for their amazing skills to turn crises into opportunities. The ISIS crisis may not have been intentional, but here’s a real opportunity to not let it go to waste – without leaving the comfort of the Oval Office or a golf course as the case may be.

Let’s face it: a Republican president would never be able to do any of this effectively, lacking the support of the media and the cultural establishment. President Obama, on the other hand, is the darling of the media, academia, and the arts, which makes him uniquely positioned to employ these options and save the world from the threat of Islamic terrorism once and for all.

If Obama really meant what he said about considering all options, he should be using his phone and his pen right now.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Who’s Who of the Good Guys and Bad Guys in the New Jihad

President Obama’s lack of a strategy to deal with ISIS is ‘grossly negligent’

/in , , , /by
Amerli Hassan

After his family escaped the ISIS-besieged town of Amerli in northern Iraq, 2-year-old Hassan was wounded in a suicide bombing. His family reportedly died in the blast. (Photo: Courtesy Ali al-Bayati)

President Obama publicly announced with respect to the Islamic State “We don’t have a strategy yet.” This is mind chilling.

The U.S. Commander in Chief just announced to the leaders of the Islamic State they have nothing to fear from the U.S. at this time because we have no strategy to deal with them. To say the least this is a green light for these terrorists to proceed with their murderous rampage.

It is hard to account for Obama’s statement which is a gift to the Islamic State. However there are a number of possibilities:

  1. Obama is pushing off a decision until Congress convenes thereby endangering U.S. security for domestic political reasons and because he is indecisive. This may be a replay of his failure to act against the Assad regime when Obama’s red line was breached and his failure to arm the rebels when it could have made a difference and prevented the emergence of the Islamic State.
  2. In disregard of warnings from high ranking Administration members Obama doesn’t believe the Islamic State is a substantial threat and seeks containment instead of its destruction, but won’t admit it publicly.
  3. To avoid or postpone taking action at this time Obama is lying to the American public when he says that the U.S. has no strategy to deal with or destroy the Islamic State.

In any event President Obama’s public statements gives aid and comfort to the enemy and further distances the U.S. from its allies in the region. If in fact after numerous recommendations from our military and intelligence services the White House has failed to create a strategy against this terrorist organization President Obama and his advisers have been ‘grossly negligent’.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ALERT: UK Terror Threat Raised to ‘Severe’ – ‘Attack Highly Likely’
CIA expert: Obama switched sides in war on terror
Found: The Islamic State’s Terror Laptop of Doom – Buried in a Dell computer captured in Syria are lessons for making bubonic plague bombs and missives on using weapons of mass destruction. – Foreign Policy Magazine
What Leading From Behind Looks Like
Obama: “We don’t have a strategy yet” on the Islamic State
Israel accepted ceasefire without demilitarization of Hamas under U.S. pressure
Islamic jihadists capture 43 UN peacekeepers in Golan Heights
Obama: We Have No Strategy to Fight ISIS; Ukraine Wasn’t Invaded

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is an official White House Photo by Pete Souza.

Decapitating the U.S. Military

/in , , , , /by

Many Americans were shocked by the Islamic State video of the beheading of the photo journalist James Foley. Perhaps they had already forgotten the decapitation of Wall Street Journal journalist, Daniel Pearl in 2002. Most certainly, the memory of the murder of nearly 3,000 on September 11, 2001 with the destruction of the World Trade Towers has begun to recede.

What most do not know is that decapitation is a requirement in the Islamic holy war and holy book, the Koran.

“So when you meet in Jihad in Allah’s cause those who disbelieve, smite their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them…” (Surat 47, al-Qital—the Killing–, Ayat 4.

“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks and smite them over all their fingers and toes.” – Surat al-Anfel (The Spoils), Ayat/Verse 12.)

If I were a jihadist who wanted to undermine the capacity of the United States of America to both defend itself and/or to wage war on those who regard us as their enemy, I would welcome what is currently occurring to weaken our military. It is exactly what President Obama and a compliant Congress has been doing for some time now.

In the name of the “sequester”, an across-the-board reduction in federal spending, the military has suffered the most despite being the single key factor to defend the nation and to project our power to protect our allies.

An August 26 article in Politico reported that the five leading U.S. defense firms, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing’s defense unit, and Northrop Grumman, have eliminated 70,000 jobs since 2008 through layoffs, buyouts, attrition, or, as Boeing did, moving employees to the commercial side of its business. “There’s little momentum in Congress to undo the current caps on discretionary federal spending and, facing a war-weary public, U.S. officials are pledging to avoid sending combat troops to today’s hotspots, including Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine.”

As reported by Bloomberg News in July, “The U.S. Navy can’t meet its funding needs for surface warships and a new class of nuclear attack submarines from 2025 to 2034 according to the service’s latest 30-year shipbuilding plan.” The Navy is just one element of the Pentagon’s current five-year funding plan “in an era of declining defense spending.” It will impact the need for new submarines, the planned full production of F-35 fighter jets, and a new long-range strike bomber.

In March The Washington Times reported that “President Obama is seeking to abolish two highly successful missile programs that experts say have helped the U.S. Navy maintain military superiority for the past several decades.” Obama wants to eliminate the famed Tomahawk and Hellfire missile programs. Why?

We have, however, billions for a variety of welfare programs, those devoted to “environmental research”, and countless other examples of sheer waste.

In January, commentator Mike Snyder raised the question, “Why are Dozens of High Ranking Officers Being Purged from the U.S. Military?” He noted that “Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented. Things have gotten so bad that a number of retired generals are publicly speaking out about the ‘purge’ of the U.S. military that they believe is taking place.”

Retired Major General Paul Vallely was quoted as having said, “He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon, and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Recognizing the threat that the Islamic State represents, even Secretary of State, John Kerry, has spoken of the need to destroy it, but he has for too long been saying that “climate change” is the most serious challenge the world is facing.

The U.S. has a full range of enemies such as Iran which since 1979 has declared the U.S. its enemy and continues a program to make its own nuclear weapons. Additional challenges include Russia’s actions in Russia in the Ukraine and China’s military power.

In July, Rowan Scarborough, a Washington Times columnist, warned that “An independent panel appointed by the Pentagon and Congress said that President Obama’s strategy for sizing the armed services is too weak for today’s global threats.” The National Defense Panel called on the President to “dump a major section of his 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review and write a broader strategy that requires the military to fight on multiple fronts at once.” That alone would require a larger military than we have now; one that is the size it was prior to World War Two!

How stupid is the Obama-Kerry climate change policy? In June, The Washington Times reported that “Some critics say such alarmist reports are causing the Pentagon to shift money that could be used for weapons and readiness. It is making big investments in biofuels, for example, and is working climate change into high-level strategic planning.”
The article quoted Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, as saying “The president’s misguided priorities with our national security can be seen in the $1 trillion defense cuts he has put into motion since taking office and then using the limited defense budget to support his green agenda.” Everything the President has said about climate change has been a lie.

President Obama has taken steps to open the military to homosexuals, a practice that was avoided for most of the nation’s history because of its effect on morale and he has advocated women in combat units in the name of “diversity.”

Questioned about it in 2013, Gen. Martin Dempsey, Joint Chiefs Chairman, referred to the requirement to introduce a “critical mass” or “significant cadre” of women into previously all-male units. Wars are not won by diversity. They are won by men who meet the physical standards and requirements of combat.

In May, The Washington Times reported that “These days, the U.S. military is only taking twenty percent of the applicants who walk into their local recruiter’s office intent on enlisting in the armed forces” noting that “the tough environment for potential recruits is due in large part to troop reductions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Pentagon’s plans to cut the size of the active duty Army.” Cut the size? At a time when we may need “boots on the ground” again in Iraq and a possible incursion into Syria?

Whether it is weapons systems needed by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, the Obama administration has waged its own war on America’s capacity to meet the needs of our national security currently and in the years ahead. It has waged an effort to alter the makeup of our military personnel, to reduce portions of it, and to eliminate many top officers to lead it.

It isn’t just the Islamic State’s American hostages that are being decapitated. It is the U.S. military.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

America, Our Debt-Ridden Nation

/in , , , , , , , /by

Let’s look at just some of the latest news about the U.S. economy:

  1. According to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Fiscal Services, the federal government paid $2,007,358,200,000—over $2 trillion—in benefits and entitlements in the 2013 fiscal year, October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013. Most of the benefits, 69.7% came from non-means tested government programs that provide them to recipients who qualify regardless of income. That would include Medicare, Social Security, unemployment compensation, veteran’s compensation, and railroad retirement, to name a few.
  2. The total federal government spending in 2013 totaled $3,454,253,000,000—over $3.4 trillion—encompassing defense, highway and transportation costs, public education, immigration services, and government worker salaries, to name a few.
  3. An astonishing amount of that spending constitutes wasted taxpayer money. In July the Government Accountability Office (CAO) testified before Congress that federal agencies made more than $100 billion in improper payments in 2013. That is an amount comparable to the combined total budgets of the Coast Guard, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, Border Patrol, Secret Service, and the Federal Emergency Agency, et cetera. Improper payments result when people collect money from government programs for which they are ineligible.
  4. By August, the total U.S. federal debt had increased to more than $7 trillion during the five and a half years since Barack Obama has been President. That is more than the debt increased under all U.S. Presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton—combined! More debt than was accumulated in the first 227 years from 1776 through 2003.
  5. During the time President Obama has been in office the number of unemployed reached 37.2%, a 36-year high for those 16 or older who do not have a job and are not actively seeking one. From December 2013 through May of this year, the labor participation rate had been at 62.8%. The last time the labor participation rate was that low was February 1978 when Jimmy Carter was President.
  6. As the nation sank deeper into debt by the end of 2012 there were 109,631,000 Americans living in households that were receiving one or more federally funded “means-tested programs”, more generally referred to as welfare. Combined with those receiving non-means-tested benefits and it added up to 49.5% of the population.

Money BombIt is always tempting to blame everything on the President and, despite the usual rebound from a recession that has occurred in the past, it has not occurred during his first term, nor into his second at this point. In fact, the latest data reveals that the U.S. economy shrank at a 2.9% annual rate during the first quarter of 2014. Its long-run average rate of growth has been 3.3%, but the highest since Obama took office was 2.8%.

According to the World Bank, in 2013 the U.S. Gross Domestic Product, the value of its goods and services, was $16,800,000,000,000. The federal, state and governments took their share via taxation on income and/or property. The rest was saved or spent by those either holding a job or receiving government benefits; very nearly half of the population old enough to be employed if there were jobs for them.

The problem that affects all of us is the imbalance of the U.S. budget where more money is going out than coming in. The difference is deemed the “deficit.” In order to pay bills, Congress has to agree to raise the limit on how much the nation can borrow.

Nick Dranias, the constitutional policy director for the Goldwater Institute, has come up with a proposal, “The Compact for a Balanced Budget”, and it was been published by The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, in July.

As Dranias points out, “The U.S. gross federal debt is approaching $18 trillion. That figure is more than twice what was owed ($8.6 trillion) in 2006, when Barack Obama was a junior U.S. Senator from Illinois and opposed lifting the federal debt limit.” It represents more than $150,000 per taxpayer.

“What if states could advance and ratify a powerful federal balanced budget amendment in only twelve months, asks Dranias. His proposal is “a new approach to state-originated amendments under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Two states, Georgia and Alaska, are expected to establish a Balanced Budget Commission, an interstate agency dedicated to organizing a convention—before 2014 ends—to propose an amendment to achieve a balanced budget. The amendment would put “an initially fixed limit on the amount of federal debt.” It would ensure Washington cannot spend more than tax revenue brought in at any point in time, with the sole exception of borrowing under the fixed debt limit. It would force Washington to reduce spending long before borrowing reaches its debt limit, preventing any default on obligations; something threatening many other nations as well.

Suffice to say, the proposed amendment involves some complex elements and, if the Compact does not receive sufficient support from many more states than just the two that have signed on, it won’t see the light of day.

What the rest of us understand, however, is that federal spending is out of control at the same time as the amount of money it takes in is more than what it “redistributes.” Add in a sluggish economy, not growing at its usual rate, and you have a recipe for a lot of trouble ahead.

Republicans are usually credited with being more financially prudent. If true, we need to elect a Congress controlled by the GOP in November and a Republican President in 2016. If we don’t, all bets are off.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

ISIS in America

/in , , , , /by

More Americans are beginning to catch on that there are very evil people who in the name of Islam commit atrocities unimaginable to the human mind. ISIS represents Islam in its purest form. Mohammed would be smiling from ear to ear if he were able to see ISIS carrying out his planned agenda for world domination. For years I have been conducting first-hand research at mosques around the world. For years I have been warning innocent people that Islam in its purest form is being taught in the mosques. Most people have ignored the warnings and blamed the violence on just a few ‘radical Muslims’. Many people continued to believe there are moderate Muslims and Islam is being hijacked.

unnamed (14)

American IS fighter in Syria Douglas McAuthur McCain, 33, has been killed by FSA fighters in Syria. For a larger view click on the image.

In plain terms a moderate Muslim is a non-practicing Muslim. They do not exist and these people who claim to be Muslims are actually Apostates of Islam. Indeed they are good people who do not desire physical Jihad and world domination. Nevertheless they are ignoring the true teachings and basic beliefs of the Islamic ideology. These people are subject to death in accordance with Shariah law and groups such as ISIS are fulfilling the deeds of Mohammed. Around the world practicing Muslims are killing men, women and children who have departed from Islamic teachings.

If you were to ask any Islamic scholar they would tell you to faithfully practice Islam you must to the following basic principles:

  1. A Muslim must adhere to all aspects of Shariah law, not just ones they feel like following. The acceptance of Shariah law cannot be separated. It is not a pick and choose system. For those who neglect portions of Shariah law they have left Islam and became Apostates.
  2. A Muslim must have in their heart a desire to engage in physical Jihad in all places and all times. For those who can’t fight they must provide financial and other support to the Mujahadeen (fighters). If they do not have the means to do this, at the very least they must support Jihad in their hearts.
  3. A Muslim must desire a Caliphate. This is for Islam to be the dominate ideology in all parts of the world. You will hear numerous Muslims say this is not true, but basic common sense and Shariah law prove this to be accurate. Does not every Christian desire the world to accept Christianity and follow the beliefs? The same is true for Islam and Muslims.
  4. The basic fundamentals of Islam dictate that slavery is authorized under Shariah law. This is why all of the Islamic terrorist groups kidnap and sell girls into slavery.
  5. The marriage of girls as young as six years old is a standard practice within Islam. Mohammed married Aisha when she was six years old and all practicing Muslims state that Mohammed is an example for other Muslims to follow, and they do. Child marriages are not only being conducted in the Middle East in the name of Islam, but there are numerous mosques in America that advocate to the Muslim men to marry children.
  6. Shariah law authorizes the Muslim man to beat his wife or wives.
  7.  Shariah law is not compatible with any man-made law and the Islamic ideology declares man-made laws do not have to be followed. Islamic leader’s state Shariah law and the U.S. Constitution are not compatible.
  8. Islam teaches that the Quran and Shariah law are applicable to all, and they can never be changed.
  9. The Islamic ideology teaches that Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims are the enemies of Islam.
  10. Islam teaches that the land currently Israel belongs to the Muslim people and Shariah authorizes the destruction of the Israeli state and all Jews.
unnamed (15)

Second image of American IS fighter in Syria Douglas McAuthur McCain. For a larger view click on the image. WARNING GRAPHIC.

Now for the important question. Are ISIS terrorists in America? The best way I can answer that is to advise people not to get wrapped up in the dozens of Islamic acronyms. All of the Islamic terrorist groups follow the 10 points I mentioned above. All practicing Muslims follow the 10 points. Remember non practicing Muslims are apostates of Islam.

This means my analysis is that there are approximately 6 million Muslims in America (no one knows for sure how many). There are around 2300 mosques and Islamic Centers in America. I have been to hundreds of mosques in America and outside of America. I estimate only about 25% of people who identify with Islam are practicing Muslims. This correlates to mean that about 1.5 million Muslims in America practice Islam as Prophet Mohammed dictated 1400 years ago.

When ISIS started rumbling through Iraq they had a couple of thousand people. Soon they had several thousand because the practicing Muslims knew ISIS is the true example of how Islam must be practiced. In America if there are 1.5 million practicing Muslims it is only a matter of time when they feel comfortable and secure about trying to form a caliphate to include America. 1.5 million Islamic terrorists can do a non- recoverable amount of damage to our country. So, yes ISIS and their supporters are operating in America and we will soon be provided proof in the way of isolated terrorist attacks simultaneously all across our great country.

Could our country have survived twenty 9-11 types of attacks being conducted at the same time? Our government was not prepared for even a natural disaster as in New Orleans (hurricane Katrina). We could not withstand several major attacks at the same time. If we don’t stop the Islamic ideology from being spread in America, we will have ISIS and there followers placing a black flag of Jihad at the White House in the near future.

Final Analysis:

The Islamic ideology itself must be destroyed by continuously calling it for what it is…Evil. We must have the vile taste in our mouths when anything Islamic is mentioned, just as we do when anything Hitler is mentioned. He had an ideology and we were able to destroy it. We can do the same in regards to Islam.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of ‘The American’: Abu Muhammad al Amriki pictured earlier this year when he declared himself a follower of ISIS having defected from the Al Nusrah Front. He claims to have lived in America for ’10 or 11 years’ before travelling to Syria. The photo is courtesy of the DailyMail UK.

Connecting the Red Dots: Where convicted illegal alien murderers were released

/in , , , , , , /by

I grew up believing you people in Washington took your oaths seriously to protect the citizens yet ICE released 169 convicted killers and a total of 35,000 other criminals back into our society because their home countries won’t take them back. Together, they committed nearly 88,000 crimes, according to recently released report.

Question: A total of 36,000 illegal aliens involved whose countries won’t take them back must be a large number of countries. So how many are there?

Do you in Congress have the names of the countries refusing to back their citizens? Do you know which of those countries we currently give financial aid? Do you plan on stopping all aid immediately to any country that won’t take back their citizens? If not, why not?

What about transferring them all to Guantanamo Bay so they won’t be a threat to U.S. citizens?

unnamed (12)

Click on the map for a larger view.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Feds Let Go of Dozens of Convicted Murder Illegal Immigrants, See Where They Are on This Map | National Review Online

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of 100PercentFedUp.com.

Islamic State vows to ‘break the American cross’

/in , , , /by

ISISWhiteHouse2The Islamic State jihadis think of the U.S. as a Christian nation, and so they think of destroying it as breaking the cross, which language is also reminiscent of this:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts. (Bukhari 3.34.425)

“Islamic State vows to ‘break the American cross,’” Reuters, August 19, 2014:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Islamic State, the Sunni militant group which seeks to establish a caliphate in parts of Iraq and Syria, released a video on Tuesday that gave the strongest indication yet it might attempt to strike American targets.

The video with the theme “breaking of the American cross” boasts Islamic State will emerge victorious over “crusader” America. It follows a video posted on Monday warning of attacks on American targets if Washington struck against its fighters in Iraq and Syria.

The latest footage speaks of a holy war between the al-Qaeda offshoot and the United States, which occupied Iraq for nearly a dacade and faced stiff resistance from al Qaeda.

Islamic State’s sweep through northern Iraq, bringing it close to Baghdad and in control of the second city, Mosul, drew U.S. airstrikes on the country for the first time since the end of the American occupation in 2011.

The video showed footage of President Barack Obama as well as strategic U.S. ally King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and attacks on American soldiers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State beheads US journalist James Foley in video
Islamic State jihadist justifies beheading as “100% Islam”
Islamic State jihadis screaming “Allahu akbar” burn Bibles, cut fingers off for wedding rings
Islamic State to U.S.: “We will drown all of you in blood”

An open letter to U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX) on the Birth Right Citizenship Act (H.R. 140)

/in , , /by

Dear Representative Veasey,
RE: Your Opposition to H.R. 140 – Birthright Citizenship Act of 2013-2014

Dear Marc,

I am happy you took the time to write and give me your reasons for opposing the bill. I would like to address them one at a time.

The first statement is “H.R. 140 would change the definition of “American” which is absolutely not true. What it means is a child born would have at least one citizen parent to be a U.S. citizen. You must have never learned what the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. Children born of illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of our country. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the country from where there came from. Amending the IMM & NAT ACT to require one of the parents to be an American citizen would remove a strong magnet that currently attracts illegal aliens to sneak into the country to give birth to nearly 400,000 babies a year called “Anchor Babies”. I suggest you trace back the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and Representative John A. Bingham who is referred to as the father of it. Rep. Bingham discusses Natural Born citizen and the reason for the 14th amendment.

The second statement you made was H.R. 140 if passed would have the “goal of preventing future immigration.” I don’t know what world you are living in but how you came to that conclusion is not a reasonable response, when one is warranted.

The third statement you made was “eliminating birthright citizenship would do nothing to reduce illegal immigration.” If so, why do 400,000 births a year happen to parents who are illegal aliens? They sneak in to have babies here so the child can lock them into the U.S. welfare system at the expense of American workers.

“The proposal to eliminate birthright citizenship is a distraction from fixing our broken immigration system” is an incorrect statement. Marc, I just mentioned 400,000 babies a year born to illegal aliens in the U.S. annually and you think H.R. 140 is a distraction? You also state we have a “broken immigration system” which is the statement all democrats make. There are two things promised by Congress in 1986 that were never delivered; a secure border like we have had in Korea for 60 years and a mandatory system to make sure all workers are legal workers that is E-Verify. The system you refer to is not broken; it is simply not being enforced. If Congress would have fulfilled those two promises we wouldn’t be talking about H.R. 140.

Another statement you made was “Congress should be addressing immigration issues head on by reforming our immigration laws in a way that fairly addresses the economic and labor needs of the country, unites American families, and ensures that immigrants have legal channels to enter, remain and work in the U.S.” Do you happen to know what the U.S. population is and where we rank in being the most populated? The answer Marc is we rank third in population and have over 90,000,000 that have dropped out of the labor force. Are you aware we import maids and lawn mower operators while millions of your brothers and sisters are sitting on the couch watching game shows and waiting for the next welfare check.? Blacks are most affected adversely by illegal immigration for employment yet you are for open borders.

I have three questions for you:

  1. What is the purpose of mass immigration since immigration has always been used in the past to settle virgin lands but there are none left?
  2. If mandatory E-Verify had been put into place by Congress when promised 28 years ago do you think we would have millions of illegal aliens without an income living here?
  3. Do you think if Congress would have secured the border as we have in Korea for 60 years now do you think we would have illegal aliens and drugs moving back and forth at will?

Thanks for writing Marc and feel free to contact me again.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ineligible Illegals File Request to Get Dreamer Status, Force Obama’s Hand
Hundreds More Criminal Illegal Aliens With Brutal Records Released Onto American Streets

EDITORS NOTE: H.R. 140 – Birthright Citizenship Act of 2013-2014 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Most top Islamic State [IS] jihadis were once held by U.S.

/in , , , /by

But “incarceration was a school for jihad, and they emerged tougher, better connected and more dedicated” — so why were there no effort made during their incarceration to challenge their jihadist beliefs? Because to have done that would have been “Islamophobic.” And why were they released at all, since any fool would have known that they would return to the jihad?

“The Islamic State’s potential weakness,” by David Ignatius,Washington Post, August 14, 2014 (thanks to Ou Tis):

The Obama administration’s Iraq policy seems premised on the idea that the terrorist Islamic State is so toxic that it will be self-limiting and ultimately self-defeating. But that’s not the view of U.S. intelligence officials.

In a briefing for journalists Thursday, a panel of five U.S. intelligence officials summed up their assessment of an organization that has shown a remarkable durability because it is “patient,” “well-organized,” “opportunistic” and “flexible.” Under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the group has rebounded from about 1,500 fighters in 2010 to more than 10,000 today — becoming a global jihadist organization that communicates in many languages.

“We don’t assess this as something that will collapse on its own,” said one of the officials, who commented based on an agreement that their remarks would not be attributed. “But with pressure and alternatives [that might draw away its Sunni supporters], it could collapse over time.” The intelligence experts cautioned that counterterrorist tools, such as drone strikes and other air attacks, wouldn’t be sufficient “to defeat it rather than just ratchet it back.”

The officials expressed skepticism that Baghdadi could be deterred from striking the United States by the threat of pulverizing attacks. “We assess that the group sees conflict with the U.S. as inevitable,” said one official. Although the group is preoccupied with its battles in Iraq and Syria, another official noted a chilling Internet statement several months ago: “America, we have not turned our gaze away from you.”

The briefing was a rare example of intelligence officials sharing information about a problem that policymakers are still debating. The group skirted direct policy questions but not their context. Asked, for example, whether the Islamic State can be contained if its bases in Syria aren’t bombed, one official said that such cross-border havens have been “a perennial challenge” in fighting insurgencies since 1945.

The portrait of Baghdadi and his Islamic State was chilling. Under its original name, al-Qaeda in Iraq, the group ferociously battled U.S. forces. Most of its leading fighters were imprisoned by U.S. occupation troops, but incarceration was a school for jihad, and they emerged tougher, better connected and more dedicated….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State has forced 1,500 Yazidis and Christians into sex slavery
Islamic State jihadis imprisoned in Iran threaten to kill Christian in same prison
Dozens of Yazidis murdered as deadline to convert to Islam passes
Syria because Allah “has commanded for the Muslims to go and fight jihad”
Threatening anti-Semitic flyers placed at Jewish-owned business near UCLA
Thousands of supporters of “Palestinian” jihad sign petition to ban Joan Rivers from UK for being pro-Israel

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a man about to be executed in a propaganda video released by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The image is courtesy of the New York Daily News.