Obama’s Disdain For The Constitution Means We Risk Losing Our Republic
President Barack Obama takes the oath of office. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
By M. Northrop Buechner
Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, he has changed it five times. Most notably, he suspended the employer mandate last summer. This is widely known, but almost no one seems to have grasped its significance.
The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing laws. The changes Mr. Obama ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional. This means that he does not accept some of the limitations that the Constitution places on his actions. We cannot know at this point what limitations, if any, he does accept.
By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama acted on the principle that the President can rewrite laws and—since this is a principle—not just this law, but any law. After the crash of Obamacare, many Congressmen have implored the President to change the individual mandate the same way he had changed the employer mandate, that is, to violate the Constitution again.
The main responsibility the Constitution assigns to the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change or ignore laws he does not like, then what?
The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again).
Mr. Obama has not been shy about pointing out his path. He has repeatedly made clear that he intends to act on his own authority. “I have the power and I will use it in defense of the middle class,” he has said. “We’re going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress.” There are a number of names for the system Mr. Obama envisions, but representative government is not one of them.
If the President can ignore the laws passed by Congress, of what use is Congress? The President can do whatever he chooses. Congress can stand by and observe. Perhaps they might applaud or jeer. But in terms of political power, Congress will be irrelevant. Probably, it will become a kind of rubber-stamp or debating society. There are many such faux congresses in tyrannies throughout history and around the globe.
Mr. Obama has equal contempt for the Supreme Court. In an act of overbearing hubris, he excoriated Supreme Court Justices sitting helplessly before him during the 2010 State of the Union address—Justices who had not expected to be denounced and who were prevented by the occasion from defending themselves. Mr. Obama condemned them for restoring freedom of speech to corporations and unions.
Top Communist official in Tibet announces crackdown on access to non-official internet and media sources of information about Dalai Lama to ensure only ‘voice of the party’ is heard
The Dalai Lama, who fled to India in 1959 after a failed uprising against Chinese rule, says he advocates greater autonomy for Tibetans rather than independence. Photo: AP
11:47AM GMT 02 Nov 2013
China’s ruling Communist Party aims to silence the voice of the Dalai Lama in his Tibetan homeland by tightening controls on media and the Internet, a top official has said.
The party’s top-ranking official in the Tibet region, Chen Quanguo, vowed to “ensure that the voices of hostile forces and the Dalai group are not seen or heard”, in an editorial published in a party journal called Qiushi.
Officials would “make sure that the voice of the party is heard and seen everywhere in this vast 120 million square kilometre region,” Mr Chen wrote in the editorial.
China has worked for decades to control the spread of information in Tibet, but some Tibetans remain able to access non-official sources of information including from exiles abroad by using radio, television and the Internet.
Forget the Government Shutdown — It’s About Shutting YOU Down!
Americans are being treated to political theater at its finest. It’s not a theater of entertainment, however, but a coliseum of enslavement where in the world of deception, perception becomes reality. This theater requires audience participation, where we, the theater-goers, become part of the play. We are a truly captive audience, entranced into mindlessly choosing sides at the frenzied urging of the corporate media and partisan cheerleaders firmly seated behind the microphones and television cameras of the nationally syndicated media. From RINF: http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-new…
The government is red, the middle class is dead & they want us all dead
Americans are being treated to political theater at its finest. It’s not a theater of entertainment, however, but a coliseum of enslavement where in the world of deception, perception becomes reality. This theater requires audience participation, where we, the theater-goers, become part of the play. We are a truly captive audience, entranced into mindlessly choosing sides at the frenzied urging of the corporate media and partisan cheerleaders firmly seated behind the microphones and television cameras of the nationally syndicated media.
As the play progresses, we, the American people, become part of each act, believing that we actually have a voice in this pre-scripted performance. We are bombarded with lie after lie, each worse than the previous in an attempt to convince us that we can making a difference by choosing and cheering seemingly opposing sides on the stage before us. The biggest lie of them all is that there are not two sides, but just one. It’s “them versus us” in a fight to the death playing out before us in this 21st century Shakespearean tragedy. It’s not just death, but the premeditated murder of the middle class and anyone without a reservation at the globalists’ table. And the space at that table is limited.
The actors of this play are ostensibly at odds over funding the Affordable Care Act while a peek behind the curtain tells a different story altogether. Like any play, the ending of this has already been determined. The ending, however, is not the same as written in the commemorative program you were given upon your arrival at this theater.
The house lights have been dimmed not just for the performance, but to induce us into a hypnotic trance further enabled by the media mouthpieces of malice. As you gradually become accustomed to the theater lighting, you’ll see that it’s not just a play, but you’re being played. You’re being manipulated into believing that the government shutdown is the actual plot of the play, while it is merely the method to continue the lie of a fictitious political paradigm.
The bargain rushed through Congress on Wednesday night clobbers the U.S. Constitution. It shifts control over the debt ceiling from Congress to the president, in violation of Article 1, Section 8, and pushes the nation toward a slippery slope of allowing the president unlimited power to borrow.
Article 1, Section 8, states that “Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes … to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; . .. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States … “
Until 1917, the president had to ask Congress’ permission for each borrowing and frequently acquiesced to conditions. That year, Congress devised the debt ceiling, which gave the president flexibility to borrow up to a certain amount in order to fund a world war.
Ever since then, presidents have come to Congress once or twice a year for a debt-ceiling hike. Until this year, Congress had never abdicated control over the nation’s indebtedness.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can’t surrender its powers to another branch of government or change how laws are made (INS v. Chadha, 1983). But that’s what the deal concocted Wednesday night does.
Instead of raising the debt ceiling, the Default Prevention Act of 2013 suspends it and shifts power to the president to determine how much the nation should borrow.
Congress’ check on borrowing is so diminished as to be laughable. It will now require a two-thirds vote — a supermajority — in both houses to “disapprove” the president’s decision on what the debt ceiling should be. No real negotiating, as all previous presidents have had to do.
This is no more constitutional than if Congress ceded its taxing power to the president, telling Obama that he could impose whatever taxes he wants unless two-thirds of both houses disapprove.
The Default Prevention Act of 2013 puts the president in the driver’s seat instead of Congress. It was done for the first time last January, at the urging of now former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. It moves the nation dangerously close to the Democratic Party’s goal of eliminating the debt ceiling permanently — a dictator’s dream.
U.S. Representative for California’s 17th District
It’s time to eliminate the legal authority of a single House of Congress to destroy the full faith and credit of the United States. The recent crisis shows that Tea Party Republicans continue to view the debt limit as a negotiating lever to extract political concessions each time our bills come due — repeatedly driving the country to the edge of the fiscal cliff, then leaving it up to the grown-ups to steer clear of disaster at the last second.
Yet to allow radical factions to retain their abstract right to precipitate debt-limit crises is very damaging. Investors will demand a premium on Treasury bonds to compensate them for the risk that some future stand-off will spin out of control. In the longer run, the underlying uncertainty will undermine the central position of the dollar in the monetary system, depriving the country of the great economic advantages that flow from issuing the world’s reserve currency. In contrast, a decisive effort to put our house in order will establish that Washington is determined to avoid future fiascos.
This is the point of a bill I introduced that changes the rules of the debt-limit game. Under the reformed procedures, the president would announce, on an annual basis, the increase required to avoid default. Congress would retain the power to reject the president’s initiative by a simple majority vote of both Houses — and if the president responded with a veto, two-thirds majorities could still insist on ultimate control. In restricting its power to play politics on this issue, however, Congress would be redeeming the Fourteenth Amendment’s command that “[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States… shall not be questioned.”
TEHRAN, Oct. 20 (MNA) – Israeli settlers chopped down more than 100 olive trees near the West Bank city of Nablus on Saturday, according to the Palestinian Authority (PA) which has promised to reimburse farmers for financial damages.
With the Palestinian olive harvest at its peak, the settlers were alleged by Ghassan Daghlas, a PA official who tracks incidents of settler violence, to have destroyed the trees in Qaryut village early Saturday.
The settlers used chainsaws to cut the trees at the base, Daghlas claimed. He said the farmers were shocked by the sight of the felled trees, which they had been nourishing for years.
An Israeli military spokesman did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment. The Israeli military often prevents some of the worst forms of settler violence against local Palestinians, but such attacks have persisted year after year during the olive harvest.
Local human rights groups allege that more than 800,000 olive trees have been uprooted since Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967.
“Settlers attack the olive harvest and take the olives from us to say ‘this land belongs to us and not to the Palestinians,’” Jaber Abu Rahmeh, from Bil’in village near Ramallah, told Al Jazeera.
In response to the attacks, the PA will form a committee to compensate farmers and to “help them remain firm on their lands,” Minister of Agriculture Walid Assad told Maan.
The ancient olive trees are regarded by Palestinians as a symbol of their connection to the land. Each year during the olive harvesting season, such incidents spike across the West Bank – where more than 515,000 Israelis occupy over 125 settlements, considered illegal under international law.
A recent report by Israeli nongovernmental organization Peace Now said settlement construction on new homes in Israeli settlements in the West Bank spiked by 70 percent in the first half of 2013.
“Settlers attack the olive harvest and take the olives from us to say ‘this land belongs to us and not to the Palestinians,’” Jaber Abu Rahmeh, from Bil’in village near Ramallah, told Al Jazeera. “To deal with Israeli soldiers is better than dealing with settlers – who are more violent and hate the Palestinians.”
I, Cheryl Nelson, a citizen of the United States of America, repudiate the unconstitutional laws and illegal debts forced upon the American people by the Obama Administration, an administration which does not, and never did, represent the will of the People.
I hereby further give notice that I am not, nor is any other American, “collateral” in any way, shape or form for the debts of the United States under the Obama Administration, or any prior administrations. Each American is a sovereign being and is not in any way, shape or form owned by any other being(s) or government(s).
I further state that I, along with the American people, were unaware our national parks were being sold and, thus, have never agreed to their sale. Americans are also generally unaware that American lands and businesses are being sold by the U.S. Government to foreign interests, which is against our laws.
I, along with most other Americans, do not support profligate spending and erosion of our Constitution and rights.
To United States Creditors: DO NOT LEND THIS ADMINISTRATION ANY MORE MONEY. WE RENOUNCE THE DEBT INCURRED THEREBY.
There are many more grievances against the Obama Administration, such as the scandals involving Benghazi, the IRS, Fast & Furious, the birth certificate issue, the using of terrorist language against political enemies, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the NSA spying scandal, drones, Obamacare, funding the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist organizations, controlling mass media to influence our thoughts and beliefs, tampering with the justice system and obstructing justice, among other things. Conduct unbecoming all, and should be listed in a bill of impeachment.
I declare the United States Government to be in the state of a coup d’etat and high treason against the People of the United States. As a citizen, and along with all other citizens who agree with these statements, I petition the Provost Marshall to arrest the usurper, Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Soetero, now illegally occupying the office of the President of the United States and remove all members of Congress who have voted against the conscience and will of the American people and the U.S. Constitution. The damage to this country is great and only immediate removal gives us a fighting chance to recover.
I declare a counter-coup is now in progress and call upon every able-bodied being to resist any unconstitutional laws to the best of your abilities and position to do so. Let this be non-violent and bloodless, and conducted in accordance with the true Constitutional laws of the United States.
Descendant of Thomas Nelson Jr,
Virginia Wartime Governor and
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
This footage from August 21, 2013 shows a Saudi jihadist from al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra (Nusra Front) in Syria sitting in the back of a truck taking pride in beheading a young Syrian conscript, claiming that his victim was Alawite, since his military service card did not show “Muslim” on it. Unlike Saudi Arabia, Syria does not mention religious affiliation of people on their ID cards. The cameraman’s accent indicates that he is also Saudi.
BEIRUT: Some Saudi Arabian-supplied anti-tank missiles intended for mainstream Syrian rebels have inadvertently landed in the hands of the Al-Qaeda linked Nusra Front, throwing plans to arm moderates via neighbor Jordan into question.
The failure of the pilot plan has forced Western and Arab opposition backers to reconfigure efforts to arm and vet moderate opposition types, and shift these efforts to the northern, Turkish border, The Daily Star has learned.
Senior Free Syrian Army and Jordanian sources, along with video evidence, have confirmed that European-made anti-tank missiles were obtained, and in some cases sold, to the hard-line Nusra Front after being supplied to vetted Free Syrian Army battalions across the Jordanian border.
The debacle prompted Jordan to back away from arrangements to arm moderate rebels, and close its borders in May.
The plan to train and arm moderate rebels via Syria’s southern border gained Western and Saudi support earlier this year, as concerns mounted over gains by Bashar Assad’s forces, backed by his Lebanese ally Hezbollah, as well as the proliferation of hard-line Islamist rebel brigades.
Special Forces personnel from the United States and the United Kingdom are known to have conducted training operations for vetted opposition troops.
An investigation by Reuters revealed that Saudi Arabia began transferring small numbers of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to Syrian rebels under the command of Gen. Salim Idriss, the chief of staff of the FSA, through Jordan in March.
The supply was reportedly coordinated by Saudi Arabia in consultation with France and Britain.
But Jordan, weary of the presence of Islamists at home, voiced concern over plans to arm the rebels, fearing that the weapons might end up in the hands of radicals, further jeopardizing Jordan’s security.
Jordan’s foreign minister, Nasser Judeh, cast doubt early on about the ability to properly vouch for rebel elements.
“Our position was always, arming who? And do we have addresses and do we have CVs? … We are a country that neighbors Syria, and therefore, while we don’t interfere in the internal affairs of Syria, we are certainly affected by the outcome of what’s going on in Syria,” Judeh told reporters, in response to questions about arming the rebels, during a joint news conference with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Amman in May.
United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law. Does this imply they did breach the law? Why does Obama want to shield the ex-President from prosecution? And why aren’t Bush & Co. held accountable for the Iraq disaster? CrossTalking with Inder Comar and Ed Krayewski.
Sundus Shaker Saleh, pictured at right, with her lawyer, Inder Comar. Photo by Global Exchange.
George W. Bush keeps a low profile these days, making the rounds on the public speaking circuit, engaging in a bit of philanthropy here and there, occasionally sharing his dog paintings or offering an unsolicited opinion on the immigration debate or national security.
The case was filed on March 13, 2013, and the defendants have all been served notice to appear.
Given his role in the current media landscape, it may be easy to forget that just 10 years ago he led an invasion of a foreign country that many in the international community saw as criminal.
Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother of three, has not forgotten. The violence and chaos that engulfed Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion of 2003 had tragic consequences for her family and ultimately forced her to flee her homeland for an uncertain future. She has left Iraq, but she is determined to make sure the world hears her story and that someone is held accountable.
Saleh is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit targeting six key members of the Bush Administration: George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Paul Wolfowitz. In Saleh v. Bush, she alleges that the Iraq War was not conducted in self-defense, did not have the appropriate authorization by the United Nations, and therefore constituted a “crime of aggression” under international law—a designation first set down in the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. The aim of the suit is simple: to achieve justice for Iraqis, and to show that no one, not even the president of the United States, is above the law.
The case is being brought to trial by Inder Comar of Comar Law, a firm based in San Francisco. The majority of cases Comar takes involve providing legal support to private companies, primarily for the tech industry. He is measured and deliberate, perhaps not the long haired, vaguely out-of-touch wearer of hemp suits some might picture when imagining a human rights lawyer pushing for prosecution of U.S. government officials.
This summer, Saleh met with Comar at her home in Amman, Jordan, to discuss the upcoming trial.
Saleh related her story through a translator to Comar, who had traveled halfway around the world to hear her story firsthand. Saleh was a gracious host, according to Comar, pointing out the paintings she’d crafted and beaming over her children. She was warm, open, and quick to laugh. Her story, however, was rife with darkness.
Prior to the arrival of U.S. forces, Saleh said, Iraq was safe. People slept with their doors open at night. There were no militias, no checkpoints, no threats. All of that came to a halt following the U.S.-led invasion. Airstrikes damaged or destroyed vital infrastructure including highways, bridges, and wastewater treatment facilities. Diseases like typhus became commonplace. The swift collapse of a functioning government created an environment ripe for internecine warfare. Saleh’s twin brothers were both shot by militia members, and she no longer felt safe in her own home. So in 2005, Saleh fled Iraq. She was not alone. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, over 2 million people left the country, and over 2.7 million were internally displaced, including up to 40 percent of the Iraqi middle class.
To seek legal redress, Comar Law is invoking the Alien Tort Statute, a law passed in 1789 that permits a non-U.S. national the ability to sue in federal court for injuries “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” The case was filed on March 13, 2013, with the U.S. District Court in Northern Calif., and the defendants have all been served notice to appear. Just like any other legal proceeding, there will be a great deal of back and forth before the hearing, which is scheduled to take place sometime in early 2014.
A tough case to make
Paul Stephan teaches law at the University of Virginia and has served as a consultant to the Department of State on matters of international law. In his opinion, Comar’s lawsuit against Bush administration officials is unlikely to succeed.
Many judges would view the ramifications of the invasion of Iraq not as a matter of law, but of politics.
For one, Stephan says, it’s difficult to sue a U.S. employee acting under the “scope of employment.” The Westfall Act of 1988 permits the United States as an entity to substitute itself in for individuals who were acting in their “scope of employment” for the case at issue.
The Westfall Act was enacted by Congress to supersede the Supreme Court’s decision in Westfall v. Erwin, a case involving a government employee, William Erwin, who was burned by exposure to toxic soda ash at an Army depot and then sued the depot supervisors. The Court’s ruling slightly modified the interpretation of law to open up government employees to greater legal liability for their actions. Congress immediately responded with the Westfall Act, which granted “absolute immunity” to government employees for any actions taken within the scope of their employment.
Precedent suggests that Stephan may be right. The district court of the District of Columbia dismissed a case by the ACLU of Northern California against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and nine other senior military leaders in 2007 on the grounds that these employees were acting within the scope of their employment and were therefore immune from liability under the Westfall Act.
The suit, Ali v. Rumsfeld, was brought on behalf of nine men subjected to torture and abuse under Rumsfeld’s command, with the ACLU arguing that the Constitution and international law prohibit torture and require commanding officers to report violations of the law. The ACLU further claimed that direct orders from Rumsfeld, as well as reports from detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, proved that Rumsfeld and the nine other defendants were well aware of and condoned the ongoing torture.
The second issue that Stephan points out is that the crimes in question didn’t take place in the United States. That makes it unlikely the courts will recognize the validity of the claim.
Thirdly, there’s the “political question.” Courts aren’t open to ruling on matters of a political nature, Stephan says. This doctrine of U.S. Constitutional law has its roots in the case of Marbury v. Madison, in which Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall drew a dividing line between matters over which the courts would have jurisdiction and matters best left to the legislative and executive branches of government. Many judges would view the ramifications of the invasion of Iraq not as a matter of law, but of politics.
“If the expectation is that a federal court will declare that the invasion, although duly authorized by Congress, violated international law and thus violates U.S. law, I would respond that we walked up and down that hill with respect to Vietnam,” Stephan said. “No federal court ever has recognized such a claim.”
Taking a deeper look
But Comar is optimistic that these hurdles can be overcome. The issue of whether or not Bush, Cheney, and the others will be found to have acted in an official capacity isn’t open and shut.
“Ms. Saleh alleges that these defendants entered into government in order to execute a pre-existing plan to overthrow the Hussein regime.”
According to Comar, part of the planning for the invasion happened within the United States, before these officials took office. Multiple letters and position papers emanating from the nonprofit think tank Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, indicate a long-term interest in regime change in Iraq. An open letter written in 1998 to then-president Clinton signed by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld called for the removal of Saddam Hussein using military power. PNAC was also responsible for drafting and guiding the passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, which authorized military support for opposition to Saddam Hussein.
Then, in 2000, Wolfowitz was a signatory to the 90-page report issued by PNAC titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century,” which calls for, among other things, global domination through force of arms. The document tellingly hints at the larger geopolitical justification for war with Iraq, stating that “while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the [Persian] Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
Those documents suggest that, in order to show that these officials were acting in capacity as government employees, the United States needs to prove that the sum of their actions took place entirely within office. Since the officials participated in these actions before they took office, Comar claims, they clearly cannot have been acting in their scope of employment.
Then there’s the political question, which Comar concedes is an often-nebulous doctrine with no clear limits. But that doesn’t mean that the crime of aggression necessarily qualifies as a political question.
Though low-ranking soldiers were prosecuted for torture in Iraq, none of the policy architects were ever held accountable.
“The legality of a war under international law was exactly the type of legal question that the Nuremberg court adjudicated,” Comar says. “We believe that aggression as a tort is actionable under the Alien Tort Statute. It is not a generic international law claim but a bedrock norm of international behavior in the same manner as slavery, genocide or torture, which are all claims that can be made under the Alien Tort Statute.”
Comar is confident that the courts will hear the case but is clear-headed about the prospects for conviction. He says that failure to achieve a multimillion-dollar settlement would not mean failure overall. A trial requires the gathering of evidence and provides a record for posterity.
Furthermore, Comar says, the judiciary is likely the last place people like Sundus Shaker Saleh can turn. It is highly unlikely that any president would ever investigate a past administration in the way sought by the suit, since the executive isn’t keen to open the gates for further scrutiny into its actions. Indeed, the Obama administration has expanded many Bush programs, including the use of drone strikes and domestic surveillance.
Since neither the legislative nor the executive branch have attempted to investigate whether the Bush Administration officials are guilty of war crimes, the last remaining branch through which to seek redress is the judiciary. Pursuing the issue here, Comar believes, will force the issue back into the public sphere.
“Our law recognizes that the actions of every person in this country—even a president—is subject to judicial review before an impartial judge,” Comar says. He continues:
This is a concept that extends back to the Magna Carta, when English barons put restraints on their king in order to protect their rights and privileges. In this case, Ms. Saleh alleges that these defendants entered into government in order to execute a pre-existing plan to overthrow the Hussein regime—a plan that has now led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and U.S. servicemen and women, untold misery for millions, and chaos that continues to plague that country to the present day. This is the very behavior that was outlawed and declared criminal by the Nuremberg Tribunal.
It is unusual in the United States for high government officials to face legal consequences for their actions. Though low-ranking soldiers were prosecuted for torture in Iraq, none of the policy architects were ever held accountable.
Regardless of the resolution of Saleh v. Bush, the case sets an important precedent toward rebuilding a system of laws that apply equally to everyone, even if their alleged crimes were committed in the Oval Office.
Corey Hill wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas and practical actions. He is the membership and outreach coordinator at Global Exchange. Follow Corey on Twitter at @Newschill.
Islamic Terror Groups Are Killing Christians All Over The World And Obama Wants Us To Ally With Them
By Michael Snyder, on September 23rd, 2013
Over the past couple of days, we have witnessed some absolutely horrific examples of Islamic terror groups specifically targeting Christians and those from other non-Muslim religions. Sadly, this is not a new phenomenon. Radical Islamic jihadists are constantly attacking churches and slaughtering Christians all over the planet. The recent events in Pakistan, Kenya and Egypt may have taken this persecution to a new level, but this is just the continuation of a trend that has been building for years. Unfortunately, Barack Obama does not seem too concerned about Islamic terrorism. In fact, he specifically directed that “all references to Islam” be removed from terrorism training materials that the federal government uses. If that wasn’t bad enough, now Obama is actually supplying weapons to the radical jihadist rebels that want to take over Syria, and he appears to be very ready to use the U.S. military to attack the Assad regime directly if “negotiations” with the Syrian government fail. In essence, Obama wants the United States to be allies with psychotic jihadists that have the exact same radical philosophy that those who are killing Christians in Pakistan, Kenya and Egypt have.
Is Obama insane?
In Pakistan, the Taliban (a very close cousin of al-Qaeda) has already claimed responsibility for the worst church bombing in the history of that nation. The attack left 85 dead and nearly twice that many wounded. To say that this was a horrific attack would be a massive understatement…
The attack on All Saints Church, which also wounded 140 people, underlines the threat posed by the Pakistani Taliban at a time when the government is seeking a peace deal with the militants.
The attack occurred as hundreds of worshippers were coming out of the church in the city’s Kohati Gate district after services to get a free meal of rice.
‘There were blasts and there was hell for all of us,’ said Nazir John, who was at the church with at least 400 other worshippers.
‘When I got my senses back, I found nothing but smoke, dust, blood and screaming people. I saw severed body parts and blood all around.’
Who would do something like that?
In Kenya, a team of Al-Shabaab gunmen stormed a shopping mall in Nairobi and murdered at least 62 people.
What makes that attack even more disturbing is that the terrorists specifically targeted non-Muslims.
In fact, hostages were given a test by the terrorists to determine whether or not they were actually Muslims. Those that failed the test were executed…
The reason the Islamists targeted the Westgate shopping centre was clear from the moment they stormed inside brandishing AK-47s and grenades. Anyone who was not a Muslim, or could not prove that they were, was immediately targeted. Reports from separate floors of the building in the first hours of the assault told how the attackers, speaking rough Swahili and English, shouted at Muslims to identify themselves.
Many people came forward. They were ordered to speak in Arabic, or to recite a verse from the Koran, or to name the Prophet Mohammed’s mother. Those who passed this test were allowed to flee. Those that did not were executed, including children.
You can find some very graphic pictures of the attack right here.
Are you starting to understand why I use words such as “psychotic” to describe these terrorists?
And all over the world these radical jihadists seem to have a particular hatred for Christians.
Just consider what has happened in Egypt over the past few months. After the Egyptian military removed the Muslim Brotherhood from power, radical Islamists responded by destroying more than 80 Christian churches…
McCain, Graham: Leak about al Qaeda intercept tips off the enemy
Photo by Astrid Riecken/Getty Images
U.S. intelligence analysts were able to intercept rare communications by al Qaeda leaders who were openly discussing possible terror plots, CBS News learned Monday. The public acknowledgement of the interception, however, could very well tip off terrorists and prompt them to refrain from engaging in such discussions again, two senators warned Tuesday from Cairo, in an interview with CBS News’ Clarrisa Ward.
“I’m very worried about leaks to the media of classified information because it warns the enemy,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Ward. “That’ll be the last intercept of that kind, of means of communication that we intercept.”
Added Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., “If we compromise our ability to find out what these guys are up to and stop them before they act, we’ll pay a heavy price. They’re not deterred by dying. They embrace dying. They just want to take me and you with ‘em.”
While the U.S. is aiming to help settle the unrest in Egypt, it’s also monitoring al Qaeda activity in Yemen, where al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is based. Sources confirmed to CBS News that the intercepted electronic conversation occurred between the top leadership of core Al Qaeda in the tribal areas of Pakistan and the head of AQAP. The intercepted communications prompted the U.S. to close nearly two-dozen embassies and consulates around the world and order non-emergency staff of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen to leave the country.
According to unconfirmed reports, former Republican presidential candidate and current Senator John McCain has joined al-Qaeda.
Informed sources report that McCain slipped across the Syrian border last night and joined the al-Nusra front, an Israeli-supported al-Qaeda affiliate that is waging war against Syria.
McCain issued the following statement explaining his actions: “In the name of Yahweh, the benevolent, the merciful, I hereby declare allegiance to Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri and to the Zionist entity he represents. I have always wanted to grow a beard, cut off some heads, and devour the raw internal organs of my victims, especially since I had a bad experience in a POW camp, so this represents the fulfillment of a lifelong dream. I am grateful to Sheikh al-Zawahiri, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Adam Gadahn, and the other heroic mujewhideen who have made this possible.”
According to terror expert Daniel Pipes, McCain is the highest-level American politician ever to have joined al-Qaeda: “This is a real coup for al-Qaeda. But it wasn’t unexpected. Now that the State of Israel has openly merged with al-Qaeda, and is bombing Syria on behalf of al-Qaeda operations, I believe we will be seeing more well-known American statesmen follow in the footsteps of Senator McCain.”
Another leading terror expert, Steve Emerson, explained: “More and more US Senators are competing to see who can humiliate themselves the most obsequiously as they grovel at the feet of Israel and Netanyahu. What better way to show your devotion to Israel than by joining its favorite false-flag militia and blowing yourself up?”
Meanwhile, McCain’s colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced a resolution (S. Res 65) supporting al-Qaeda’s right to self-defense, and committing the US to go to war to defend al-Qaeda if it should decide to attack any nation, including the US.
Jeff Steinberg of E.I.R. gives an interview to LPACTV where he details the Obama administration’s cover up of the British-Saudi Empire role in orchestrating the 9-11 attacks which are the same forces affiliated with the Al-Nusra militia fighting in Syria against Bashar Al-Assad’s army.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy. Obama’s stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States. Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said. The Illinois Democrat is trying to convince Americans he has the foreign policy heft to be president after a rival candidate, New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton, questioned his readiness to be commander in chief. http://www.reuters.com/article/domest…
Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?
‘All for one and one for all’ should be the battle cry if the West goes to war against Assad’s Syrian regime
If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.
Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.
The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.
This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.
Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa’ida for intelligence help – after all, this is the group with “boots on the ground”, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa’ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa’ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.
There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa’ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan – along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians – they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa’ida’s enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa’ida or the Nusra front.
And our own Prime Minister will applaud whatever the Americans do, thus allying himself with al-Qa’ida, whose London bombings may have slipped his mind. Perhaps – since there is no institutional memory left among modern governments – Cameron has forgotten how similar are the sentiments being uttered by Obama and himself to those uttered by Bush and Blair a decade ago, the same bland assurances, uttered with such self-confidence but without quite enough evidence to make it stick.
BEIRUT — A Syrian rebel group’s April pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda’s replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group’s influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.
The pledge of allegiance by Syrian Jabhat al Nusra Front chief Abou Mohamad al-Joulani to al-Qaeda leader Sheik Ayman al-Zawahri was coupled with an announcement by the al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq, that it would work with al Nusra as well.
Lebanese Sheik Omar Bakri, a Salafist who says states must be governed by Muslim religious law, says al-Qaeda has assisted al Nusra for some time.
“They provided them early on with technical, military and financial support , especially when it came to setting up networks of foreign jihadis who were brought into Syria,” Bakri says. “There will certainly be greater coordination between the two groups.”
The United States, which supports the overthrow of Assad, designated al Nusra a terrorist entity in December. The Obama administration has said it wants to support only those insurgent groups that are not terrorist organizations.
Al Nusra and groups like it have seen some of the most significant victories against Syrian government forces in the course of the 2-year-old uprising in which Assad’s forces have killed about 80,000 people. Rebels not affiliated with al-Qaeda have pressed Washington for months to send weaponry that will allow them to match the heavy weapons of the Syrian army. They’ve urged the West to mount an air campaign against Assad’s mechanized forces.
President Obama refuses to provide any direct military aid. Foreign radical Islamists streaming into the fight from the Middle East and Europe are making headway with the Syrian population by providing services and gaining ground in battles.
Tamer Mouhieddine, spokesman for the Syrian Free Army, a force made up of Syrian soldiers who have defected, said the recent announcements would not change his group’s attitude toward al Nusra.
“The rebels in Syria have one common enemy — Bashar Assad — and they will collaborate with any faction allowing them to topple his regime,” he said.
(Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad’s armed opponents – a shift that intensified following last month’s failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.
The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.
But U.S. and European officials have said that there have been noticeable improvements in the coherence and effectiveness of Syrian rebel groups in the past few weeks. That represents a significant change in assessments of the rebels by Western officials, who previously characterized Assad’s opponents as a disorganized, almost chaotic, rabble.
Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorization, an action not previously reported, could not be determined.
The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment.
A U.S. government source acknowledged that under provisions of the presidential finding, the United States was collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey and its allies.
Last week, Reuters reported that, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey had established a secret base near the Syrian border to help direct vital military and communications support to Assad’s opponents.
This “nerve center” is in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence.
Published time: September 22, 2013 04:24
Edited time: September 22, 2013 08:28
Reuters / Baz Ratner
A farmer is southern Egypt was taken into custody after putting a military chief’s name and a military hat on a donkey, state media reported.
Omar Abul-Magd was arrested late Friday as he rode the donkey through the town in Qena province, MENA news agency reported. The farmer was taken into custody for insulting General Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi, commander-in-chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces who led the military-backed ouster of former president Mohamed Morsi in July. Morsi’s overthrow occurred following nationwide mass protests against the leader.
Eight other people were detained elsewhere in Egypt for spraying anti-military graffiti.
The arrests highlight Egypt’s intensified crackdown on critics of the military since Morsi’s ouster.
Egypt: farmer arrested for parading donkey with army chief’s name on
A farmer in southern Egypt has been arrested after putting the military chief’s name and an army-style cap on his donkey, and another eight people were detained elsewhere in the country for spraying anti-military graffiti.
General el-Sissi, rightPhoto: AP
12:49AM BST 22 Sep 2013
The arrests point to a long-standing taboo in Egypt against criticizing the country’s powerful military, an offence magnified amid the ongoing crackdown on supporters of the country’s ousted President Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood.
The farmer, Omar Abul-Magd, was arrested late on Friday in Qena province for allegedly insulting Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi when he rode the donkey through town, reported the state MENA news agency.
El-Sissi led the military’s popularly-backed ouster of Morsi in July and has been hailed by millions of Egyptians as an icon. His detractors, however, have called him a traitor and a murderer for overseeing the coup and the subsequent attacks on Morsi’s mostly Islamist supporters, including an August raid on two pro-Morsi sit-ins in Cairo that set off violence that killed hundreds nationwide.
At least one of the eight people arrested on Saturday for spraying graffiti against el-Sissi was detained in Cairo, said security officials.
The Hunger Site – Your click helps to feed the hungry
Discount School Supply
Dog Houses . com
Chicken Coop Source . com
Compost Bins . com
FAIR USE NOTICE
Due to the social nature of this site, it may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit, to those who have expressed a prior interest in participating in this community for educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Any materials (ie. graphics, articles , commentary) that are original to this blog are copyrighted and signed by it's creator. Said original material may be shared with attribution. Please respect the work that goes into these items and give the creator his/her credit. Just as we share articles , graphics and photos always giving credit to their creators when available. Credit and a link back to the original source is required.
If you have an issue with anything posted here or would prefer we not use it . Please contact me. Any items that are requested to be removed by the copyright owner it will be removed immediately. No threats needed or lawsuit required. If there is a problem and you do not wish your work to be showcased then we will happily find an alternative from the many sources readily available from creators who would find it amenable to having their work presented to the subscribers of this feed.
Thank you for your time and attention, blessings to all :)