Saturday, May 28, 2011
Arab Mentality
Date: Monday, May 23, 2011, 5:08 PM
From: Dr. Arieh Eldad:
I was instrumental in establishing the Israeli National Skin Bank, which is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations.
This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of plastic surgery. This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza , who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned her. Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair.
We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment. She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Prof. Lior Rosenberg and discharged to return to Gaza . She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheva.
One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt.
She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life.
It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her.
This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel .It is not a territorial conflict. This is a civilizational conflict, or rather a war between civilization & barbarism.
Bibi (Netanyahu) gets it, Obama does not.
I have never written before asking to please forward onwards, so that as many as possible can understand radical Islam and what awaits the world if it is not stopped.
Dr Arieh Eldad
Eldad is a professor and head of the plastic surgery and burns unit at the Hadassah Medical Center hospital in Jerusalem. He studied medicine at Tel Aviv University, where he earned his doctorate. He served as the chief medical officer and was the senior commander of the Israeli Defense Forces medical corps for 25 years, and reached a rank of Tat Aluf ( Brigadier General). He is renowned worldwide for his treatment of burns and won the Evans Award from the American Burns Treatment Association. He also lives in Kfar Adumim a settlement on the West Bank .
From: Dr. Arieh Eldad:
I was instrumental in establishing the Israeli National Skin Bank, which is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations.
This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of plastic surgery. This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza , who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned her. Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair.
We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment. She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Prof. Lior Rosenberg and discharged to return to Gaza . She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheva.
One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt.
She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life.
It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her.
This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel .It is not a territorial conflict. This is a civilizational conflict, or rather a war between civilization & barbarism.
Bibi (Netanyahu) gets it, Obama does not.
I have never written before asking to please forward onwards, so that as many as possible can understand radical Islam and what awaits the world if it is not stopped.
Dr Arieh Eldad
Eldad is a professor and head of the plastic surgery and burns unit at the Hadassah Medical Center hospital in Jerusalem. He studied medicine at Tel Aviv University, where he earned his doctorate. He served as the chief medical officer and was the senior commander of the Israeli Defense Forces medical corps for 25 years, and reached a rank of Tat Aluf ( Brigadier General). He is renowned worldwide for his treatment of burns and won the Evans Award from the American Burns Treatment Association. He also lives in Kfar Adumim a settlement on the West Bank .
Lessons From Castro
EDITORIAL
Here's something to think about . . . .
I remember asking dad about Castro when I was about 9 years old. I asked, "Is Castro a good guy or bad?"
Dad said he couldn't tell ! This was about 1955. We were living in Louisiana at the time. Dad was in the army there.
Cuba was fairly close and in the news a lot. The Cubans were asking the same question!
Eisnenhower (Ike) was the U.S. President.
This past July, we had the pleasure of sharing a summer barbecue with a refugee from Cuba. Our dinner conversation was starkly different than most.
This refugee came to the United States as a young boy in the early 1960s. His family was more fortunate than most as they were able to bring a suitcase and $100 when they fled Castro's newly formed revolutionary paradise.
Our dinner consisted of all-American fare: hamburgers, potato salad, watermelon and fresh ears of sweet corn. This is a menu shared with family and friends nationwide, while celebrating the birth of our beloved America on the Fourth of July.
We began with a simple discussion about our country and the direction it has taken since Barack Obama came to power. We shared the usual complaints about the sour economy and liberal social engineering emanating from the rulers in Washington.
But then he said it. The sentence came naturally. I assume it was unplanned. But it carried the weight of a freight train. "You know when Castro took power, none of us knew he was a Communist."
We sat stunned. He continued, "Yes, we all thought he was a patriot, a nationalist. Before the revolution he didn't sound like a radical."
The comparison at this point was easy, and I interjected, "You mean just like Barack Obama?"
He responded;"Yes, just like Barack Obama."
He continued, "We were all shocked as the government just continued to grab more power. First they said the revolution is over, so please turn in your guns. We all complied."
"I remember my uncle saying after it started;'Castro will only nationalize some of the big industries, he will never come and take our family hardware store.' But that is exactly what happened; Castro started with the sugar mills and the large industries, but they eventually came and knocked on the door of our family hardware store. My family had run this store for generations. They said we now own the hardware store, you work for us. And that nice, large four-bedroom home you own, it is now our property also, and you can move yourself and five children into two rooms of the house because others are moving in with you."
The lesson learned from this discussion is a lesson most Americans refuse to hear. Political leaders can lie about their agenda and once in office they can take totally unexpected turns.
If you had asked us three years ago if we thought General Motors would be nationalized, we would have never believed it. We could never contemplate a country where the rule of law, the most fundamental building block of a justice society would be evaporating just like it did in Castro's Cuba in the early 1960s.
But the news of injustice keeps increasing. Black Panthers are not charged with wrongdoing by the U.S. Department of Justice because their crimes are against whites. The bondholders of GM are stripped of their assets without due process by the government. Governmental leaders are bribed in full daylight only to have all investigation of the crimes stifled by the Attorney General. The U.S. borders are overrun with crime and illegal activity and the leaders in D.C. act as if it is important to protect the lawbreakers while the innocent are killed and overrun. When local communities attempt to enforce the law, they are ridiculed and threatened as racists and bigots. They are sued by the very administration entrusted with enforcing the law.
Without the rule of law the U.S. Constitution is a sham. Without the rule of law our beloved America is swiftly becoming a country where only the well connected and politically powerful will be safe. As Michelle Malkin has so eloquently explained in her recent book, a culture of corruption has replaced honest government.
The only way this problem will be fixed is by massive citizen action. All honest citizens that want to be treated equally must come together and demand that the favoritism, the bribes, the uneven enforcement of law end now. And yes, it can happen here.
Here's something to think about . . . .
I remember asking dad about Castro when I was about 9 years old. I asked, "Is Castro a good guy or bad?"
Dad said he couldn't tell ! This was about 1955. We were living in Louisiana at the time. Dad was in the army there.
Cuba was fairly close and in the news a lot. The Cubans were asking the same question!
Eisnenhower (Ike) was the U.S. President.
This past July, we had the pleasure of sharing a summer barbecue with a refugee from Cuba. Our dinner conversation was starkly different than most.
This refugee came to the United States as a young boy in the early 1960s. His family was more fortunate than most as they were able to bring a suitcase and $100 when they fled Castro's newly formed revolutionary paradise.
Our dinner consisted of all-American fare: hamburgers, potato salad, watermelon and fresh ears of sweet corn. This is a menu shared with family and friends nationwide, while celebrating the birth of our beloved America on the Fourth of July.
We began with a simple discussion about our country and the direction it has taken since Barack Obama came to power. We shared the usual complaints about the sour economy and liberal social engineering emanating from the rulers in Washington.
But then he said it. The sentence came naturally. I assume it was unplanned. But it carried the weight of a freight train. "You know when Castro took power, none of us knew he was a Communist."
We sat stunned. He continued, "Yes, we all thought he was a patriot, a nationalist. Before the revolution he didn't sound like a radical."
The comparison at this point was easy, and I interjected, "You mean just like Barack Obama?"
He responded;"Yes, just like Barack Obama."
He continued, "We were all shocked as the government just continued to grab more power. First they said the revolution is over, so please turn in your guns. We all complied."
"I remember my uncle saying after it started;'Castro will only nationalize some of the big industries, he will never come and take our family hardware store.' But that is exactly what happened; Castro started with the sugar mills and the large industries, but they eventually came and knocked on the door of our family hardware store. My family had run this store for generations. They said we now own the hardware store, you work for us. And that nice, large four-bedroom home you own, it is now our property also, and you can move yourself and five children into two rooms of the house because others are moving in with you."
The lesson learned from this discussion is a lesson most Americans refuse to hear. Political leaders can lie about their agenda and once in office they can take totally unexpected turns.
If you had asked us three years ago if we thought General Motors would be nationalized, we would have never believed it. We could never contemplate a country where the rule of law, the most fundamental building block of a justice society would be evaporating just like it did in Castro's Cuba in the early 1960s.
But the news of injustice keeps increasing. Black Panthers are not charged with wrongdoing by the U.S. Department of Justice because their crimes are against whites. The bondholders of GM are stripped of their assets without due process by the government. Governmental leaders are bribed in full daylight only to have all investigation of the crimes stifled by the Attorney General. The U.S. borders are overrun with crime and illegal activity and the leaders in D.C. act as if it is important to protect the lawbreakers while the innocent are killed and overrun. When local communities attempt to enforce the law, they are ridiculed and threatened as racists and bigots. They are sued by the very administration entrusted with enforcing the law.
Without the rule of law the U.S. Constitution is a sham. Without the rule of law our beloved America is swiftly becoming a country where only the well connected and politically powerful will be safe. As Michelle Malkin has so eloquently explained in her recent book, a culture of corruption has replaced honest government.
The only way this problem will be fixed is by massive citizen action. All honest citizens that want to be treated equally must come together and demand that the favoritism, the bribes, the uneven enforcement of law end now. And yes, it can happen here.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
US Money To Muslim Nations
It's All Your Money: Foreign Aid to Muslim/Arab nations
by William LaJeunesse | May 24, 2011
While America's standing in the Middle East couldn't get much lower, you wouldn't know it looking at the U.S. foreign aid budget. Of proposed U.S. assistance for 2012, almost two-thirds is earmarked for Muslim nations and one-third goes to Arab countries.
Yet, despite those billions in aid, opinion polls show most Arab citizens still have an unfavorable view of America and most Muslim nations routinely vote against U.S. interests in the United Nations.
"If we are giving money to countries consistently voting against our interest, we ought to cut them off," says Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH) who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "But Congress is going to need to get some backbone here because it consistently gives Presidents the ability to waive the cutoff of that money."
Years ago, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton proposed cutting off all aid to the 30 nations who consistently voted against the U.S. in the UN. Before him, President Reagan's U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick proposed cutting off $1 million in aid for each vote an aid recipient cast against the U.S. in the U.N. In both cases, Bolton says the State Department overruled them.
"Foreign aid to a lot of countries could be readily cut and I think it's been a mistake by the U.S. government for decades not to take U.N. voting into account," Bolton said Monday.
This document, released by the State Department, examines 13 critical votes in the UN in 2010.
Compare that to this list of US aid recipients for 2012 and this poll released last week by the Pew Research Center Global Attitudes Project.
The result: some of the largest recipients of U.S. taxpayer money over the last 6 budget years consistently vote against the U.S. and harbor negative or unfavorable views of America.
Some other Muslim countries show almost no friendship or allegiance to the U.S. but continue to see the State Department shower them with money.
Algeria has received $60 million and votes with the U.S. just 16% of the time. Oman $74 million, 18% voting coincidence. Whereas the Palestinian Territories received $3 billion dollars yet just 18% have a favorable view of the U.S.
"The U.S. has to quit being kicked around. We need to quit sending our tax dollars to countries that do not have our best interests in mind, especially in these economic times," says Chabot.
Instead, if you look at U.S. aid over time, it's largely on auto-pilot. Once a nation is on the U.S. gravy train, few are ever cut off, regardless of their loyalty, gratitude or actions.
This link allows you to see who gets aid and where it goes.
In our analysis of the numbers, of the President's 2012 foreign assistance request of $34.5 billion, 60% or $20.1 billion goes to Muslim nations, or those where a majority practice Islam. About 33% or the total budget, or $11.6 billion is awarded to Arab countries.
And while many Americans think most U.S. foreign aid goes to "humanitarian assistance" or food and medicine for the poor, an analysis shows 80% of our aid to Arab countries pays for police and the military. And despite the President's speech last week calling for closer ties with Middle Eastern nations and fostering free market, democratic principles, just 5% of our aid to the region is dedicated to 'economic development'.
While some suggest our support for repressive, autocratic regimes explains America's poor poll numbers, and should be discontinued, Bolton has a different view.
While conceding a reform of U.S. foreign aid is "way overdue" he says, "I don't think the opinions you see in foreign countries should govern where the aid goes. It should be based on what is in our interest not what is in their interest."
Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/24/its-all-your-money-foreign-aid-muslimarab-nations#ixzz1NHEwQqgI
by William LaJeunesse | May 24, 2011
While America's standing in the Middle East couldn't get much lower, you wouldn't know it looking at the U.S. foreign aid budget. Of proposed U.S. assistance for 2012, almost two-thirds is earmarked for Muslim nations and one-third goes to Arab countries.
Yet, despite those billions in aid, opinion polls show most Arab citizens still have an unfavorable view of America and most Muslim nations routinely vote against U.S. interests in the United Nations.
"If we are giving money to countries consistently voting against our interest, we ought to cut them off," says Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH) who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "But Congress is going to need to get some backbone here because it consistently gives Presidents the ability to waive the cutoff of that money."
Years ago, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton proposed cutting off all aid to the 30 nations who consistently voted against the U.S. in the UN. Before him, President Reagan's U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick proposed cutting off $1 million in aid for each vote an aid recipient cast against the U.S. in the U.N. In both cases, Bolton says the State Department overruled them.
"Foreign aid to a lot of countries could be readily cut and I think it's been a mistake by the U.S. government for decades not to take U.N. voting into account," Bolton said Monday.
This document, released by the State Department, examines 13 critical votes in the UN in 2010.
Compare that to this list of US aid recipients for 2012 and this poll released last week by the Pew Research Center Global Attitudes Project.
The result: some of the largest recipients of U.S. taxpayer money over the last 6 budget years consistently vote against the U.S. and harbor negative or unfavorable views of America.
Some other Muslim countries show almost no friendship or allegiance to the U.S. but continue to see the State Department shower them with money.
Algeria has received $60 million and votes with the U.S. just 16% of the time. Oman $74 million, 18% voting coincidence. Whereas the Palestinian Territories received $3 billion dollars yet just 18% have a favorable view of the U.S.
"The U.S. has to quit being kicked around. We need to quit sending our tax dollars to countries that do not have our best interests in mind, especially in these economic times," says Chabot.
Instead, if you look at U.S. aid over time, it's largely on auto-pilot. Once a nation is on the U.S. gravy train, few are ever cut off, regardless of their loyalty, gratitude or actions.
This link allows you to see who gets aid and where it goes.
In our analysis of the numbers, of the President's 2012 foreign assistance request of $34.5 billion, 60% or $20.1 billion goes to Muslim nations, or those where a majority practice Islam. About 33% or the total budget, or $11.6 billion is awarded to Arab countries.
And while many Americans think most U.S. foreign aid goes to "humanitarian assistance" or food and medicine for the poor, an analysis shows 80% of our aid to Arab countries pays for police and the military. And despite the President's speech last week calling for closer ties with Middle Eastern nations and fostering free market, democratic principles, just 5% of our aid to the region is dedicated to 'economic development'.
While some suggest our support for repressive, autocratic regimes explains America's poor poll numbers, and should be discontinued, Bolton has a different view.
While conceding a reform of U.S. foreign aid is "way overdue" he says, "I don't think the opinions you see in foreign countries should govern where the aid goes. It should be based on what is in our interest not what is in their interest."
Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/24/its-all-your-money-foreign-aid-muslimarab-nations#ixzz1NHEwQqgI
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Obama Calls For Israeli Border Roll-Back
Netanyahu Rejects Obama Call for Palestinian State Based on 1967 Borders
Published May 19, 2011
May 19: President Barack Obama delivers a policy address on events in the Middle East at the State Department in Washington.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu swiftly rejected President Obama's call Thursday for Israel to pull back to the borders that existed before the 1967 Six-Day War, calling those lines militarily "indefensible."
Obama, in a sweeping address tackling the uprisings in the Middle East and the stalled peace process, stunned Washington and Jerusalem by endorsing Palestinians' demand for their own state based on the pre-1967 borders. The break with longstanding U.S. policy appeared to immediately aggravate the Israelis, who want the borders of any future Palestinian state determined through negotiations.
In a statement released late Thursday, Netanyahu said such a withdrawal would jeopardize Israel's security and leave major West Bank settlements outside Israeli borders.
"Israel appreciates President Obama's commitment to peace," the statement said. "Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state. That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004. ... Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines."
The U.S. had previously endorsed the concept of a Palestinian state, but not the demand for permanent pre-1967 borders, with mutually agreed land swaps. The declaration comes ahead of a meeting in Washington between Obama and Netanyahu.
"The status quo is unsustainable," Obama said. "A lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples."
Though the shift will likely create tension as the president meets with Netanyahu and heads next to address Israel advocacy group AIPAC this weekend, Obama sought to assure that the United States' commitment to Israeli security is "unshakable."
He said Israeli's right to defend itself will remain paramount, and suggested the recent unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas, which the U.S. deems a terrorist group, is problematic for negotiations. Though Israel occupied East Jerusalem, along with the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in the 1967 Six Day War, Obama said Thursday that the "future of Jerusalem" remains to be worked out, as does the fate of Palestinian refugees.
He also publicly rejected attempts by the Palestinians to gain recognition for their own state before the United Nations. "Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state," Obama said.
The border announcement, which came toward the end of the president's 50-minute speech, was arguably the most significant statement in an address otherwise devoted to underscoring U.S. support for the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. Speaking at the State Department, the president sought to align the U.S. with the ambitions of protesters pushing for economic and political reform, while warning heads of state who resist this wave that the U.S. is losing patience.
"We cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just," he said.
Obama, in his strongest words to date, offered an ultimatum to Syrian President Bashar Assad. "President Assad now has a choice. He can lead that transition or get out of the way," Obama said.
He said Assad's regime, which has killed hundreds in an effort to quell the unrest in Syria, must stop shooting and arresting its people.
Obama also called Al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden, who was killed by U.S. forces in Pakistan, a "dead end," suggesting the push for reform will represent the future of the region. He sought to connect the death of bin Laden to the wave of protests, arguing that anti-western rhetoric and attacks are losing their audience. "The slaughter of innocents did not answer their cry for a better life," he said.
Rather, Obama said: "A new generation has emerged and their voices tell us that change cannot be denied."
The president is taking a carrot-and-stick approach as the Arab Spring turns to summer and protesters' demands across the region are met with repression.
After sending U.S. forces into Libya two months ago to halt strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi's advances against his people, the Obama administration sent a message Wednesday to Assad by slapping him and top officials in Damascus with financial sanctions over his regime's brutal crackdown.
Obama, in his speech Thursday, addressed the standoff in these two countries, staunchly defending U.S. military involvement in Libya. But he also offered new levels of support to Egypt and Tunisia, countries where demonstrations ousted entrenched leaders and which the administration is holding up as a "beacon" in the region, according to one official.
He outlined specific dollar support for Egypt, where the nation's tourism-fueled economy has fallen into a slump in the wake of the upheaval, in turn increasing the country's projected deficit. Obama said Thursday the U.S. would forgive roughly $1 billion in debt owed by Egypt to free up money for job-creation efforts there. Plus he plans to guarantee up to $1 billion in loans for Egypt through the Overseas Private Investment Corp., a U.S. government institution that mobilizes private capital.
Obama is pushing other steps to bolster loans, trade and international support in Egypt and in Tunisia. Protesters in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria and other nations have endured brutal setbacks. He said the changes in the region mark a "new chapter" for U.S. diplomacy and argued that America has an important role to play.
A new poll out of the Pew Research Center, though, found that the shifting political sands in the Middle East have not generally led to an improvement in the U.S. image in the region.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/19/obamas-mideast-speech-offers-punishment-praise/#ixzz1Mpdn4snG
Published May 19, 2011
May 19: President Barack Obama delivers a policy address on events in the Middle East at the State Department in Washington.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu swiftly rejected President Obama's call Thursday for Israel to pull back to the borders that existed before the 1967 Six-Day War, calling those lines militarily "indefensible."
Obama, in a sweeping address tackling the uprisings in the Middle East and the stalled peace process, stunned Washington and Jerusalem by endorsing Palestinians' demand for their own state based on the pre-1967 borders. The break with longstanding U.S. policy appeared to immediately aggravate the Israelis, who want the borders of any future Palestinian state determined through negotiations.
In a statement released late Thursday, Netanyahu said such a withdrawal would jeopardize Israel's security and leave major West Bank settlements outside Israeli borders.
"Israel appreciates President Obama's commitment to peace," the statement said. "Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state. That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004. ... Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines."
The U.S. had previously endorsed the concept of a Palestinian state, but not the demand for permanent pre-1967 borders, with mutually agreed land swaps. The declaration comes ahead of a meeting in Washington between Obama and Netanyahu.
"The status quo is unsustainable," Obama said. "A lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples."
Though the shift will likely create tension as the president meets with Netanyahu and heads next to address Israel advocacy group AIPAC this weekend, Obama sought to assure that the United States' commitment to Israeli security is "unshakable."
He said Israeli's right to defend itself will remain paramount, and suggested the recent unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas, which the U.S. deems a terrorist group, is problematic for negotiations. Though Israel occupied East Jerusalem, along with the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in the 1967 Six Day War, Obama said Thursday that the "future of Jerusalem" remains to be worked out, as does the fate of Palestinian refugees.
He also publicly rejected attempts by the Palestinians to gain recognition for their own state before the United Nations. "Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state," Obama said.
The border announcement, which came toward the end of the president's 50-minute speech, was arguably the most significant statement in an address otherwise devoted to underscoring U.S. support for the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. Speaking at the State Department, the president sought to align the U.S. with the ambitions of protesters pushing for economic and political reform, while warning heads of state who resist this wave that the U.S. is losing patience.
"We cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just," he said.
Obama, in his strongest words to date, offered an ultimatum to Syrian President Bashar Assad. "President Assad now has a choice. He can lead that transition or get out of the way," Obama said.
He said Assad's regime, which has killed hundreds in an effort to quell the unrest in Syria, must stop shooting and arresting its people.
Obama also called Al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden, who was killed by U.S. forces in Pakistan, a "dead end," suggesting the push for reform will represent the future of the region. He sought to connect the death of bin Laden to the wave of protests, arguing that anti-western rhetoric and attacks are losing their audience. "The slaughter of innocents did not answer their cry for a better life," he said.
Rather, Obama said: "A new generation has emerged and their voices tell us that change cannot be denied."
The president is taking a carrot-and-stick approach as the Arab Spring turns to summer and protesters' demands across the region are met with repression.
After sending U.S. forces into Libya two months ago to halt strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi's advances against his people, the Obama administration sent a message Wednesday to Assad by slapping him and top officials in Damascus with financial sanctions over his regime's brutal crackdown.
Obama, in his speech Thursday, addressed the standoff in these two countries, staunchly defending U.S. military involvement in Libya. But he also offered new levels of support to Egypt and Tunisia, countries where demonstrations ousted entrenched leaders and which the administration is holding up as a "beacon" in the region, according to one official.
He outlined specific dollar support for Egypt, where the nation's tourism-fueled economy has fallen into a slump in the wake of the upheaval, in turn increasing the country's projected deficit. Obama said Thursday the U.S. would forgive roughly $1 billion in debt owed by Egypt to free up money for job-creation efforts there. Plus he plans to guarantee up to $1 billion in loans for Egypt through the Overseas Private Investment Corp., a U.S. government institution that mobilizes private capital.
Obama is pushing other steps to bolster loans, trade and international support in Egypt and in Tunisia. Protesters in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria and other nations have endured brutal setbacks. He said the changes in the region mark a "new chapter" for U.S. diplomacy and argued that America has an important role to play.
A new poll out of the Pew Research Center, though, found that the shifting political sands in the Middle East have not generally led to an improvement in the U.S. image in the region.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/19/obamas-mideast-speech-offers-punishment-praise/#ixzz1Mpdn4snG
Sharia Involved IN US Court Cases
New Study Finds Shariah Law Involved in Court Cases in 23 States
Washington, DC, May 17, 2011 - The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study-- Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.
Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times put it that, “…There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah.” To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases.
Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy. The Center’s analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases.
The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections.
On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
"These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded."
Key Findings:
Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of a sample of twenty cases, as well as the full published texts for all fifty cases.
Mr. Gaffney added:
“This study represents a timely contribution to the debate developing around the country: To what extent is the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah being insinuated into the United States? The analysis complements and powerfully reinforces the warnings contained in the Center’s bestselling 2010 “Team B II” Report, Shariah: The Threat to America. It confirms that Shariah’s adherents are making a concerted effort to bring their anti-constitutional code to this country.
“Together with follow-on analyses now in preparation, we hope to equip those who share the Center’s commitment to the Constitution of the United States, to the liberties it guarantees and to the democratic government it mandates to thwart those like the Muslim Brotherhood who would supplant freedom with Shariah law. Clearly, we must work to keep America Shariah-free, or risk inexorably losing the country we love.”
The full text of the study, including text from the court cases and tables displaying the findings, can be found at www.ShariahInAmericanCourts.com
Washington, DC, May 17, 2011 - The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study-- Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.
Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times put it that, “…There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah.” To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases.
Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy. The Center’s analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases.
The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections.
On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
"These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded."
Key Findings:
- At the trial court level, 22 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 15 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level.
- At the appellate Court level: 23 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 12 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.
- The 50 cases were classified into seven distinct “Categories” of dispute: 21 cases dealt with “Shariah Marriage Law”; 17 cases involved “Child Custody”; 5 dealt with “Shariah Contract Law”; 3 dealt with general “Shariah Doctrine”; 2 were concerned with “Shariah Property Law”; 1 dealt with “Due Process/Equal Protection” and 1 dealt with the combined “Shariah Marriage Law/Child Custody.”
- The 50 cases were based in 23 different states: 6 cases were found in New Jersey; 5 in California; 4 each in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington; 3 each in Maryland, Texas and Virginia; 2 each in Louisiana and Nebraska; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Carolina.
Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of a sample of twenty cases, as well as the full published texts for all fifty cases.
Mr. Gaffney added:
“This study represents a timely contribution to the debate developing around the country: To what extent is the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah being insinuated into the United States? The analysis complements and powerfully reinforces the warnings contained in the Center’s bestselling 2010 “Team B II” Report, Shariah: The Threat to America. It confirms that Shariah’s adherents are making a concerted effort to bring their anti-constitutional code to this country.
“Together with follow-on analyses now in preparation, we hope to equip those who share the Center’s commitment to the Constitution of the United States, to the liberties it guarantees and to the democratic government it mandates to thwart those like the Muslim Brotherhood who would supplant freedom with Shariah law. Clearly, we must work to keep America Shariah-free, or risk inexorably losing the country we love.”
The full text of the study, including text from the court cases and tables displaying the findings, can be found at www.ShariahInAmericanCourts.com
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Islamists and 'Journalism' in Nashville, TN
Make this video go viral! Please send this link and the action items below to your email blast lists and social networking sites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4TLQbVs5LQ
Call Nicholas Zeppos, Chancellor, Vanderbilt University: 615-322-1813
Respectfully ask him if he would allow other known radicals, such as a David Duke, to openly come on the campus and espouse anti-semitism?
Then why are Islamists such as Awadh Binhazim, Vanderbilt Adjunct Muslim Chaplain, being allowed to openly preach on the Vanderbilt Campus that shariah law should be followed over our Constitutional form of government?
Call Mark Silverman, Editor at the Tennessean Newspaper: 615-259-8003
Respectfully ask him why Religion Editor Bob Smietana didn’t report the news “straight up” on this story when the facts were clear had he performed just a minimum amount of research work? And now that the facts have surfaced publicly, will the Tennessean report them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4TLQbVs5LQ
Call Nicholas Zeppos, Chancellor, Vanderbilt University: 615-322-1813
Respectfully ask him if he would allow other known radicals, such as a David Duke, to openly come on the campus and espouse anti-semitism?
Then why are Islamists such as Awadh Binhazim, Vanderbilt Adjunct Muslim Chaplain, being allowed to openly preach on the Vanderbilt Campus that shariah law should be followed over our Constitutional form of government?
Call Mark Silverman, Editor at the Tennessean Newspaper: 615-259-8003
Respectfully ask him why Religion Editor Bob Smietana didn’t report the news “straight up” on this story when the facts were clear had he performed just a minimum amount of research work? And now that the facts have surfaced publicly, will the Tennessean report them?
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Has Border Security Improved?
GOP Disputes Obama's Claim That Border Security Has Improved
Published May 10, 2011
Republicans immediately fired back against President Obama after he claimed Tuesday that the U.S. border with Mexico has improved since he took office.
Obama made the comment during his first trip to the U.S.-Mexico border as commander-in-chief, where he called on Congress to pass sweeping legislation that would remake the nation's immigration system.
Countering Republican calls to focus on border security before moving to a comprehensive overhaul, Obama said in his speech to an enthusiastic crowd in the politically unfriendly territory of El Paso, Texas, that their demands have been more than met by his administration but "they'll never be satisfied."
He boasted of increasing border patrol agents, nearing completion of a border fence, and screening more cargo.
"We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement," Obama said. "But even though we've answered these concerns, I gotta say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time."
Obama's Immigration Remarks Policy or Politics?
"Maybe they'll need a moat," Obama said mockingly to laughter from the crowd. "Maybe they'll want alligators in the moat."
But Republicans said Obama wasn't telling the whole story about border security. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said Mexican cartels have increased their presence inside the U.S., the data on spillover crime and violence is "underreported" and that between 70 and 90 percent of Texas' 1,200-mile border with Mexico is still not under operational control.
"Before we start talking about reforming our immigration policy we need to prioritize our national security and gain operational control of the border," he said in a statement. "Despite the president's rhetoric that he has gone 'above and beyond' to secure the border, this mission is not accomplished."
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said, "It is ironic that President Obama would travel so close to the border and still be so far from reality. It is clear President Obama is in full campaign mode, but his words do not match his record. He continues to ignore the facts."
In his speech, the president sought to cast immigration overhaul as a pocketbook concern rather than a security or moral issue.
Obama noted that Intel, Google, Yahoo and eBay were all founded by an immigrant.
"We don't want the next Intel or Google to be created in China or India," he said. "We want those companies and jobs to take root in America."
Obama said a bipartisan consensus has formed around "fixing what's broken."
"Now we need Congress to catch up," he said. "Now we need to come together around reform that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. Reform that demands everyone take responsibility."
Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that House Republicans had no plans to take up immigration legislation and argued that if Obama were serious about immigration reform he would have reached out to Boehner on the issue, which Buck said he hasn't.
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz urged Republicans to join Democrats in passing immigration reform "as soon as possible."
"Like the president, I believe that immigration reform must be a priority in Washington. But President Obama and Democrats can't bring about immigration reform on our own," she said. "To succeed, we'll need Republicans to join us in this venture as equal partners. Immigration reform simply is not possible as long as Republicans in Congress refuse to engage on this issue."
Obama called on Congress to pass the so-called DREAM Act, which would prove a pathway to legal status for college students and others who were brought to the country as children. Last year, the House, then controlled by Democrats, passed the measure, but Senate Republicans blocked it.
"So we're going to keep fighting for the DREAM Act," he said. "We're going to up the fight for reform."
Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, will introduce a new DREAM Act bill on Wednesday and Rep. Howard Berman of California will file a companion measure.
But that bill and any overhaul legislation won't go anywhere without cooperation from Republicans.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/10/obama-urges-congress-pass-immigration-reform/#ixzz1M3Akq5Rd
Published May 10, 2011
Republicans immediately fired back against President Obama after he claimed Tuesday that the U.S. border with Mexico has improved since he took office.
Obama made the comment during his first trip to the U.S.-Mexico border as commander-in-chief, where he called on Congress to pass sweeping legislation that would remake the nation's immigration system.
Countering Republican calls to focus on border security before moving to a comprehensive overhaul, Obama said in his speech to an enthusiastic crowd in the politically unfriendly territory of El Paso, Texas, that their demands have been more than met by his administration but "they'll never be satisfied."
He boasted of increasing border patrol agents, nearing completion of a border fence, and screening more cargo.
"We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement," Obama said. "But even though we've answered these concerns, I gotta say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time."
Obama's Immigration Remarks Policy or Politics?
"Maybe they'll need a moat," Obama said mockingly to laughter from the crowd. "Maybe they'll want alligators in the moat."
But Republicans said Obama wasn't telling the whole story about border security. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said Mexican cartels have increased their presence inside the U.S., the data on spillover crime and violence is "underreported" and that between 70 and 90 percent of Texas' 1,200-mile border with Mexico is still not under operational control.
"Before we start talking about reforming our immigration policy we need to prioritize our national security and gain operational control of the border," he said in a statement. "Despite the president's rhetoric that he has gone 'above and beyond' to secure the border, this mission is not accomplished."
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said, "It is ironic that President Obama would travel so close to the border and still be so far from reality. It is clear President Obama is in full campaign mode, but his words do not match his record. He continues to ignore the facts."
In his speech, the president sought to cast immigration overhaul as a pocketbook concern rather than a security or moral issue.
Obama noted that Intel, Google, Yahoo and eBay were all founded by an immigrant.
"We don't want the next Intel or Google to be created in China or India," he said. "We want those companies and jobs to take root in America."
Obama said a bipartisan consensus has formed around "fixing what's broken."
"Now we need Congress to catch up," he said. "Now we need to come together around reform that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. Reform that demands everyone take responsibility."
Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that House Republicans had no plans to take up immigration legislation and argued that if Obama were serious about immigration reform he would have reached out to Boehner on the issue, which Buck said he hasn't.
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz urged Republicans to join Democrats in passing immigration reform "as soon as possible."
"Like the president, I believe that immigration reform must be a priority in Washington. But President Obama and Democrats can't bring about immigration reform on our own," she said. "To succeed, we'll need Republicans to join us in this venture as equal partners. Immigration reform simply is not possible as long as Republicans in Congress refuse to engage on this issue."
Obama called on Congress to pass the so-called DREAM Act, which would prove a pathway to legal status for college students and others who were brought to the country as children. Last year, the House, then controlled by Democrats, passed the measure, but Senate Republicans blocked it.
"So we're going to keep fighting for the DREAM Act," he said. "We're going to up the fight for reform."
Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, will introduce a new DREAM Act bill on Wednesday and Rep. Howard Berman of California will file a companion measure.
But that bill and any overhaul legislation won't go anywhere without cooperation from Republicans.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/10/obama-urges-congress-pass-immigration-reform/#ixzz1M3Akq5Rd
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
SEIU Drops Mask Goes Full Commie
SEIU Drops Mask, Goes Full Commie
Parade Video
Read The Full Story. See Photographic Proof
Obama Speech
Parade Video
Read The Full Story. See Photographic Proof
Obama Speech
Sunday, May 08, 2011
Feds Order Release Of Illegals
Ariz. Sheriff: Feds Order Release of Illegals to Phony Up Numbers
Friday, 06 May 2011 04:52 PM
By Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella
The U.S. Border Patrol has told its agents to stop arresting illegal aliens crossing the border from Mexico to keep the illegal immigration numbers down, Arizona Sheriff Larry Dever tells Newsmax.
He also charges that Attorney General Eric Holder is “holding hands with the ACLU” to protect illegal aliens from prosecution, says illegals are committing “heinous crimes” across America every day, and calls claims that the federal government should be solely responsible for controlling illegal immigration “balderdash.”
Dever is sheriff of Cochise County, which shares an 83-mile border with Mexico, and he says his Border Patrol sector is responsible for half of all illegal aliens caught trying to enter the country and halt the narcotics entering the United States.
Story Continues Below Video
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, he was asked about the Obama administration’s bragging that the border is more secure than ever.
“For the secretary of homeland security to say the border is more secure than ever, well, I’ve been there forever and there was a happier time than what it is today. We have a long, long way to go.
“Don’t drink the Kool-Aid and buy into 'this border is secure' nonsense.
“There’s a bad element in the mix of the aliens that are crossing that border and they don’t stay there, they move into communities throughout the country. And every day there are travesties and heinous crimes being committed by those people. If we don’t stop it at the border, it’s just going to continue to grow.”
Dever recently told Congress that in one district in Texas, illegals are allowed to be caught crossing the border 14 times before being charged with a felony, and federal smuggling charges are not considered unless at least six illegal aliens are being smuggled into the country.
“It doesn’t surprise me because we’ve been seeing that every day in Arizona, with artificial thresholds for narcotics, for human smuggling,” he tells Newsmax.
“For that to be issued as a written solid order, it’s outrageous.”
He also explains how he has heard that the Border Patrol has told officers to stop arresting Mexican illegals to keep official illegal immigration figures down.
“That comes from agents on the ground, who have told me, told my deputies, told citizens in the area.
“They have in the past been instructed to scare people back or turn them back south versus arresting them.”
Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher’s has denied that agents have been told not to arrest Mexican illegals. Dever responds: “I tend to believe there is no written order to that effect. But if your agents on the ground have that perception and that understanding, then you need to go back and change it.
“If they’re lying, shame on them, and shame on me for bringing it up. But frankly, my staff, when they heard this, they said what’s the big deal? We’ve been hearing this forever. And people who live in my county say the same things.
“So something’s going on and it needs to be rectified and fixed so these people are brought to justice.”
Dever tells Newsmax that the Mexican drug cartels are freely operating many miles from the U.S.-Mexican border.
“You can go up to 70 miles north in Pinal County, which isn’t even a border county, and the Bureau of Land Management put up signs on public land warning people not to travel there because of the threat from drug cartels.
“If you travel into the recreational areas in my county, those same signs are up warning people they could encounter drug and human smuggling. I think we ought to point the signs south and tell the folks who are coming here that this is not a safe place for you to come.”
Referring to “roadblocks” Eric Holder has been erecting against Arizona’s attempts to deal with the immigration problem, Dever says: “He’s the guy who sued us, sued the state of Arizona, holding hands with the ACLU. It doesn’t do any good to arrest people if all you’re going to do is kick them back. If they’re not going to be prosecuted and held accountable, where’s the teeth in the enforcement effort?”
When Arizona passed its tough anti-illegal immigration legislation last year, the ACLU “sued every Arizona sheriff and every Arizona county attorney independently to enjoin us from enforcing the law should it pass constitutional muster,” Dever adds.
“Then the Department of Justice sued the state of Arizona. Here’s what’s absolutely bizarre and hypocritical: The Department of Homeland Security since Sept. 11, 2001, has been on an outreach effort to empower and partner with state and local law enforcement to help defend and protect our homeland.
“When it comes to gun-running, money-laundering, kidnapping, murder, all those border-related crimes that we have, they wrap their arms around us and say let’s go get these guys. When it comes to illegal immigration, they sue us. They say back off, that is our sole responsibility. And I say balderdash.”
Dever encourages Americans to “keep pressure on your congressional representatives” to deal effectively with illegal immigration. “It’s beginning to work. It’s beginning to take hold.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Friday, 06 May 2011 04:52 PM
By Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella
The U.S. Border Patrol has told its agents to stop arresting illegal aliens crossing the border from Mexico to keep the illegal immigration numbers down, Arizona Sheriff Larry Dever tells Newsmax.
He also charges that Attorney General Eric Holder is “holding hands with the ACLU” to protect illegal aliens from prosecution, says illegals are committing “heinous crimes” across America every day, and calls claims that the federal government should be solely responsible for controlling illegal immigration “balderdash.”
Dever is sheriff of Cochise County, which shares an 83-mile border with Mexico, and he says his Border Patrol sector is responsible for half of all illegal aliens caught trying to enter the country and halt the narcotics entering the United States.
Story Continues Below Video
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, he was asked about the Obama administration’s bragging that the border is more secure than ever.
“For the secretary of homeland security to say the border is more secure than ever, well, I’ve been there forever and there was a happier time than what it is today. We have a long, long way to go.
“Don’t drink the Kool-Aid and buy into 'this border is secure' nonsense.
“There’s a bad element in the mix of the aliens that are crossing that border and they don’t stay there, they move into communities throughout the country. And every day there are travesties and heinous crimes being committed by those people. If we don’t stop it at the border, it’s just going to continue to grow.”
Dever recently told Congress that in one district in Texas, illegals are allowed to be caught crossing the border 14 times before being charged with a felony, and federal smuggling charges are not considered unless at least six illegal aliens are being smuggled into the country.
“It doesn’t surprise me because we’ve been seeing that every day in Arizona, with artificial thresholds for narcotics, for human smuggling,” he tells Newsmax.
“For that to be issued as a written solid order, it’s outrageous.”
He also explains how he has heard that the Border Patrol has told officers to stop arresting Mexican illegals to keep official illegal immigration figures down.
“That comes from agents on the ground, who have told me, told my deputies, told citizens in the area.
“They have in the past been instructed to scare people back or turn them back south versus arresting them.”
Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher’s has denied that agents have been told not to arrest Mexican illegals. Dever responds: “I tend to believe there is no written order to that effect. But if your agents on the ground have that perception and that understanding, then you need to go back and change it.
“If they’re lying, shame on them, and shame on me for bringing it up. But frankly, my staff, when they heard this, they said what’s the big deal? We’ve been hearing this forever. And people who live in my county say the same things.
“So something’s going on and it needs to be rectified and fixed so these people are brought to justice.”
Dever tells Newsmax that the Mexican drug cartels are freely operating many miles from the U.S.-Mexican border.
“You can go up to 70 miles north in Pinal County, which isn’t even a border county, and the Bureau of Land Management put up signs on public land warning people not to travel there because of the threat from drug cartels.
“If you travel into the recreational areas in my county, those same signs are up warning people they could encounter drug and human smuggling. I think we ought to point the signs south and tell the folks who are coming here that this is not a safe place for you to come.”
Referring to “roadblocks” Eric Holder has been erecting against Arizona’s attempts to deal with the immigration problem, Dever says: “He’s the guy who sued us, sued the state of Arizona, holding hands with the ACLU. It doesn’t do any good to arrest people if all you’re going to do is kick them back. If they’re not going to be prosecuted and held accountable, where’s the teeth in the enforcement effort?”
When Arizona passed its tough anti-illegal immigration legislation last year, the ACLU “sued every Arizona sheriff and every Arizona county attorney independently to enjoin us from enforcing the law should it pass constitutional muster,” Dever adds.
“Then the Department of Justice sued the state of Arizona. Here’s what’s absolutely bizarre and hypocritical: The Department of Homeland Security since Sept. 11, 2001, has been on an outreach effort to empower and partner with state and local law enforcement to help defend and protect our homeland.
“When it comes to gun-running, money-laundering, kidnapping, murder, all those border-related crimes that we have, they wrap their arms around us and say let’s go get these guys. When it comes to illegal immigration, they sue us. They say back off, that is our sole responsibility. And I say balderdash.”
Dever encourages Americans to “keep pressure on your congressional representatives” to deal effectively with illegal immigration. “It’s beginning to work. It’s beginning to take hold.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Panetta Issued Bin Laden Orders
Obama Hesitated; Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden!
Source: White House Insider
Published: May 3, 2011
Author: Ulsterman
Post Date: 2011-05-03 20:25:54 by packrat1145
Ping List: *Objective and Rational*
"What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound."
Note: This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been overruled by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is further clarification of Insider s insights surrounding that event.
What happened from there is what was described by me as a masterful manipulation by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president s inaction would be &significant to the point of political debilitation. It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan , Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.
This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett s office, and was then followed up by President Obama. This abort order was later explained as a delay due to weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been acceptable for the mission. A storm system had been in the area earlier, but was no longer an issue. Check the data yourself to confirm. Jarrett, having been caught off guard, was now scrambling to determine who had initiated the plan. She was furious, repeating the acronym CoC and saying it was not being followed. This is where Bill Daley intervened directly. The particulars of that intervention are not clear to me beyond knowing he did meet with Jarrett in his office and following that meeting, Valerie Jarrett was not seen in the West Wing for some time, and apparently no longer offered up any resistance to the Osama Bin Laden mission. What did follow from there was one or more brief meetings between Bill Daley, Hillary Clinton, a representative from Robert Gates office, a representative from Leon Panetta s office, and a representative from Jim Clapper s office. I have to assume that these meetings were in essence, detailing the move to proceed with the operation against the Osama Bin Laden compound. I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States . There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking very confused and uncertain. The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold. Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already up to speed on the operation. A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day s events before the president was. The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants. What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates. The president s role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room.
At the conclusion of the mission, after it had been repeatedly confirmed a success, President Obama was once again briefed behind closed doors. The only ones who went in that room besides the president were Bill Daley. John Brennan, and a third individual whose identity remains unknown to me. When leaving this briefing, the president came out of it &much more confident. Much more certain of himself. He was also carrying papers in his hand that quite possibly was the address to the nation given later that evening on the Bin Laden mission. The president did not have those papers with him prior to that briefing. The president then returned to the war room, where by this time, Leon Panetta had personally arrived and was receiving congratulations from all who were present.
In my initial communication to you of these events I described what unfolded as a temporary Coup initiated by high ranking intelligence and military officials. I stand by that term. These figures worked around the uncertainty of President Obama and the repeated resistance of Valerie Jarrett. If they had not been willing to do so, I am certain Osama Bin Laden would still be alive today. There will be no punishment to those who acted outside the authority of the president s office. The president cannot afford to admit such a fact. What will be most interesting from here is to now see what becomes of Valerie Jarrett. One source indicated she is threatening resignation. I find that unlikely given my strong belief she needs the protection afforded her by the Oval Office and its immense powers to delay and eventually terminate investigations back in Chicago , but we shall see.
Source: White House Insider
Published: May 3, 2011
Author: Ulsterman
Post Date: 2011-05-03 20:25:54 by packrat1145
Ping List: *Objective and Rational*
"What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound."
Note: This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been overruled by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is further clarification of Insider s insights surrounding that event.
Q: You stated that President Obama was overruled by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?
A: I was told in these exact terms, we overruled him. (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president s persistent hesitation to act. There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.
I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East .
Q: What changed the president s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?
A: Nothing changed with the president's opinion, he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act sort of. Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta s failed policy. Again Obama hesitated this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act. It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated he was that frustrated. Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.
What happened from there is what was described by me as a masterful manipulation by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president s inaction would be &significant to the point of political debilitation. It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan , Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.
This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett s office, and was then followed up by President Obama. This abort order was later explained as a delay due to weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been acceptable for the mission. A storm system had been in the area earlier, but was no longer an issue. Check the data yourself to confirm. Jarrett, having been caught off guard, was now scrambling to determine who had initiated the plan. She was furious, repeating the acronym CoC and saying it was not being followed. This is where Bill Daley intervened directly. The particulars of that intervention are not clear to me beyond knowing he did meet with Jarrett in his office and following that meeting, Valerie Jarrett was not seen in the West Wing for some time, and apparently no longer offered up any resistance to the Osama Bin Laden mission. What did follow from there was one or more brief meetings between Bill Daley, Hillary Clinton, a representative from Robert Gates office, a representative from Leon Panetta s office, and a representative from Jim Clapper s office. I have to assume that these meetings were in essence, detailing the move to proceed with the operation against the Osama Bin Laden compound. I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States . There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking very confused and uncertain. The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold. Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already up to speed on the operation. A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day s events before the president was. The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants. What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates. The president s role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room.
At the conclusion of the mission, after it had been repeatedly confirmed a success, President Obama was once again briefed behind closed doors. The only ones who went in that room besides the president were Bill Daley. John Brennan, and a third individual whose identity remains unknown to me. When leaving this briefing, the president came out of it &much more confident. Much more certain of himself. He was also carrying papers in his hand that quite possibly was the address to the nation given later that evening on the Bin Laden mission. The president did not have those papers with him prior to that briefing. The president then returned to the war room, where by this time, Leon Panetta had personally arrived and was receiving congratulations from all who were present.
In my initial communication to you of these events I described what unfolded as a temporary Coup initiated by high ranking intelligence and military officials. I stand by that term. These figures worked around the uncertainty of President Obama and the repeated resistance of Valerie Jarrett. If they had not been willing to do so, I am certain Osama Bin Laden would still be alive today. There will be no punishment to those who acted outside the authority of the president s office. The president cannot afford to admit such a fact. What will be most interesting from here is to now see what becomes of Valerie Jarrett. One source indicated she is threatening resignation. I find that unlikely given my strong belief she needs the protection afforded her by the Oval Office and its immense powers to delay and eventually terminate investigations back in Chicago , but we shall see.
Friday, May 06, 2011
The Death Of Bin Laden
Bin Laden Was Killed By Courageous Navy SEALs, and Buried At Sea on May 2, 2011
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
The Killing Of Bin Laden
A Tribute To Our Courageous Navy Seals
Imagine your are with the SEALS as they fly in to the compound ... controlled chaos ... helicopters land ... shots are fired ... a lone helicopter flies out ... We Got Him!
Play: The Killing Of Bin Laden
Imagine your are with the SEALS as they fly in to the compound ... controlled chaos ... helicopters land ... shots are fired ... a lone helicopter flies out ... We Got Him!
Play: The Killing Of Bin Laden
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Pakistan Accused of 'Double Game'
Incredulous lawmakers are pressing Pakistan for answers to two simple questions: What did its army and intelligence agents know of Osama bin Laden's whereabouts and when did they know it?
The al-Qaida terrorist leader behind the Sept. 11 attacks lived and died in a massive, fortified compound built in 2005 and located on the outskirts of Abbottabad, some 60 miles from the capital of Islamabad. It stood just a half-mile from the Kakul Military Academy, Pakistan's equivalent of West Point, and close to various army regiments.
According to the U.S. account, the assault team came away with hard drives, DVDs, documents and more that might tip U.S. intelligence to al-Qaida's operational details and perhaps lead the manhunt to the presumed next-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri. The CIA is already going over the material.
White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan told NBC's TODAY on Tuesday that U.S. officials hoped to build on the killing of bin Laden. Brennan said the administration was determined "to pummel the rest of al-Qaida."
Obama, who approved the extraordinarily risky operation by Navy SEALs against bin Laden's Pakistan redoubt and witnessed its progression from the White House Situation Room, his face heavy with tension, reaped accolades from world leaders he'd kept in the dark as well as from political opponents at home.
Republican and Democratic leaders alike gave him a standing ovation at an evening White House meeting that was planned before the assault but became a celebration of it, and an occasion to step away from the fractious political climate. Obama plans to visit New York on Thursday.
Amid the high praise Monday for the successful U.S. military operation, congressional Republicans and Democrats questioned whether bin Laden was hiding in plain sight, with Pakistani military and intelligence operatives either totally unaware of his location or willfully ignoring his presence to protect him.
It was more than a rhetorical question as lawmakers raised the possibility of imposing conditions on the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars that flow to Pakistan, largely economic aid to back an unsteady government.
"I think this tells us once again that, unfortunately, Pakistan at times is playing a double game," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a Senate Armed Services Committee member who indicated that Congress could put limits on funds for Pakistan. "It is very difficult for me to understand how this huge compound could be built in a city just an hour north of the capital of Pakistan, in a city that contained military installations, including the Pakistani military academy, and that it did not arouse tremendous suspicions."
Fragile relationship
Bin Laden's death and questions about Pakistan's eagerness in the fight against terrorism come as the tenuous U.S.-Pakistan relationship seems even more fragile. In recent weeks, CIA contractor Raymond Davis' killing of two Pakistanis and stepped-up drone attacks have further strained ties between the two countries.
Different factions within Pakistan itself complicate its role as a U.S. ally. What state officials and those in the military may have known about bin Laden could be quite different from what tribes and even families in the region knew or, more to the point, were willing to say about the Abbottabad compound and its occupants.
Pakistan on Tuesday denied any prior knowledge of the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden, but said it had been sharing information about the targeted compound with the CIA since 2009.
"Neither any base nor facility inside Pakistan was used by the U.S. forces, nor the Pakistan Army provided any operational or logistic assistance to these operations conducted by the U.S. forces,'' the foreign ministry said in a lengthy statement.
Early last month, CIA Director Leon Panetta met with Pakistan's intelligence chief, Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, a meeting Washington officials saw as make or break. The Obama administration said it was negotiating a possible reduction in U.S. intelligence operatives and special operations officers in Pakistan as they sought to ease Pakistani concerns about spy activity.
Prior to the raid on the compound, U.S. officials say, they didn't inform Pakistan of its plans. Unaware and unnerved Pakistanis scrambled their aircraft in the wake of the U.S. military intervention.
In its statement Tuesday, Pakistani authorities expressed "deep concerns'' that the operation was carried out without informing it in advance.
"This event of unauthorized unilateral action cannot be taken as a rule,'' the ministry said.
Pakistani also made a point of saying that its spy agency, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), agency had been sharing information about the compound with the CIA and other friendly intelligence agencies since 2009 and had continued to do so until mid-April.
Publicly, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has thanked Pakistan for its cooperation and said the country "has contributed greatly to our efforts to dismantle al-Qaida." She said that "in fact, cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound in which he was hiding."
Brennan told TODAY that "clearly there was some kind of support network" for bin Laden inside Pakistan.
However, he declined to blame the Pakistani government for that, calling Islamabad "a strong counterterrorism partner."
But he also said the Pakistani government was conducting its own investigation into how bin Laden dodged authorities for so long. Brennan said it is "unknown at this point" whether individuals inside the Pakistani government were helping bin Laden.
'In plain sight'
Condoleezza Rice, who was President George W. Bush's national security adviser on 9/11 and later served as secretary of state, told TODAY that she was "surprised to learn where he was found."
"Obviously there are some tough questions here," she said. "I'm quite certain that the administration along with the Pakistanis want to understand why Osama bin Laden could be so close to Islamabad, really in plain sight."
Based on the location of the compound and its proximity to army regiments, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said Pakistan's intelligence service and army has "got a lot of explaining to do."
Levin told reporters that "it's hard to imagine that the military or police did not have any ideas what was going on inside."
In an essay published Monday by The Washington Post, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari denied suggestions his country's security forces may have sheltered Osama bin Laden, and said their cooperation with the United States helped pinpoint bin Laden.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., who has traveled extensively to Pakistan and even worked as an intermediary to get Davis released, said candid conversations with the Pakistanis were necessary.
However, Kerry said it would be a mistake to forget "we've had people on the ground tracking this. There's some degree of assistance and cooperation of the Pakistanis."
Meanwhile, the administration weighed whether to release photos of bin Laden's corpse and video of his swift burial at sea. Officials were reluctant to inflame Islamic sentiment by showing graphic images of the body. But they were also eager to address the mythology already building in Pakistan and beyond that bin Laden was somehow still alive.
The only information about what occurred inside the compound has come from American officials, much of it provided under condition of anonymity.
They said SEALs dropped down ropes from helicopters, killed bin Laden aides and made their way to the main building. Obama and his national security team monitored the strike, watching and listening nervously and in near silence from the Situation Room as it all unfolded.
"The minutes passed like days," Brennan said.
U.S. officials said the information that ultimately led to bin Laden's capture originally came from detainees held in secret CIA prison sites in Eastern Europe. There, agency interrogators were told of an alias used by a courier whom bin Laden particularly trusted.
It took four long years to learn the man's real name, then years more before investigators got a big break in the case, these officials said. Sometime in mid-2010, the man was overheard using a phone by intelligence officials, who then were able to locate his residence — the specially constructed $1 million compound with walls as high as 18 feet topped with barbed wire.
U.S. counterterrorism officials considered bombing the place, an option that was discarded by the White House as too risky, particularly if it turned out bin Laden was not there.
National Journal said U.S. authorities used intelligence about bin Laden's compound to build a replica of it and use it for trial runs in early April.
Obama held a crucial meeting last week in which his advisers debated three options for dealing with top-secret information about the luxury compound.
At a two-hour meeting in the ultra-secure Situation Room, the team discussed the pros and cons of a raid on the compound by a small group of elite U.S. forces, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The two other alternatives were to conduct a strike or to wait for information that might lend greater clarity on whether the al-Qaida leader was indeed holed up there, the official said.
Obama's advisers were split at the Thursday meeting and the president took a night to think about the decision, the official said.
On Friday morning, just before leaving to visit tornado-hit Alabama, Obama revealed to a small group of aides that he had decided in favor of an immediate raid, the official said.
"It's a go," Obama told his advisers, as he ordered the operation that led to killing of the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
Obama signed an order on Friday for the team of SEALs to chopper onto the compound under the cover of darkness.
Obama and his aides feared delaying action too long would increase the risk that word of the surveillance might leak out and their target might flee, the official said.
On Sunday afternoon, Obama convened a meeting at the White House where the mood was "tense" and "anxiety-ridden" as the group monitored the unfolding operation on a screen, the official said.
'We got him, guys'
Those present included Brennan, Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon.
"We got him, guys," Obama said in reaction to the news of bin Laden's death.
In addition to bin Laden, one of his sons, Khalid, was killed in the raid, Brennan said. Bin Laden's wife was shot in the calf but survived, a U.S. official said. Also killed were the courier, another al-Qaida facilitator and an unidentified woman, officials said.
As Americans rejoiced, they worried, too, that terrorists would be newly motivated to lash out. In their wounded rage, al-Qaida ideologues fed that concern. "By God, we will avenge the killing of the Sheik of Islam," one prominent al-Qaida commentator vowed. "Those who wish that jihad has ended or weakened, I tell them: Let us wait a little bit."
In that vein, U.S. officials warned that bin Laden's death was likely to encourage attacks from "homegrown violent extremists" even if al-Qaida is not prepared to respond in a coordinated fashion now.
Bin Laden's death came 15 years after he declared war on the United States. Al-Qaida was also blamed for the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 people and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors in Yemen, as well as countless other plots, some successful and some foiled.
The Associated Press, Reuters, NBC News and msnbc.com staff contributed to this report.
The al-Qaida terrorist leader behind the Sept. 11 attacks lived and died in a massive, fortified compound built in 2005 and located on the outskirts of Abbottabad, some 60 miles from the capital of Islamabad. It stood just a half-mile from the Kakul Military Academy, Pakistan's equivalent of West Point, and close to various army regiments.
According to the U.S. account, the assault team came away with hard drives, DVDs, documents and more that might tip U.S. intelligence to al-Qaida's operational details and perhaps lead the manhunt to the presumed next-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri. The CIA is already going over the material.
White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan told NBC's TODAY on Tuesday that U.S. officials hoped to build on the killing of bin Laden. Brennan said the administration was determined "to pummel the rest of al-Qaida."
Obama, who approved the extraordinarily risky operation by Navy SEALs against bin Laden's Pakistan redoubt and witnessed its progression from the White House Situation Room, his face heavy with tension, reaped accolades from world leaders he'd kept in the dark as well as from political opponents at home.
Republican and Democratic leaders alike gave him a standing ovation at an evening White House meeting that was planned before the assault but became a celebration of it, and an occasion to step away from the fractious political climate. Obama plans to visit New York on Thursday.
Amid the high praise Monday for the successful U.S. military operation, congressional Republicans and Democrats questioned whether bin Laden was hiding in plain sight, with Pakistani military and intelligence operatives either totally unaware of his location or willfully ignoring his presence to protect him.
It was more than a rhetorical question as lawmakers raised the possibility of imposing conditions on the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars that flow to Pakistan, largely economic aid to back an unsteady government.
"I think this tells us once again that, unfortunately, Pakistan at times is playing a double game," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a Senate Armed Services Committee member who indicated that Congress could put limits on funds for Pakistan. "It is very difficult for me to understand how this huge compound could be built in a city just an hour north of the capital of Pakistan, in a city that contained military installations, including the Pakistani military academy, and that it did not arouse tremendous suspicions."
Fragile relationship
Bin Laden's death and questions about Pakistan's eagerness in the fight against terrorism come as the tenuous U.S.-Pakistan relationship seems even more fragile. In recent weeks, CIA contractor Raymond Davis' killing of two Pakistanis and stepped-up drone attacks have further strained ties between the two countries.
Different factions within Pakistan itself complicate its role as a U.S. ally. What state officials and those in the military may have known about bin Laden could be quite different from what tribes and even families in the region knew or, more to the point, were willing to say about the Abbottabad compound and its occupants.
Pakistan on Tuesday denied any prior knowledge of the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden, but said it had been sharing information about the targeted compound with the CIA since 2009.
"Neither any base nor facility inside Pakistan was used by the U.S. forces, nor the Pakistan Army provided any operational or logistic assistance to these operations conducted by the U.S. forces,'' the foreign ministry said in a lengthy statement.
Early last month, CIA Director Leon Panetta met with Pakistan's intelligence chief, Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, a meeting Washington officials saw as make or break. The Obama administration said it was negotiating a possible reduction in U.S. intelligence operatives and special operations officers in Pakistan as they sought to ease Pakistani concerns about spy activity.
Prior to the raid on the compound, U.S. officials say, they didn't inform Pakistan of its plans. Unaware and unnerved Pakistanis scrambled their aircraft in the wake of the U.S. military intervention.
In its statement Tuesday, Pakistani authorities expressed "deep concerns'' that the operation was carried out without informing it in advance.
"This event of unauthorized unilateral action cannot be taken as a rule,'' the ministry said.
Pakistani also made a point of saying that its spy agency, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), agency had been sharing information about the compound with the CIA and other friendly intelligence agencies since 2009 and had continued to do so until mid-April.
Publicly, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has thanked Pakistan for its cooperation and said the country "has contributed greatly to our efforts to dismantle al-Qaida." She said that "in fact, cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound in which he was hiding."
Brennan told TODAY that "clearly there was some kind of support network" for bin Laden inside Pakistan.
However, he declined to blame the Pakistani government for that, calling Islamabad "a strong counterterrorism partner."
But he also said the Pakistani government was conducting its own investigation into how bin Laden dodged authorities for so long. Brennan said it is "unknown at this point" whether individuals inside the Pakistani government were helping bin Laden.
'In plain sight'
Condoleezza Rice, who was President George W. Bush's national security adviser on 9/11 and later served as secretary of state, told TODAY that she was "surprised to learn where he was found."
"Obviously there are some tough questions here," she said. "I'm quite certain that the administration along with the Pakistanis want to understand why Osama bin Laden could be so close to Islamabad, really in plain sight."
Based on the location of the compound and its proximity to army regiments, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said Pakistan's intelligence service and army has "got a lot of explaining to do."
Levin told reporters that "it's hard to imagine that the military or police did not have any ideas what was going on inside."
In an essay published Monday by The Washington Post, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari denied suggestions his country's security forces may have sheltered Osama bin Laden, and said their cooperation with the United States helped pinpoint bin Laden.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., who has traveled extensively to Pakistan and even worked as an intermediary to get Davis released, said candid conversations with the Pakistanis were necessary.
However, Kerry said it would be a mistake to forget "we've had people on the ground tracking this. There's some degree of assistance and cooperation of the Pakistanis."
Meanwhile, the administration weighed whether to release photos of bin Laden's corpse and video of his swift burial at sea. Officials were reluctant to inflame Islamic sentiment by showing graphic images of the body. But they were also eager to address the mythology already building in Pakistan and beyond that bin Laden was somehow still alive.
The only information about what occurred inside the compound has come from American officials, much of it provided under condition of anonymity.
They said SEALs dropped down ropes from helicopters, killed bin Laden aides and made their way to the main building. Obama and his national security team monitored the strike, watching and listening nervously and in near silence from the Situation Room as it all unfolded.
"The minutes passed like days," Brennan said.
U.S. officials said the information that ultimately led to bin Laden's capture originally came from detainees held in secret CIA prison sites in Eastern Europe. There, agency interrogators were told of an alias used by a courier whom bin Laden particularly trusted.
It took four long years to learn the man's real name, then years more before investigators got a big break in the case, these officials said. Sometime in mid-2010, the man was overheard using a phone by intelligence officials, who then were able to locate his residence — the specially constructed $1 million compound with walls as high as 18 feet topped with barbed wire.
U.S. counterterrorism officials considered bombing the place, an option that was discarded by the White House as too risky, particularly if it turned out bin Laden was not there.
National Journal said U.S. authorities used intelligence about bin Laden's compound to build a replica of it and use it for trial runs in early April.
Obama held a crucial meeting last week in which his advisers debated three options for dealing with top-secret information about the luxury compound.
At a two-hour meeting in the ultra-secure Situation Room, the team discussed the pros and cons of a raid on the compound by a small group of elite U.S. forces, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The two other alternatives were to conduct a strike or to wait for information that might lend greater clarity on whether the al-Qaida leader was indeed holed up there, the official said.
Obama's advisers were split at the Thursday meeting and the president took a night to think about the decision, the official said.
On Friday morning, just before leaving to visit tornado-hit Alabama, Obama revealed to a small group of aides that he had decided in favor of an immediate raid, the official said.
"It's a go," Obama told his advisers, as he ordered the operation that led to killing of the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
Obama signed an order on Friday for the team of SEALs to chopper onto the compound under the cover of darkness.
Obama and his aides feared delaying action too long would increase the risk that word of the surveillance might leak out and their target might flee, the official said.
On Sunday afternoon, Obama convened a meeting at the White House where the mood was "tense" and "anxiety-ridden" as the group monitored the unfolding operation on a screen, the official said.
'We got him, guys'
Those present included Brennan, Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon.
"We got him, guys," Obama said in reaction to the news of bin Laden's death.
In addition to bin Laden, one of his sons, Khalid, was killed in the raid, Brennan said. Bin Laden's wife was shot in the calf but survived, a U.S. official said. Also killed were the courier, another al-Qaida facilitator and an unidentified woman, officials said.
As Americans rejoiced, they worried, too, that terrorists would be newly motivated to lash out. In their wounded rage, al-Qaida ideologues fed that concern. "By God, we will avenge the killing of the Sheik of Islam," one prominent al-Qaida commentator vowed. "Those who wish that jihad has ended or weakened, I tell them: Let us wait a little bit."
In that vein, U.S. officials warned that bin Laden's death was likely to encourage attacks from "homegrown violent extremists" even if al-Qaida is not prepared to respond in a coordinated fashion now.
Bin Laden's death came 15 years after he declared war on the United States. Al-Qaida was also blamed for the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 people and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors in Yemen, as well as countless other plots, some successful and some foiled.
The Associated Press, Reuters, NBC News and msnbc.com staff contributed to this report.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Bin Laden: Dead
Timeline: Tip Leads U.S. to Usama Bin Laden
May 02, 2011
The tip that landed Usama bin Laden came to light in August. It was a “great lead,” a federal law enforcement source told Fox News.
Officials wouldn’t know how good it was until months later. After an exhaustive streak of intelligence gathering and high-level meetings, that tip resulted Sunday in the death of the world’s most wanted terrorist at U.S. hands.
Though President Obama gave only sparse details of the operation in his surprise address to the nation Sunday night, officials filled in the blanks where they could about the mission that brought to justice the man responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and countless acts of violence around the world.
Though bin Laden was pursued throughout the George W. Bush administration, President Obama renewed the effort on June 2, 2009, when he signed a memo to CIA Director Leon Panetta ordering a “detailed operation plan” for finding and capturing bin Laden.
More than a year later, what Obama described as a “possible lead” came in. Senior administration officials said they had been tracking an Al Qaeda courier in bin Laden’s inner circle. Two years ago, the U.S. determined the areas in Pakistan where he operated. By August, they had determined the exact location in Abbottabad, Pakistan -- where bin Laden was apparently hiding out in a sprawling compound on the outskirts of town.
One U.S. official said the compound was built over a six-year period. The intelligence community, led by the CIA, concluded it was custom-built to house someone of bin Laden’s stature. It was enclosed by a high wall topped with barbed wire, and protected by two security gates.
Officials said that by February, they determined they would pursue the compound. This touched off a series of high-level meetings to develop a course of action.
According to one senior administration official, the president convened at least nine meetings with his top national security leaders. Those advisers met formally another five times, in addition to countless briefings among the National Security Council, CIA, Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff. The president was actively involved at all levels, the official said.
The federal law enforcement source said that by last week, it seemed “this might be the real deal.”
The president must have felt the same way. At 8:20 a.m. on April 29, before he left for Alabama to survey storm damage, Obama authorized the operation to target bin Laden.
By Sunday, a “small team” of special operations forces was in Pakistan for the final mission. That mission was the all-day focus of national security staff.
According to one official, national security leaders were in the Situation Room since 1 p.m. Sunday. The rest of the afternoon went as follows:
In Abbottabad, a senior U.S. defense official said the actual operation took place at 3:30 p.m. ET.
Officials said three adult men other than bin Laden were killed – one was believed to be bin Laden’s son, the others couriers. One woman was killed when she was used as a human shield and two other women were also injured, the officials said.
No Americans were killed, though the U.S. did lose a helicopter that went down due to mechanical failure. An official said the Pakistanis were not involved in the raid but helped provide information that led to it. Intelligence was also provided by detainees.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/02/timeline-tip-leads-usama-bin-laden/#ixzz1LDYf9GIN
May 02, 2011
The tip that landed Usama bin Laden came to light in August. It was a “great lead,” a federal law enforcement source told Fox News.
Officials wouldn’t know how good it was until months later. After an exhaustive streak of intelligence gathering and high-level meetings, that tip resulted Sunday in the death of the world’s most wanted terrorist at U.S. hands.
Though President Obama gave only sparse details of the operation in his surprise address to the nation Sunday night, officials filled in the blanks where they could about the mission that brought to justice the man responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and countless acts of violence around the world.
Though bin Laden was pursued throughout the George W. Bush administration, President Obama renewed the effort on June 2, 2009, when he signed a memo to CIA Director Leon Panetta ordering a “detailed operation plan” for finding and capturing bin Laden.
More than a year later, what Obama described as a “possible lead” came in. Senior administration officials said they had been tracking an Al Qaeda courier in bin Laden’s inner circle. Two years ago, the U.S. determined the areas in Pakistan where he operated. By August, they had determined the exact location in Abbottabad, Pakistan -- where bin Laden was apparently hiding out in a sprawling compound on the outskirts of town.
One U.S. official said the compound was built over a six-year period. The intelligence community, led by the CIA, concluded it was custom-built to house someone of bin Laden’s stature. It was enclosed by a high wall topped with barbed wire, and protected by two security gates.
Officials said that by February, they determined they would pursue the compound. This touched off a series of high-level meetings to develop a course of action.
According to one senior administration official, the president convened at least nine meetings with his top national security leaders. Those advisers met formally another five times, in addition to countless briefings among the National Security Council, CIA, Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff. The president was actively involved at all levels, the official said.
The federal law enforcement source said that by last week, it seemed “this might be the real deal.”
The president must have felt the same way. At 8:20 a.m. on April 29, before he left for Alabama to survey storm damage, Obama authorized the operation to target bin Laden.
By Sunday, a “small team” of special operations forces was in Pakistan for the final mission. That mission was the all-day focus of national security staff.
According to one official, national security leaders were in the Situation Room since 1 p.m. Sunday. The rest of the afternoon went as follows:
At 2 p.m., Obama met with the team to review final preparations.
At 3:32 p.m., he returned to the Situation Room for an additional briefing.
At 3:50 p.m., he learned that bin Laden had been tentatively identified.
At 7:01 p.m., the president learned there was a “high probability” the target was bin Laden.
At 8:30 p.m., Obama received more briefings.
In Abbottabad, a senior U.S. defense official said the actual operation took place at 3:30 p.m. ET.
Officials said three adult men other than bin Laden were killed – one was believed to be bin Laden’s son, the others couriers. One woman was killed when she was used as a human shield and two other women were also injured, the officials said.
No Americans were killed, though the U.S. did lose a helicopter that went down due to mechanical failure. An official said the Pakistanis were not involved in the raid but helped provide information that led to it. Intelligence was also provided by detainees.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/02/timeline-tip-leads-usama-bin-laden/#ixzz1LDYf9GIN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)