Canada Free Press
By Dr. Laurie Roth Tuesday, December 29, 2009
We are at war with Islamic extremists. They are peppered all over the world and throughout our country. These terrorists have proven to be represented by various nationalities, the latest was Nigerian and the attack was on Christmas day. The common theme between them all isn’t that they were victimized by America or that they were all desperately poor, but that they were all committed to fundamentalist Islam, believing they were doing the will of Allah and would gain eternal blessings as martyrs.
If you look at who most of the Jihad killers have been since 9/11, they have been well funded, pampered and even wealthy. They are religiously committed to killing infidels. They don’t believe they are getting away with wrong and criminal behavior but rather, they are doing the Holy will of Allah and will be greatly rewarded.
As a Christmas present to naive and ever so polite America, Abdul Farouk Abdul-Mutallab, a 23 year-old Nigerian national, whose Father was a former Nigerian official, tried to blow up flight 253 headed toward Detroit Metropolitan Airport from Amsterdam originally.
Abdul tried to explode a bomb attached to himself shortly before the flight was to land. Fortunately, no, miraculously, part of his attached bomb didn’t work right but thankfully made enough noise as it was trying to explode to horrify and gather an immediate response from nearby passengers who pounced on him and stopped the process. All 238 passengers survived that day but will they next time? Al Quaeda taken credit and promised much more.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told CNN’s “American Morning” that officials would ‘review’ how anti-terrorist watch lists are maintained. Obama dove into the fray from his vacation in Hawaii saying that security was immediately enhanced and more air marshals were assigned on international flights. Both said that things were being reviewed. Don’t you feel safer now…..being ‘reviewed’.
Well……review this, Obama and Napolitano
We are at war and we have to identify the enemy…..not Christian gun owners; not Republicans; not conservative talk show hosts and not our military. It is Islamic fundamentalists who are being recruited and trained to kill infidels worldwide. Though they are represented by many nationalities, they are mostly Middle Eastern and are being recruited in our prisons and trained in Islamic compounds across this country. These Islamic compounds have been exposed and investigated by Doug Hagmann and many are being watched by authorities.
While we wax ever so intimidated and insecure around CAIR and other Islamic advocacy groups, as they paint pictures of Islamic Imams and Jihadists as victims of racism and persecution, the next attack is planned. Just with our military alone we have seen numerous attacks on our soldiers by radicalized Muslim soldiers preparing to strike against the enemy……us. I reference you to the following, not that we want to remember. Most recently we were treated by Nidal Malik HASAN, who murdered 14 unarmed soldiers in a Jihad at Ft. Hood. Remember Muslim Sgt. Hasan Karim Akbar who murdered Army Captain Christopher Seifert and Air Force Major Gregory Stone and wounded 14 others? Then there was 23 year- old Muslim abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad who murdered two officers. It continues: Hassan Abujihaad actively provided Islamic terrorists with sensitive information about the location of Navy ships and their weaknesses and James “Yousef” LEE, former Muslim chaplain charged with espionage while serving at GITMO.
Then there are the plane moments with Islamics
We aren’t allowed to notice or we are Islamaphobes and hideous racists but some of us in spite of ourselves have noticed suspicious behavior that continues on various flights.
We saw strange and suspicious behavior with a group of Muslim ‘musicians’ aboard Northeast Airlines Flight 327 back in 2004, witnessed by an eyewitness and profiled by Annie Jacobsen. There was also similar suspicious behavior exhibited by Muslim passengers aboard Air Tran Flight 297 back in November 2009 and Air Tran Flight 175 on January 1, 2009. Of course there is more. Certain Muslims are testing our airline security, intimidating and scaring our people and trying to hurt our Airline industry hoping for more victimization status and law suit action.
Of course how can we forget those special Imams in 2006 who had displayed frightening and suspicious behavior also on the plane and were reported by passengers. Naturally, since they were so religious and inspired they sued the passengers backed by the usual ‘victim creation Muslim groups’ (CAIR). They only just settled out of court and my favorite, Ibraham Hooper, their spokesman said it was ‘a victory for civil rights.’ Let’s have a moment of silence.
It is time to identify the enemy and start profiling without apology
How many more suspicious events and outright attacks must we see by Islamic fundamentalists? How many more military personnel murdered by Islamic soldiers? How much more do we want to take as the enemy sets us up, messes with our lives and circles the wagons to kill us???
Where have we seen profiling and security that actually works on flights? El Al in Israel has the best security in the world and these events as described above simply don’t occur. Don’t think it is just the Gestapo with them either. They are known for their hospitality and gracious service aboard each flight. They just do REAL questions, cross referencing and take red flags and watch lists seriously. It isn’t a popularity contest with them in letting folks get on planes, but people can actually enjoy the flight and stay alive.
I think there needs to be a whole other set of questioning and checks by anyone who falls in the realm of the following:
- Has Arabic writing anywhere near them
- Has a Koran with them
- Once on the plane, any movement to a cell phone, getting up and changing seats or going to the bathroom, should mean immediate checking and/or consequences.
- Loud prayers, chants and anti American or military statements….immediate denial to fly.
We must put MORE Muslim fundamentalists and their supporters on watch and do not fly lists, then train ALL of our security force to actually follow through on the list instead of minimizing or ‘spacing’ regarding it.
Remember, we are at war and there have been multiple dry runs and attempts at attacks on our planes since 9/11 and multiple murders of our troops by other Muslim soldiers. These people are organized, persistent, study our system, sensitivities, legal loop holes and play us like a violin. We must stop this madness unless we wish to die.
I would rather be rude and alive than polite and dead.
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A little-discussed executive order from President Obama giving foreign cops new police powers in the United States by exempting them from such drudgery as compliance with the Freedom of Information Act is raising alarm among commentators who say INTERPOL already had most of the same privileges as diplomats.
At David Horowitz’s Newsreal, Michael van der Galien said the issue is Obama’s expansion of President Ronald Reagan’s order from 1983 that originally granted those diplomatic privileges.
Reagan’s order carried certain exemptions requiring that INTERPOL operations be subject to several U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act. Obama, however, removed those restrictions in his Dec. 16 amendment to Executive Order 12425.
That means, van der Galien wrote today, “this foreign law enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against government and abuse.”
“‘Property and assets,’ including the organization’s records, cannot be searched or seized. Their physical locations are now immune from U.S. legal or investigative authorities,” he wrote.
“AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them,” he wrote.
At the ThreatsWatch.org website, authors Steve Schippert and Clyde Middleton gave their interpretation of the result.
“In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama’s Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans’ 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves,” they wrote.
“When the paths on the road map converge – Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States – it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement,” they said.
“For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL’s central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with ‘inviolable archives’ from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds,” they said.
“Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.”
International Criminal Court
Records show that the original order designated INTERPOL as a public international organization. Reagan had extended “appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities,” but kept it subject to searches and seizures under appropriate legal circumstances.
Obama’s decision, analysts have concluded, exempted Interpol from all restrictions.
“This international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests,” ThreatsWatch reported.
At the Patriot Room, it was explained there is a reason for a certain level of immunity.
“Before we get our knickers in a bunch, there is logic to this immunity. While we like our Constitution and laws, other countries like their Constitution and laws. It doesn’t matter if the concept of personal freedom is more expansive here. If we expect immunity in their country, we have to extend it to them here.”
But with Obama’s change, “It means that we have an international police force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure.”
Anthony Martin at the Examiner noted the international agency now can operate in the U.S. will “full immunity” from U.S. laws and “with complete independence from oversight from the FBI.”
At National Review Andy McCarthy asked, “Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?”
At UNDispatch, which is a blog on the United Nations, Mark Leon Goldberg, who explained he worked at Interpol’s headquarters in France in 2002, said there isn’t much danger of INTERPOL agents whisking Americans off to jail. But he confirmed, “As to the specific reason why the Obama administration would decide, last week, to extend to INTERPOL the same suite of diplomatic privileges that are typically accorded to international organizations? I don’t have a good answer for that. My sense is that it probably has something to with the accessibility of INTERPOL’s secure criminal databases (on things like stolen passports and the like).”
But the Obama critics at the Obamafile weren’t convinced.
“By this EO, Obama has conferred diplomatic immunity upon INTERPOL, exemption from being subject to search and seizure by law enforcement, exemption from U.S. taxes, and immunity from FOIA requests, etc. … Does INTERPOL have a file on Obama – or his associations?”
The Obama File
Dec. 29, 2009
Economic turmoil, Al-Qaeda attacks, unrest in Iran, and our guy is looking for the chaise.
The Obama Files
Dec. 29, 2009
Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, ABC News is reporting, quoting American officials and citing Department of Defense documents.
American officials agreed to send the two terrorists to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an “art therapy rehabilitation program” and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials, ABC News reported.
Guantanamo prisoner #333, Muhamad Attik al-Harbi, and prisoner #372, Said Ali Shari (on right), were sent to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 9, 2007, according to the Defense Department log of detainees who were released from American custody. Al-Harbi has since changed his name to Muhamad al-Awfi.
Read more at abcnews.go.com
According to Politico, Obama is planning to send 80 more Yemeni terrorist detainees back home to Yemen from Guantanamo Bay — good plan Barry, just what Yemen needs, 80 more terrorists — now go take some sun, where you can do limited damage — besides, you’re beginning to look a little pale — and we can’t have that.
By Jack Cashill
- More than half of those incinerated during Janet Reno’s tank attack at Waco on April 19, 1993 were ethnic minorities — 39 out of 74, to be precise. Six of them were Hispanic, six of Asian descent, and a full 27 of them black, ages six to sixty-one. They did not commit suicide.
- About a third of the Jonestown dead did not commit suicide either. Three-year-olds typically don’t know how. Authorities dumped the bodies of more than 250 of these children, most of them black, into a mass grave in Oakland’s Evergreen Cemetery. There they lie to this day, unsung and unmourned because they serve no useful political purpose.
- They serve no purpose because their killer, James Jones, was a self-professed “communist” in deep with a slew of leading Democrats — George Moscone, Harvey Milk, Willie Brown, Jerry Brown, and even Rosalynn Carter and Walter Mondale. Moscone appointed Jones to the Human Rights Commission and then to the chairmanship of the city’s Housing Authority.
- All witnesses who saw Timothy McVeigh on the morning the Murrah Building blew up saw him with a short, swarthy fellow. According to the Washington Post, a judge detained McVeigh without bail “after listening to four hours of testimony from FBI special agent John Hersley in which he described eyewitness accounts of a yellow Mercury with McVeigh and another man inside speeding away from a parking lot near the federal building.”
- Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, the so-called “field commander” of the Oklahoma City task force, played an even more aggressive role managing the TWA Flight 800 investigation a year later. The Clintons appear to have rewarded her for her steely performance with the vice-chairmanship of Fannie Mae, a job for which she had no known credentials.
- Six years and about $25.6 million in salary and bonuses later, Gorelick responded to the call of duty once more and took one of five Democratic seats on the 9-11 commission.
- By the FBI’s own count, no fewer than 270 eyewitnesses gave formal reports to the FBI describing a red-tipped object with a smoky contrail striking TWA Flight 800. About a hundred witnesses tracked the object from the surface. Astonishingly, the New York Times would interview none of them.
- Four weeks after the disaster, the Times‘ Don Van Natta would report, “Now that investigators say they think the center fuel tank did not explode, they say the only good explanations remaining are that a bomb or a missile brought down the plane.”
- Likely under White House pressure, and without any new evidence, the FBI immediately shifted its storyline away from a missile to a bomb, and a month later, from a bomb to a mechanical failure. The Times reporter who got the call to document both shifts was Andy Revkin, the same reporter at the center of the Climategate scandal.
- Bizarrely, Richard Clarke, Clinton’s anti-terror czar who knew next to nothing about aircraft technology, claimed to have discovered the official cause of the TWA 800 crash months, if not years, before the NTSB did.
- Clinton Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was dispatched on his fatal plane flight that same election year, 1996, for no more noble a purpose than to broker a sweetheart deal between the neo-fascist president of Croatia and the Enron Corporation.
- The Air Force concluded that the controlled descent of Brown’s USAF plane into a Croatian mountainside was “inexplicable.” The maintenance chief responsible for the airport’s navigation system showed up with a bullet hole in his chest the day before his Air Force interview.
- Brown’s fatal head injury struck the forensic photographer and attending pathologist as having the size and shape of a gunshot wound. He was nonetheless buried (over the protest of the pathologists) without an autopsy. The photographer and three Armed Service pathologists would sacrifice their careers going public with their discontent. The major media reported close to none of this.
- As the Nation of Islam plotted to kill “heretic” Malcolm X, Malcolm’s wife Betty Shabazz approached the one person with the clout to dissuade Malcolm’s fellow Muslims. “You see what you’re doing to my husband, don’t you?” she pleaded. Muhammad Ali blew her off, saying, “I’m not doing anything to him.” Malcolm was gunned down shortly thereafter.
- If a young Ali jeopardized his liberal chic by betraying Malcolm X, a reformed Ali risked it again when he publicly supported Ronald Reagan and even attended the Republican National Convention. Who would have guessed?
- Alex Haley plagiarized his Pulitzer Prize-winning non-fiction bestseller, Roots, from a book written by white novelist Harold Courlander, who sued Haley for damages. Midway through the trial, the judge threatened to charge a dissembling Haley with perjury unless he settled, which he did for big bucks.
- Sorry, Virginia, but there was no Kunta Kinte. Writing in the Village Voice, literary detective Philip Nobile would call Roots “one of the great literary hoaxes of modern times.”
- Speaking of the literary hoaxes, not a single one of the scores of mainstream book editors who reviewed Christopher Andersen’s Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage chose to notice Andersen’s most newsworthy revelation: “In the end, [Bill] Ayers’s contribution to Barack’s Dreams From My Father would be significant — so much so that the book’s language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers’s own writing.”
The Wall Street Journal
For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their “police power” are now dominated by Washington.
The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.
There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.
The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.
But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.
The Framers would have approved the idea of giving states a more direct role in the amendment process. They fully expected that the possibility of amendments originating with the states would deter federal aggrandizement, and provided in Article V that Congress must call a convention to consider amendments anytime two-thirds of the state legislatures demand it. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers of this process: “[W]e may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”
What the Framers did not anticipate, however, was the profound reaction to their own “runaway” convention in 1787. By junking the Articles of Confederation in favor of a new Constitution, they gave us strong and stable government. They also showed exactly what constitutional conventions can do. As a result, no similar body has ever been assembled, and even suggesting a new convention can freeze the marrow in constitutional lawyers.
The answer is to amend the Constitution to permit two-thirds of the states to propose amendments directly. To do so, of course, means that the states would have to first call for a constitutional convention—at which they could propose such a change.
What about the risk of a runaway convention? We think that risk is very small. In the first place, the Constitution is not the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified only six years before they were replaced.
By contrast, the American people are profoundly attached to the Constitution. It cannot and will not be replaced by an amending convention. In any event, nothing proposed at such a convention—including a change to the current amendment process—could be adopted without three-fourths of the state legislatures agreeing.
Even to propose such a course might seem imprudent—but then again, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution never thought the balance of powers between states and the federal government would ever get so profoundly distorted. James Madison dismissed claims that the new federal government could displace the states as “chimerical fears,” assuring his readers in The Federalist Papers that “[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.” Indeed, the Framers considered a “vertical” separation of powers—between federal and state authority—just as important as guaranteeing the success of liberty as the “horizontal” separation of powers between the president, Congress and the courts.
True enough, re-establishing a proper balance—where, as Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, Washington is responsible “principally [for] external objects” and the states for “all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people”—will not be easy.
The gain will be substantial. Although it seems that permitting the states to propose amendments is a small thing, especially because ratification would still require three-fourths of the states to agree, it would shift the power calculus—and create a potential for action that the president, Congress and courts could never ignore as they consider the proper boundaries of their own authority.
Moreover, the effort to enable the states to check Washington’s power would provide a constructive outlet for much of the growing anger—specially evident in phenomena such as the “tea party” movement—toward the political elites of both parties. It is not a partisan proposal and is difficult to oppose. The purpose is to move significant authority closer to the electorate, but in a measured, “conservative” manner that is in no sense “populist.”
Opponents would have no fig leaf. They would have to openly argue that any effort to limit Washington’s reach is a bad thing. And that is an argument they are likely to lose.