This article is simply the offspring of observation, and speculation regarding those observations.
The AirAsia flight that recently vanished, without a word, was being flown by Captain Iriyanto, a devout and active Muslim (and his co-pilot was a Muslim-French National). The pilot of the Malaysian flight that vanished without a word was also a devout Muslim, as was his co-pilot.
Photo Source: Wodani files
Both were experienced flyers, and experts found it to be conceivable that they could have avoided the tragedies that befell them and the dead passengers under their care. Experts found it inconceivable that communications simply went dark, and they simply lost touch with the flights and then had to search for the flights for an extended period of time before discovering the fateful ends of the AirAsia flight, and never discovering the wreckage of the Malaysia flight.
Was the disappearance of these flights, and the nose dive of the first flight into the ocean, and the disappearance of the second, just a tragedy, or do they have anything in common with the flights that nose dived into twin towers, a Pennsylvania field, and the Pentagon, on September 11, 2001? When the first flight hit the World Trade Center we exclaimed, “What an awful accident!” When the second plane hit, and we saw the images, we exclaimed, “This was done on purpose!” When the first plane from the Indonesian region vanished under dubious circumstances, we cried out how unfortunate of an accident it was (well, some of us suspected foul play, in defiance to the politically correct narrative being pushed by the media). Now that there has been a second flight that suddenly vanished, similar in circumstances, and similar in the membership to Islam in regards to the pilots, should we once again say it was a tragic accident? Or should we come to the same conclusion we came to when the second plane hit the twin towers, and realize it was done on purpose?
It has been promised, and confirmed by the administration, that President Obama intends to bypass Congress and take “Executive action” to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, including the criminals and terrorists among them.
But now sheriffs around the country are speaking up, issuing a dire warning about the likely results of a blanket amnesty granted by Obama. (H/T MRCTV)
They are warning of the coming increase in crime, disease, and terrorism, should Obama grant amnesty. They also they believe Obama’s amnesty will encourage more criminals and terrorists to join the millions of illegal immigrants already flooding across our porous southern border.
The Obama administration has lifted longtime restrictions on Libyans attending flight schools in the United States and training here in nuclear science, according to a final amendment of the ban recently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Less than two years after the deadly terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is poised to sign off on an amendment reversing the ban, which was enacted following a wave or terrorist attacks in 1980s and prevents Libyans from studying these sensitive trades in the United States.
As the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) marches through Iraq, leaving slaughter and mass graves in its wake, the obvious concern is the eventual creation of a terrorist state in the Middle East. Far across the world on the U.S. southern border, children from Central America are streaming north, at the tacit invitation of our president. Are these unrelated examples of a feckless foreign policy emanating from the White House? Or are these two disparate events are actually related and dangerous to America’s security?
Family Security Matters
Libya in 2011 marks the place and the time that the United States (U.S.) and the Obama administration formally switched sides in the Global War on Terror (GWOT). A mere 10 years after al-Qa’eda (supported by Hizballah and Iran) attacked the American homeland in the worst act of terrorism ever suffered by this country, U.S. leadership decided to facilitate the provision of weapons to jihadist militias known to be affiliated with al-Qa’eda and the Muslim Brotherhood in order to bring down a brutal dictator who also just happened to be a U.S. ally in the GWOT at the time.
And the U.S. media were silent. The major broadcast, print, and Internet outlets said not a word about this astonishing turnabout in American foreign policy. To this day, they have not seemed even to recognize that the pivot to support al-Qa’eda took place. But it needs to be said. The American people deserve to understand that their most senior leaders, both elected and appointed, have violated their oaths to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
United States law is quite explicit about providing material support to terrorists: it’s prohibited. Period. 18 U.S. Code § 2339A and 18 U.S. Code § 2339B address Providing Material Support to Terrorists or Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Together, these two sections outlaw the actions of any U.S. person who attempts or conspires to provide, or actually does provide, material support to a foreign terrorist organization knowing that it has been designated a foreign terrorist organization or engages, or has engaged, in “terrorism” or “terrorist activity.” Conspiracy means agreeing or planning to provide such support, whether or not such support ever is actually delivered. Penalties for conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism are stiff: imprisonment for up to 15 years and/or a fine of not more than $250,000. Penalties for actually providing or attempting to provide material support to terrorism are even harsher: imprisonment from 15 years to life, with a life sentence applicable if the death of any person results from such crime. Aiding, abetting, counseling, or procuring in support of a violation of Section 2339B is punishable by the same penalties as for the offense itself.
All Americans should be aware of some very disturbing events that speak to the state of terrorism, the strength of al Qaeda and our nation’s security. In light of the danger unfolding around us, we also need to question whether or not President Obama’s administration is serious about confronting what is clearly a gathering storm, or whether, in fact, his policies are encouraging those who wish to harm us.
One of the more shocking events illustrating the growing strength of al Qaeda is the release of a video this week showing what CNN reports as “the largest and most dangerous gathering of al Qaeda in years.” It’s what experts think is a recent gathering of the terrorist group’s leadership and more than 100 fighters in Yemen.
After five years of an increasingly radical presidency, it comes to this: the Obama administration has released Lynne Stewart, convicted of abetting a notorious terrorist, but is litigating in order to coerce a group of nuns who embody compassion. Isn’t this what Communists used to do when they came to power — release the “political prisoners” and harass the deeply religious?