The United Nations has long been a cesspool of hostility towards the United States, Israel, and freedom more generally. It is dominated by those who promote and protect our enemies’ interests, while undermining ours. Worse yet, we pay much of the UN’s budget.

Past presidents have responded to this travesty by sending ambassadors to the UN who unapologetically challenged that agenda. In particular, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and John Bolton were proud of our country and tirelessly championed its values.

It is, therefore, a particularly repugnant irony that President Obama wants to entrust Dr. Kirkpatrick’s former post to Samantha Power, a woman who epitomizes the left-wing partisans President Reagan’s ambassador famously characterized as the “Blame America First crowd.”

The contrast between Mr. Obama’s choice and these three former U.S. representatives could hardly be more stark. Prior to joining the Obama administration in 2003, Power compiled a record as a Harvard professor journalist, author, activist, and commentator that reads like a parody of an ivory tower leftist’s reflexive anti-Americanism, Israel-hatred, and infatuation with transnational progressivism.

Examples abound in her writings, speeches, and media appearances. Among the most instructive are the following (emphases added):

Power sees America as an enemy of freedom, rather than its indispensable defender: “Some anti-Americanism derives simply from our being a colossus that bestrides the earth. But much anti-Americanism derives from the role U.S. political, economic and military power has played in denying such freedoms to others.” (New Republic, March 3, 2003)

Power exemplifies the absurd yet “politically correct” notion that there is only a connection between some Muslims on the one hand and terrorism on the other if we say there is. This contention ignores reality; those who adhere to the Islamist doctrine of shariah must engage in jihad. Yet Power insists: “All we talk about is ‘Islamic terrorism.’ If the two words are associated for long enough it’s obviously going to have an effect on how people think about Muslims.” (New Statesman, March 6, 2008)

Power confirms that her activist agenda of remaking the world, rather than a commitment to objective reporting, prompted her to join the Fourth Estate: “I got into journalism not to be a journalist but to try to change American foreign policy. I’m a corny person. I was a dreamer predating my journalistic life, so I got into journalism as a means to try to change the world.” (Salon, February 18, 2008)

Power insists on subordinating the United States to the dictates of the “international community”: “Influence is best measured not only by military hardware and GDP, but also by other people’s perceptions that we, the United States, are using our power legitimately. That belief – that we are acting in the interests of the global commons and in accordance with the rule of law – is what the military would call a ‘force multiplier.’ It enhances the U.S. ability to get what it wants from other countries and other players.” (New Statesman, March 6, 2008)

Ditto: “The United States must cease its reliance on gratuitous unilateralism. We make rules and create international institutions precisely in order to bind states when their short-term interests would otherwise lead them toward defection…” (New Republic, March 3, 2003)

Power’s commitment to transnationalism prompts her to trivialize the infringement on U.S. sovereignty entailed in submitting to the “interests of the global commons” and the authority of “international institutions”: “Only U.S. resources and leadership can turn such institutions [as the International Criminal Court] into forces for the international stability that is indispensable to U.S. security. Besides, giving up a pinch of sovereignty will not deprive the United States of the tremendous military and economic leverage it has at its disposal as a last resort. (New Republic, March 3, 2003)

Although Power has subsequently made a point of apologizing for and professing bewilderment about a particularly egregious example of her anti-Israel sentiments and her attachment to the “responsibility to protect” – in this case Palestinians from Israeli oppressors, the following statement was both clear and seemingly menacingly heartfelt at the time: “…It may more crucially mean sacrificing – or investing, I think, more than sacrificing – billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.” (Video interview with Harry Kreisler)

Samantha Power’s alarming transnationalism is also expressed in her enthusiasm for the U.S. to redistribute its wealth to less developed nations, as envisioned in the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. Power’s reflexive willingness to run down her country as a cheapskate when it comes to foreign assistance ignores our generous underwriting of the United Nations and the unmatched magnanimousness of the American people through private charity. Particularly illuminating is her insistence that we must aid – and although unsaid here, for that matter, intervene militarily on behalf of – countries as long as we have no interest in them: “I think the United States must change its relationship to the Millennium Development Goals. It would make an enormous difference practically and in terms of public diplomacy if we were not second-to-last among rich countries in giving aid away; if we were giving money away, investing in societies that actually don’t have anything to do with our national security. The instances where we make sacrifices strictly in order to benefit other people are so few and far between. Even our democracy rhetoric is so rooted in a story about security and how non-democracies become threats and so on.” (Interview with the one-worlder organization Citizens for Global Solutions)

Republicans on the committee that will shortly consider her nomination may wish to reflect on her contempt for that panel when the GOP ran it: “The Senate Foreign Relations Committee seems largely toothless. It is not your father’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee, not your mother’s. No hearings on sensitive issues and that means no meaningful oversight.” (Citizens for Global Solutions interview, cont’d)

The single most troubling quote, however, comes from Power’s 2003 New Republic article. In a carefully crafted essay – not a slip of the tongue, not an ill-considered, off-hand remark on television – she accuses her country of criminal conduct justifying the sort of abasement that post-World War II Germany’s chancellor engaged in to atone for the sins of the Nazis:

U.S. foreign policy has to be rethought. It needs not tweaking but overhauling. We need: a historical reckoning with crimes committed, sponsored, or permitted by the United States… Instituting a doctrine of the mea culpa would enhance our credibility by showing that American decision-makers do not endorse the sins of their predecessors. When Willie Brandt went down on one knee in the Warsaw ghetto, his gesture was gratifying to World War II survivors, but it was also ennobling and cathartic for Germany… (New Republic, March 3, 2003) [emphases added]

The American people do not need to populate the United Nations with any more anti- or post-Americans, especially as their “representative” to that organization. Someone who equates the United States with Adolf Hitler’s Germany, someone who has for years derided the U.S. contribution to freedom and a better planet, someone who yearns for a new world order in which our nation is not only unexceptional but subject to the dictates of others, is not someone we want anywhere near Turtle Bay.

What we need now, more than ever, is an American patriot at the UN. The Senate must reject Samantha Power, who will share – and help promote – the United Nation’s rabid enmity towards and relentless undermining of this country and the cause of freedom. | 16 Jun 2013

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan. He is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times, and host of the nationally syndicated program Secure Freedom Radio.
Source: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/06/16/Samantha-Power-Gaffney

The post Samantha Power: The Quintessential ‘Blame America First’-er appeared first on National Writers Syndicate.

Under Tunisia’s “moderate” Islamist government, you can attack and vandalize the American embassy and still walk free. But if a woman bares her breasts in a form of protest, a four-month prison sentence is considered too lax.

A Tunisian judge sentenced three European feminists Wednesday to four months in prison for a topless protest outside the courthouse. Their supporters expected to be fined or deported, London’s Independent reports. European Union officials blasted the sentence as excessive.

“To ensure … freedom of expression, the EU underlines the need to revise [Tunisian] laws inherited from the previous regimes, which can be used to restrict it,” spokesman Michael Mann said.

Two weeks earlier, a Tunisian court issued suspended sentences for 20 people accused of causing property damage at the U.S. Embassy and setting cars there on fire during violence last September.

The women – two from France and one Germany – are part of group called Femen. “Breast Feed Revolution,” the women wrote across their chests. They came to Tunisia late last month to protest the arrest of a colleague, Amina Tyler, a Tunisian who was arrested after posting a topless picture of herself on Facebook with the message “My body belongs to me and not the honor of others” written on her chest in Arabic.

That’s not the way Tunisian Islamists see it.

“In Islam we respect our mothers, our sisters, our wives. Islam respects women and their physical dignity. Public nudity is forbidden. We reject the actions of Femen,” prosecutor Slah Barkati told the court.

Attorneys for Islamist groups who wanted to be parties to the case wanted to define freedom for the women. “It is Islam that honours women and offers them freedom, not the act of undressing,” attorney Slah Khlifi said in a Middle East Online report. Another attorney said the topless protest constituted an attack on state security under Tunisian law and is punishable by up to a year in prison.

On the other hand, a veteran Tunisian feminist said Femen’s actions were counter-productive for her cause and asked that the group stay out of Tunisia in the future. Provocative actions like topless protests come off as signs of western debauchery. “We Tunisian feminists are trying to steer the discussion away from identity. Women’s rights are a social and political issue,” Maya Jribi said in an interview with Germany’s Der Spiegel.

Tunisia was the first country to see governmental change in the 2011 “Arab Spring.” But the rise of the Islamist Ennahda Party has not eased tension there, as radical Salafis gain stature and a secular opposition leader was gunned down in February. While news outlets continue to call Ennahda “moderate” – the Reuters report on the Femen protest did just that – the group’s leader envisions Islamists soon dominating the Arab world. Rachid Ghannouchi also predicted the Arab Spring would “threaten the extinction of Israel.” | Jun 13, 2013

Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/4044/feminist-protest-exposes-tunisia-islamist-justice

The post Feminist Protest Exposes Tunisian Islamist Justice appeared first on National Writers Syndicate.

The revelation that the super-secret National Security Agency has been vacuuming up so-called “metadata” from foreign and American communications has lots of us in a full-scale flail.

The libertarian Right denounces it as an unacceptable abuse of government power. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is inviting millions of Americans to join him in bringing a class-action suit before the Supreme Court to stop this now-not-so-covert program.

Even the Left that normally, reflexively supports whatever President Obama does is up in arms. The original story broke in Britain’s virulently anti-American Guardian newspaper and its flames have been fanned by some of Mr. Paul’s most liberal colleagues, like Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Here’s the question that must be addressed: Is this effort to detect and counter patterns of behavior that may be associated with terrorists and their plots legitimate and necessary? All three branches of government have agreed that it is legal and required – provided Team Obama is not doing as it has done elsewhere: namely, abusing its powers for political purposes.

Unfortunately, supporters of this program are being buffeted by growing evidence that the Obama administration continues to blur – if not actually brazenly to cross – the lines between constitutionally appropriate and legal actions and those that are beyond the pale.

Notably, the Daily Caller uncovered the fact that Douglas Shulman, the man who as acting IRS Commissioner presided over the Internal Revenue Service’s scandalous abuse of conservative, Tea Party and Jewish organizations seeking 501(c) status, visited the White House 157 times from September 2009 to January 2013. That’s more than any Cabinet officer and far more than his predecessor, who went to the White House only once in four years.

So much for Obama partisans’ insistence that there is no connection between President Obama and this outrageous misconduct. It strains credulity that neither he nor his subordinates were involved in, or at least being kept apprized of, the politicization of the tax-collection apparatus. While we probably won’t know for some time exactly who was responsible – let alone whether they will ever be held accountable, the evidence of such rot in the system inevitably justifies skepticism about other government activities susceptible to abuse.

This is particularly worrisome in light of the extent to which Team Obama has demonstrated, with expert guidance from the same information technology companies cooperating with the NSA, technical superiority in using to maximum political advantage personal data that is public or commercially available. The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns describes how the Obama campaign (both its official and private sector apparatuses) identified and “nudged” prospective voters with micro-targeting and data profiling.

In the face of an administration that often refuses to use actual intelligence about our enemies’ intentions (as with Major Hassan) lest they “offend” leftist and Islamist constituencies, the national security-minded are going to see a continuing need for broad data surveillance. That will necessitate continued safeguards and checks-and-balances, with better-informed congressional oversight from the intelligence committees and judicial review of the nature of and justification for future use of this capability.

Those committees are acutely aware of their responsibility not to impede our ability to ferret out enemy cells, through delays or leaks. This is especially a concern since our foes have proven agile in adapting their covert operations when they learn, usually thanks to leakers, about our intelligence collection sources and methods.

For all these reasons, we require a debate that goes beyond the unfolding one about the wisdom and constitutionality of NSA data-mining. We also need to address whether we now must focus our intelligence assets and energies squarely on those who are most responsible for the threat we face at the moment: adherents to the Islamic supremacist doctrine of shariah and the jihadism (or holy war) it impels.

Needless to say, this would require myriad changes in the way the U.S. government has been conducting what it euphemistically calls “countering violent extremism.” For starters, we need to jettison that misleading term. It’s the jihad, stupid. And we need to undo forthwith the insane November 2011 decision by the then-Homeland Security Advisor to the President, now-CIA Director John Brennan, to purge information in the files of the FBI, the military, the intelligence community and Homeland Security Department that connects the dots between shariah, jihad and terrorism – and resume training rooted in that causal linkage.

It is seductive to believe that our security can be assured cost-free. It can’t. In the event of another, even more horrific jihadist bloodletting in this country, civil liberties could be sacrificed in a way that will make what is afoot at the moment – as best we can tell – pale by comparison. Our challenge is to keep the latter from happening while minimizing the infringement on the vast majority of Americans’ privacy. It would help in this regard if we dispense with the “political correctness” that is making us vacuum up everyone’s communications lest we “offend” those who are the source of the real threat.

Source: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/06/10/metadata-and-the-common-defense/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=metadata-and-the-common-defense

The post Metadata And The Common Defense appeared first on National Writers Syndicate.

This is a “teaching moment” for all those who vote regularly and who consider themselves to be good citizens, but who are, like most Americans, either too busy with jobs and family or too politically blasé to pay close attention to the nitty-gritty of day-to-day political developments.

In my June 7, 2013, column I discussed the seamy details of the Democrats’ brazen theft of a U.S. Senate seat in New Jersey in November 2002. That was the election in which the Democrat incumbent, Robert Torricelli, dropped out of the race on September 30, just 36 days before the General Election, after it became known that he’d sold his influence for cash and expensive gifts.

Unfortunately for Democrats, New Jersey law prohibited a candidate from withdrawing from a political contest at any time within 51 days of the election. Torricelli’s withdrawal came 15 days past that deadline, and when Democrats announced their intention to replace Torricelli with former senator Frank Lautenberg, who had retired from the Senate in January 2001, Republicans cried foul. Of course, Democrats being Democrats, they were not about to let a little thing like an inconvenient state law stand in their way, especially when the balance of power in the U.S. Senate stood at 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 independent.

The Torricelli seat in the Senate was a crucial prize for the Democrats and they would stop at nothing to retain it in the Democrat column. When the issue was placed before the New Jersey Supreme Court, dominated by Democrats, the court ruled that voters deserved the “broadest possible choice of candidates” and that there was “still time to print and distribute new ballots to absentee voters,” regardless of the deadline imposed by law. Frank Lautenberg was recruited as an eleventh-hour substitute and a seat that was destined to be won by Torricelli’s Republican challenger, Doug Forrester, found its way back into the Democrat column.

So what is it about a single seat in the U.S. Senate that has the potential of being a life or death issue for every voter? I mention that episode in New Jersey because it emphasizes the need for disinterested voters… those who would vote the right way if only they knew what was going on… to pay much closer attention to day-to-day developments in the political world.

In the 107th Congress, seated in January 2001, the U.S. Senate was evenly split: 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats, with Vice President Dick Cheney available to cast the tie-breaking vote in the event of a stalemate. However, on May 24, 2001, Senator Jim Jeffords (R-VT), who served seven terms in the House of Representatives, and who had just been elected to a third term in the Senate, left the Republican Party to become an independent, promising to caucus with Senate Democrats, his ideological soul mates, in exchange for a committee chairmanship.

Since Jeffords was obligated to vote with the Democrats on organizational matters, his departure from the Republican side of the aisle changed the political balance of power in the Senate to 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and one independent. Tom Daschle suddenly became majority leader, Trent Lott (R-MS) became minority leader, and Robert “KKK” Byrd (D-WV) became chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

So what was at stake at the time that might have been of significant interest to the American people? The most significant issue in the Senate in the fall of 2002 was the question of whether or not to give President George W. Bush the war powers necessary to participate with NATO forces, enforcing a United Nations mandate to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.

Few members of Congress were anxious to see American ground forces engaged in a ground war in the Middle East. So, under the theory that no dictator can remain a dictator unless his people believe him to be both omnipotent and omniscient, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), under Republican control and chaired by Florida Republican Porter Goss, authorized funds for an “Infowar” offensive against Iraq… the goal being to remove one or both of those advantages from Saddam without the necessity of putting “boots on the ground.”

The “Infowar” offensive authorized by HPSCI, as a supplement to its FY 2003 defense authorization, read, in part, as follows:

SOFTWAR

The budget request contained $63.9 million in PE65710D8Z for Classified Programs for the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence)…

The Committee notes that information operations (IO) is increasingly becoming a more significant weapon in modern military, and moreover, asymmetric operations…

The Committee is somewhat concerned that insufficient consideration is paid to developing a capability to shape the information sphere for asymmetric operations… The Committee understands that there has been proposed a concept called Infowar, in which intelligence analysis of the threat Infosphere is coupled with the knowledge management functions of television, and an offensive management plan is developed for execution. The Committee notes that this concept is different from more traditional IO approaches in that it does not “attack” the threat directly, but rather through the threat’s intended public information consumers. The Committee believes this is a worthwhile new approach and believes the Intelligence Community should pursue it vigorously.

Therefore, the Committee recommends $73.9 million in PE65710D8Z, an increase of $10.0 Million in Classified Programs-C3I, for the SOFTWAR program.

The “Infowar” offensive authorized for funding under the HPSCI proposal was the brainchild of my longtime friend, Chuck de Caro, an Information Warfare lecturer at the National Defense University, the War College, and other agencies of the defense/intelligence establishment. The central focus of the SOFTWAR offensive, designed to remove all electronic communications capability from Saddam Hussein, substituting direct U.S. and coalition communications with the Iraqi people, was to be the Aerobureau-One aircraft that Chuck and I and a team of electronic specialists assembled in a Hamilton Aviation hangar at Tucson, Arizona, in March 1990.

Aerobureau-One was the world’s most sophisticated communications aircraft, and its strategic use represented our last and best hope of removing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein without the necessity of committing American ground forces to war in Iraq.

Unfortunately, when the SOFTWAR authorization arrived in the U.S. Senate in early September 2002, at the same time that Robert Torricelli’s reelection chances were about to go up in smoke in New Jersey, and just one year and 14 weeks after “Jumpin’ Jim” Jeffords provided Democrats with a one-vote majority in the U.S. Senate, the Democrat leadership decided that it was far more important for them to have a political issue to use against George W. Bush, who would be running for reelection in 2003 and 2004, than it was to avert a ground war in Iraq.

And while Democrats made impassioned speeches on the floor of the Senate, warning that the Congress could not give George W. Bush the war powers he requested, and demanding that the U.S. and its NATO allies find a “non-violent” means of removing Saddam Hussein from power, they were quietly and treacherously killing the HPSCI “Infowar” authorization in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

In early September 2002, Chuck de Caro sought my assistance in getting Senate Democrats to include the HPSCI “Infowar” authorization, a mere $10 million expenditure, in the FY 2003 defense appropriation bill. de Caro and I worked in the Senate throughout the months of September and October, meeting with senior staff of leading members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Appropriations Committee, both Democrats and Republicans.

Democratic staffers were highly enthusiastic about the SOFTWAR concept as a stopgap between war and diplomacy, but when the HPSCI proposal was put before their members, that’s as far as it went. And when Senator Byrd refused to fund the “Infowar” offensive for one single dollar ($1.00), a solution recommended by the staff director of the House intelligence committee, we knew that the move toward armed conflict in Iraq would proceed unabated.

On March 19, 2003, U.S. and coalition forces invaded Iraq. Since that day, some 4,500 U.S. troops have died and 32,000 have been wounded. And while Democrats continue to blame the Bush administration for the Iraq War a decade later, it was, in fact, Senate Democrats who killed any chance we had of removing Saddam Hussein through non-violent means.

History books may never reflect that, if Jim Jeffords had not abandoned the Republican Party in May 2001, the Senate would have remained in Republican hands, the “Infowar” offensive authorized by HPSCI would have been fully funded, Saddam Hussein would have been removed through non-violent means, and many thousands of lives would have been saved. So what was it that made the difference between going to war and not going to war in Iraq? It was just one single seat in the United States Senate. | June 14, 2013
~~~~~~~~~~~~Authors Note~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>
If hypocrisy were a crime, Barack Obama would be serving a life sentence with no chance of parole.

The post Just One Single Seat In The U.S. Senate appeared first on National Writers Syndicate.

 by Doc Vega -

With the questionable results of many recent overthrows in North Africa this historic operation distinguishes itself.

Our society today seems pre-occupied with frivolous things that fail to acknowledge the more grim aspects of sacrifice. The sacrifice I speak of comes from the lives of American soldiers who have fallen not only in defense of our freedom, but for the liberty of other nations too all over the world. However, in today’s age of political correctness little do we ever hear of such milestones in history achieved at the price of so many lives as was June 6, 1944 on the beaches of Normandy in France under Operation Overlord beneath the Supreme Command of General Dwight Eisenhower.

The Blitzkrieg

Less than 4 short years before, German Panzer divisions using the much vaunted tactics of Blitzkrieg, the “Lightning War” as it was called by General Irwin Rommel, who developed it, had conquered France. The German Army, outnumbered, and facing the superior technology of French tanks, used Rommel’s strategy to out maneuver British and French combined forces and quickly overwhelm opposition to drive the Allies into the ocean and conquer what was left of Europe.

Conquered

Using a synergism of combined air attack, concentrated artillery assault, rapid mechanized battalions, and superbly trained shock troops, the Germans expertly melted resistance and defeated the will of their enemies. This would present Allied forces with a formidable defense mounted against the coming retaliatory invasion to come years later. However, D-Day would not come to fruition until years later. France and Europe were doomed to German occupation and Allied bombing raids.

Preparation for D-Day

After American troops had been massively transported to Great Britain and material had been accumulated for the much awaited assault years later, Allied intelligence services used a number of different forms of deception to keep the Germans guessing at possible landing sites to defend against the coming invasion from. General Eisenhower had used fake divisions of rubber jeeps, trucks, and tanks parked in plain sight of German air reconnaissance crews to confuse the Germans over which point on the French coast the landings would occur. General Patton’s army was moved to a different location to throw off German leadership. Even astrologists were used in a paranormal form of anticipating future tactical responses by both the Allies and Axis forces in a deadly global chess game.

Adverse weather conditions

Originally planned days earlier, but hindered by storms on the English channel, finally the Allied invasion armada was launched in the wee hours of June 6, 1944 as squadrons of transport aircraft and trailing gliders airlifted thousands of US paratroopers behind occupied Normandy beaches as the US Navy made its way across the English channel. The key to the success of operation Overlord would be to delay the response of German Panzer tank units commanded by Field Marshall Rommel. The deception utilized by US intelligence had worked as the “Desert Fox” a nickname the British gave Rommel during their North Africa campaigns was on leave celebrating his anniversary with his wife. This played a crucial part in the Allied forces gaining a foothold on the Normandy beaches in the first desperate hours.

Treacherous conditions

Amphibious landing craft had a difficult time in rough seas with the beaches being washed out from recent storms. As GI’s offloaded hundreds of yards off the beach some soldiers drowned to death loaded down with gear and encountering deeper than expected waters. That wasn’t the only detriment to the troops who encountered murderous interlocking fields of fire as they neared the beach. From concrete reinforced “Pill Boxes” artillery and heavy machine guns poured deadly fire at the advancing foot soldiers. From cliffs and elevated points additional automatic weapons and rifles rained down more ordnance that decimated struggling companies of Army personnel trying to capture the beach head.

Battle lines are drawn

Along a 50 mile stretch of French coastline the Allies conducted the most massive amphibious fleet action in history. The planned assault was divided into 5 different operations “Sword” beach by the British, “Juno” beach by Canadian forces, “Gold” beach by the British, “Omaha” Beach by the Americans, and “Utah” beach under US command. Of all these, Omaha beach became the blood bath of landing operations met with the most concentrated German resistance.

Tragedy and heroism all at once

At Omaha hapless troops under heavy fire took shelter behind steel barriers constructed long the beaches. The first waves of American troops to hit the beaches were wiped out by German machine guns, shore guns, and sniper fire from the overlooking bluffs that had to be captured by Army Ranger units. As murderous fire took its toll upon the American Army, individual acts of heroism made the difference between life and death, those who failed to attain their objectives, and those whose bodies floated in the blood stained waters of the English Channel.

Staggering losses pay off

While Army Rangers scaled hundred foot cliffs to knock out German guns, the enemy poured down small arms fire upon them. Slowly infantry units began to penetrate inland using satchel charges and Bangalore Torpedoes to blow up German installations and to break through barbed wire fences. Although Omaha beach met the most fearsome resistance, Army units did manage to fight inland, span canal bridges, and establish more effective forward positions.

Despite losses incurred while climbing the cliffs overlooking Omaha beach, Army Rangers attained their objectives and began wiping out German machine guns that overlooked the landing zones. The tide of battle finally began to turn as fierce hand to hand combat and fire fights pushed German defenders back and Allied forward units moved as deep as 4 miles inland approaching the first cities.

Operation Overlord succeeds

By the end of the day more than 150,000 Allied troops had been landed, 6,000 vehicles, 600 tanks, 4,000 tons of supplies, and 900 firearms had been transported ashore. British and American Air Borne Divisions had fought behind the lines all night long and were linking up in occupied territory which further confused the Germans and prevented coordination of counter attacks. Miraculously Eisenhower’s D-Day landing had attained the element of surprise, had gained a stronghold on Normandy beach, and had successfully offloaded significant quantities of supplies to support the advance inland.

The cost of freedom

On that fateful day 9,000 American soldiers gave their lives on the beaches of Normandy. In doing so, the beginning of the end of German occupation in Europe had been spearheaded by brave GI’s and their heroic efforts. Four years earlier at Dunkirk, a failed British and French invasion effort, 340,000 men had to be rescued after being repulsed by German forces. It marked one of the most desperate moments of World War II. Yet, with half that number of troops, General Eisenhower’s Allied command had attained the unthinkable, retaking the blood soaked foothold of the French coastline as a prelude to the liberation of France and the long road to Berlin to end World War II.

Unlike the bittersweet outcomes of many US overseas conflicts since Vietnam where the true motive behind the military operations leaves much to be desired, D-Day was a noble cause based upon the liberation of Europe and the world from the grasp of the Axis Forces of fascist Germany under Hitler. Could any generation of Americans ever equal the heroic accomplishments of US citizens of that era, who had endured the Great Depression prior to the onset of World War II? President Eisenhower in the early 1960′s doubted the will and veracity of the current American generation of the early 1960′s. Where is the will of the people to overcome tyranny today?

The post The Recent Anniversary Of D-Day June 6, 1944 appeared first on National Writers Syndicate.

John Clark Host ~ Tuesday 06/11/13– 9 pm ET – 6 pm PT. Be There Or Be Unaware!

First Guest – Sheriff Wilson

TOPIC: Sheriff Wilson will be discussing the U.S. government attack on the Constitution and particularly the us government assault on the 2nd and 4th amendments Regarding this weekend’s revelations of US total electronic snooping on innocent US citizens involving stealth recording all phone and computer communications, photographing all P.O. sent mail monitoring of Skype and all “social media” including “Facebook” …. recording all photos filed on their computers … and who knows what else! These Abuses Have Been On-Going In Stealth Since 2006

Is this the governmental transparency BushBama promised?
VIDEO: Sherrif WIlson is one of the 8 Northern California Sheriffs who formed the”Coalition Against Tyranny”

Toll free call-in number 1.800.596.8191

Sponsored by: www.NationalWritersSyndicate.com

The post America Betrayed ~ Live: US Gov. Assaulting 2nd & 4th Amendments appeared first on National Writers Syndicate.

National Writers Syndicate.com [NWS] was attacked by Obamas’ hacker teams. That is the conclusion of the administration of NWS.

The main publishing computer for the ‘National Writers Syndicate.com’ has been restored to being operational again after numerous trips to and more than 3 weeks in the “Geek Squad” shop.

The short of it is as follows:
Within the last year [Summer - Fall of 2012] the Administrator for the National Writers Syndicate.com [NWS} contacted the F.B.I. [Federal Bureau of Investigation] in order to file a complaint that the NWS .com publication was being attacked by hackers that were registering false e mail addresses under unlikely names. They did nothing. They did not return a phone call though several were made to them.

The FBI was at the time notified that the NWS internet publication was previously hacked and attacked in the same manner, from the time in or about 2007, when NWS published articles that were damaging to the then Presidential Candidate B. Hussein Obama.

Every time NWS published such a revealing article about Obama the Registration area of the NWS publication would receive up to several hundred false registrations – likely made by an automated software program – which caused hundreds of man hours of trying to filter out the viable registrations from the hackers’ registrations. Since the registrations are made thru the internet each one had to be removed from the ‘net’ and there is always a delay. Eventually this led to the crashing of the ‘Loomla’ template used for the publication.

This is the second iteration of NWS as of this writing and a more robust template by ‘Word Press’ including registration security is now being used.
Nonetheless the Hackers are intent on interfering with the NWS publication, once again by way of the registration of false e mail addresses.

Here are a few examples and there are 20 – 50 more every day : Viessewrary (mymoneygoten@gmail.com) – Emainappy (bombardyupi@gmail.com) – Preemafloarly (adasdfspi6@hotmail.com)

For the last five years or so, NWS has been publishing articles that exposed the President B. Hussein Obama chaos surrounding both his administration and Obama himself. This coverage included the cover-up by Obama of his not being, as Constitutionally required, a “Natural Born” American citizen. As well as the ‘Fast & Furious’ gun running scheme with the fully automatic assault weapons being delivered to drug cartels also the Benghazi, Libya terrorist’s attack and the destruction of the U.S. Embassy Outpost and the Killing of the Ambassador as well as the two courageous Navy Seals and another American stationed there with Ambassador Stevens.

NWS also covered the B. Hussein Obama close and deepening relations ‘only’ with “radical Islam” [as if that were the truth about Islam] by protecting the terrorists and not the Americans. B. Hussein O. has become the force behind the “Muslim Brotherhood” they are the generic source of Al-Queda and the most of the other terrorist organizations worldwide. Look it up!

The Obama team has also attacked Freedom of Religion in America a fundamental G-d given right not to mention the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution as well the States Constitutions, all of which NWS has covered as well. There is more but in the interest of being brief, that’s all for now folks.

As you are likely aware the FBI works for / under the Justice Department which is controlled by the uniquely infamous A.G. Eric Holder. As you are also likely aware the President B. Hussein Obama executive branch of the federal government has been thwarting the efforts of the grass roots efforts of “We The People” to resist the total transformation of America into some Un-Constitutional manifestation of un-Godly, dark, totalitarian evil where Liberty and Freedom are four letter words. The Obama agency attacks upon the Patriots / Tea Party have been and are intended to intimidate opposition to the B. Hussein Obama anti-American agenda.

Notably, none of this happened during the Bush Administration when NWS had
them on the Tyrannicide Press operating table.

This is the basis of the conclusion drawn by the Administration of the National Writers Syndicate that the ‘Team Obama’ has been and is hacking and attacking NWS.

Notice to the ‘Obama Hacker Team ’ you may win a round but you will lose the fight. NWS will not be stopped by the likes of you and your Tyrannical leader B. Hussein Obama! Period.

The post FBI – Refuses To Stop Obama Hacker Team? appeared first on National Writers Syndicate.

According to the Associated Press in a June 4, 2013 report, “(New Jersey) Gov. Chris Christie is perhaps the nation’s highest-profile Republican – but that’s no guarantee the seat held by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg will switch to GOP hands.” The AP goes on to suggest, in an agonizingly twisted sort of logic, that,“In fact, it’s that profile that could help preserve the seat for the Democrats.” Huh?

As liberals and Democrats see things, “Christie has two key decisions: Whom to appoint to fill the seat in the short term, and when to let voters have their say on who will fill it until the term expires in January 2015. There are layers of political calculations involved, along with possible legal complications.”
Legal complications? What legal complications? Everyone knows that, when Democrats run into “legal complications” they simply shop for an unprincipled Democrat judge who will pat them on the head and assure them that everything will be alright.

According to the AP, Democrats reason that, “Christie, widely considered a possible presidential candidate for 2016, needs to decide whether to appoint someone who will merely keep the seat warm – or someone who will seek to keep it in the 2014 election. He also needs to decide whether a Democrat or a Republican is best suited for the seat… If Christie picks a Democrat, it may not play well with Republican presidential primary voters, who could see him as disloyal to his party. But if he picks a Republican, he risks upsetting voters who chose a Democrat for the seat, and a moderate Republican may not help him much with that group, either.”

But then the AP goes off onto some very thin ice, pointing out that, “New Jersey has not elected a Republican to the Senate since 1972. And it hasn’t had one serve there at all since 1982, when Republican Governor Tom Kean appointed Republican Nicholas Brady to finish the term of Democrat Harrison Williams, who resigned amid scandal in the last year of his term. Lautenberg won the seat later that year and remained in the Senate until his death, except for a brief retirement in 2001 and 2002 (emphasis added).”

The AP fails to mention how Republicans have failed to win a Senate seat in New Jersey in the past forty-one years, and low-information voters may not recall how Frank Lautenberg managed to return to the Senate in January 2003 after retiring in January 2001. Allow me to refresh a few memories.
There once was a Democrat from New Jersey named Robert “The Torch” Torricelli. A former member of Congress, Torricelli was elected to the Senate in 1996, winning the seat vacated by former NBA basketball star Bill Bradley. However, during his campaign for reelection in 2002, it became known that Torricelli had been the recipient of expensive gifts and cash payments from a Korean businessman named David Chang.

Chang was owed a large sum of money by the North Korean government, to which he had shipped cargoes of wheat. And when he was not paid in full he sought help from Senator Torricelli.

Chang told prosecutors of delivering quantities of cash to Torricelli at his home in Englewood, New Jersey, along with expensive gifts such as a big screen TV, suits, ties, watches, and works of art. In return, Torricelli agreed to pressure the North Koreans to pay Chang the millions he was owed.

All of this became known during Torricelli’s 2002 reelection campaign. And when Chang was quoted in a WNBC news report as saying, “My mistake was I met Robert Torricelli. I do not consider him a Senator. I consider him a master criminal,” Torricelli’s poll numbers nosedived.

Finally, on September 30, 2002, just 36 days before the November election, Democrats could see the handwriting on the wall. Convinced that Torricelli would lose to his Republican challenger, Douglas Forrester, Democrats convinced “The Torch” to call it quits.

But that created a major problem for Democrats… one of those “layers of legal complications” that the AP referred to: New Jersey law prohibited candidates from withdrawing from a political race at any time within 51 days of the election. Even Democrats can count; their one-vote majority in the U.S. Senate hung precariously in the balance and they were already 15 days past the legal deadline for withdrawal.

But Democrats never allow a minor complication like the law to stand in their way. And when Republicans challenged the notion that Torricelli could withdraw from the race at that late date, Democrats just laughed. With a majority of Democrats on the State Supreme Court, they knew they wouldn’t have to do a lot of “judge-shopping.”

Democrats argued that decades of state court decisions put voters’ rights above filing deadlines and other “technical guidelines.” Putting partisan political considerations above the law, the Court agreed with the Democrats, saying that voters deserved the “broadest possible choice of candidates” and that there was “still time to print and distribute new ballots to absentee voters.” Other than that bit of political practicality, overruling the considered judgment of the peoples’ representatives, the high court did not explain its reasons for rejecting the GOP appeal.

Two prominent Democrats were mentioned as replacements. One of those, Congressman Frank Pallone, declined to enter the race, citing “family reasons.” He did not specify whether it was the Bonanno, Colombo, Gambino, or Pallone family that he had in mind.

The other prominent Democrat mentioned was former senator Frank Lautenberg. And since Lautenberg had been standing around twiddling his thumbs since retiring from the Senate in January 2001, he was suddenly the “man of the hour” and Doug Forrester was the “odd man out.” New Jersey Democrats proceeded with the Torricelli-Lautenberg “shuffle” and Lautenberg soon found himself back in the United States Senate, seated alongside Democratic luminaries such as tax-cheat Tom Daschle (D-SD), Robert “KKK” Byrd (D-WV), “Searchlight” Harry Reid (D-NV), and his New Jersey colleague, Jon Corzine, who later had the misfortune of misplacing $1.6 billion in depositor funds as CEO of MF Global.

So, welcome to the Democrat meat-grinder, Doug Forrester. The Associated Press appears to have forgotten why New Jersey hasn’t elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since 1972.

Among the most prominently mentioned Republicans who may run to fill Lautenberg’s unexpired term are State Senator Tom Kean, Jr., son of former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean; Congressman Chris Smith; and former Governor Christine Todd Whitman. And while the Associated Press and other liberal media see little chance of any Republican winning the seat, let us hope that they are underestimating the seething anger of the American people at the growing number of scandals in the Obama administration. There are lots of Democrats in New Jersey. Surely, some of them must be capable of putting love of country above love of party.

Political analysts say the list of Republican possibilities includes state Sen. Tom Kean Jr.; U.S. Rep. Chris Smith; former Gov. Christie Whitman; state Sen. Joe Kyrillos, who ran for the U.S. Senate last year; state Sen. Kevin O’Toole; or Bill Baroni, the deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Another possibility could be Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, which would open a spot on Christie’s re-election bid ticket this fall for another Republican.
Despite the risks, Christie could consider appointing Newark Mayor Cory Booker, a Democrat who announced earlier this year plans to run for Lautenberg’s seat in 2014, said Brigid Harrison, a political scientist at Montclair State University. The move could backfire, she said, but it would help Christie’s image with New Jersey Democrats and African-Americans across the country – especially since history shows it’s hard for a Republican to win a Senate seat in New Jersey.

“For his own political future, it is not a bad gamble” for Christie, Harrison said. | June 7, 2013
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Authors Note~~~~~~~~~~~>>
We should all strive to remember Frank Lautenberg for what he was. R.I.P.

The post Frank Lautenberg-Torricelli, R.I.P. appeared first on National Writers Syndicate.

In almost every field of endeavor we find those who display an indomitable spirit laboring side by side with those who are only too anxious to throw in the towel when the going gets tough or when the odds appear too long.

As a case in point, I remember being summoned to the Chicago home of former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld on July 7, 1986. Those in attendance, some twenty-one individuals, included political operatives from all regions of the country, as well as corporate executives and former top government officials. We were there to help the former defense secretary think through the question of whether it was still possible to defeat George H.W. Bush for the 1988 Republican presidential nomination… in spite of the fact that Bush already had a large and experienced campaign organization in place, left over from his 1980 campaign against Ronald Reagan, and in spite of the fact that he had served as Reagan’s vice president for five and one-half years and had staffed every agency of the federal government with loyal campaign aides.

And although we all came from widely varying backgrounds, with but one or two exceptions we all shared one thing in common: we were all military veterans. The consensus we reached was that, in spite of the odds against us, we could still defeat George H.W. Bush and Senator Bob Dole for the 1988 GOP nomination. There was no trepidation. We were confident that, if we followed the advice of the U.S. Marines… improvise, adapt, overcome… we could be successful.

A week after that initial meeting I went to work full time on the campaign as principal deputy to the campaign manager, and in the days and weeks that followed I saw some of the most notable and accomplished men and women in the country drop whatever they were doing to devote themselves to our cause. And in spite of the fact that some were people that George H. W. Bush was counting upon to take responsibility for major portions of his campaign, no one asked for a guarantee that we would ultimately be successful in our quest.

When I was the last to leave the campaign in August 1987, I sent a letter to the Rumsfelds in which I attempted to put into words exactly what it was that had made so many men and women of accomplishment drop whatever else they were doing to enlist in our “dark horse” campaign for the presidency, a campaign that was not even a “blip” in the presidential preference polls.

Describing the Rumsfeld campaign as a three-legged stool, I used Barbara Tuschman’s definition of the word “quality” as the first leg of the stool. She said, it is “… achieving or reaching for the highest standard as against being satisfied with the sloppy or fraudulent. It is honesty of purpose as against catering to cheap or sensational sentiment. It does not allow compromise with the second rate.”

As the second leg of the stool I quoted Sidney Hook’s proposition to William F. Buckley regarding the essence of true leadership. As Hook described it, the essence of true leader ship is “great intelligence… in combination with great moral courage.”

And finally, and most importantly, as the third leg of the stool, I quoted the guiding philosophy of Edwin Land, the inventor of the Polaroid camera, who advised, “Don’t do anything that someone else can do. Don’t undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly impossible. If it is manifestly important, then you don’t have to worry about its significance. Since it’s nearly impossible, you know that no one else is likely to be doing it.”

That is precisely what we in the Rumsfeld organization were trying to do, and although we were not able to elect a “dark horse” candidate as president of the United States, in spite of the fact that he was arguably the best qualified and best prepared candidate ever to seek the presidency in all of American history, it was not for the lack of trying; we simply ran out of time and money. However, the experience contributed much to my understanding of the people who are the “movers and shakers” of the world. It was then I began to understand that those who have served in the military, both men and women, have an extra dimension to them that non-veterans simply do not have.

That difference in “dimension,” although I have never before been able to put it into words, has never been more evident than in the attitude of many pundits and commentators who consider the question of what impact a series of major scandals will have on Barack Obama and his ability to lead the nation.

At this very instant, we have a man sitting in the Oval Office who has no right to be there. It is indisputable that he was born with dual US-British citizenship and that he is currently, by reason of his own claim of parentage, a citizen of Kenya “by birth.” It is entirely possible that he holds Indonesian citizenship, as well, and is not even an American citizen. Beyond that, the document he has presented as his long-form birth certificate is, in fact, a rather poorly crafted forgery; his draft registration card was created for him in 2008, at age 47, after he launched a campaign for the presidency; he currently uses a stolen Social Security number that was originally issued to a man named Harrison J. Bounel in 1940; and a simple Social Security Administration E-verify test, using Obama’s name and Social Security number, produces a “no match” response.

And now, having usurped the most powerful political office on Earth through the most audacious political crime in recorded history, this man finds himself embroiled in a multiplicity of scandals that would have landed any other chief executive, not only out on the street, but in prison.

Nevertheless, respected commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and others, none of them military veterans, throw up their hands in surrender, declaring that the full weight of crimes in the Obama administration will never find their way to his doorstep.

They reason that the number and seriousness of his crimes are of little importance because the mainstream media will throw a blanket of protection over him such that he will not be blamed for any of the crimes committed in his name. They argue that fighting to blame Obama is a waste of time and energy.

On the other hand, an even larger number of political pundits and commentators, all military veterans, are of a far different opinion. Those of us in the “never say die” category understand that, in order to defeat a sitting president, no matter how powerful the phalanx of apologists around him, we must follow the advice of the U.S. Marines: we must improvise, adapt, and overcome.

Twenty-six years ago we were unsuccessful in our attempt to elect a supremely qualified man to the presidency. Now, in 2013, we find ourselves up against a man who is not only ineligible for the office he holds, but who is profoundly ill-equipped for any sort of leadership role.

It would be helpful to have the Limbaughs and the Hannitys of the world with us, using their substantial influence to support our effort, but if need be we will march on without them and we will be victorious. As believers in Constitutional principles and the rule of law, we are superior to Barack Obama. We will improvise as necessary, we will adapt to whatever roadblocks he throws in our path, and we will overcome. The house of cards is beginning to fall. Don’t bet against us. | May 31, 2013

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Authors Note~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>
It has not been easy these past few days trying to produce a few written words. Rushing to a neighbor’s basement to ride out a tornado watch two or three times a night (they are living permanently in Panama and we have access to their home) is very disruptive to a normal routine. As it turns out, we have all been spared. Neither of the two tornados that have struck Moore, Oklahoma, in the past week caused any damage to our grandson’s home, and the tornado that touched down near Mazie, Oklahoma, just three miles west of us, receded back into the wall cloud and passed directly over us.

The storms have now moved east and are threatening people in Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana. To those who live in those states, our thoughts and prayers are with you.

Paul

The post Improvise, Adapt, And Overcome appeared first on National Writers Syndicate.

The Obama administration’s policy banning references to “Islamic extremism” and “jihad” in discussions about terrorism drew criticism during last Thursday’s House Homeland Security Committee hearing on the Boston Marathon bombings.

The bombings “should again teach us that the enemy we face is violent Islamist extremism, not just al Qaida,” said former U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman. “Osama bin Laden is dead. And the remaining leadership of al Qaida is on the run, but the ideology of violent Islamist extremism is rapidly spreading.”

The Boston investigation already has shown that Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev “adopted the outrageously false narrative of violent Islamist extremism, that Islam and America are involved in a struggle to the death with each other,” Lieberman said.

It has been more than five years since the Department of Homeland Security, under the Bush administration, issued a directive about “the difficult terrain of terminology” as recommended by unidentified academics and Muslim American activists. “Jihadist” and “Islamist terrorist” were identified as terms to be avoided. Jihad “glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have, and damages relations with Muslims around the globe,” the memo said.

By identifying them as mere extremists or criminals, they lose some of the luster that attracts recruits, the argument goes.

Is it working? How can you tell?

Anecdotally, this strategy did nothing to dissuade the Tsarnaevs, or any of the other homegrown terrorist plotters in recent years. The policy’s effectiveness is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. But skeptics, such as Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program Director Jeffrey M. Bale, say the language policy is illogical.

“Why, after all, would Muslims look to non-Muslims to interpret their religion for them, or for guidance about how to identify and label Islamists?” Bale said in response to an email from the Investigative Project on Terrorism. “Indeed, if we call jihadists ‘criminals,’ it may actually have the counterproductive effect of garnering more sympathy for them given the levels of anti-U.S. and anti-Western hostility throughout the Muslim world.”

Jihadists routinely make it plain that – while religion may not be the sole factor driving them to violence – their Islamic beliefs and identities dominate their thinking. “We in the West just don’t seem to want to believe what they constantly say,” Bale wrote. (Read his full response here.)

Faisal Shahzad failed to set off the car bomb he built and parked near Times Square in 2010. But he said he tried to kill Americans because he saw himself as part of “the war against people who believe in the book of Allah and follow the commandments, so this is a war against Allah. So let’s see how you can defeat your Creator, which you can never do. Therefore, the defeat of U.S. is imminent and will happen in the near future, inshallah [God willing], which will only give rise to much awaited Muslim caliphate, which is the only true world order.”

Farooque Ahmed similarly thought he was acting to defend Muslims when he plotted to attack subway stops along Washington’s Metro.

FBI agents were drawn to Ahmed after he tried to make contact with terrorist groups so he could wage jihad against Americans. At Ahmed’s sentencing, public defender Kenneth Troccoli explained that Ahmed’s extreme religious beliefs helped land him in front of the court.

“First, there’s an incessant message that is delivered by radical followers of Islam that one cannot be true to the faith unless they take action, including violent action, most especially violent action. And this is a message which of course the United States combats in many different fronts,” Troccoli said. “But [it] is an incessant message nonetheless that for a person like Mr. Ahmed who is a believer in Islam and is a Muslim, he hears all the time that he is not — not only is he not sufficient under the faith, if one were to believe these negative messages, but he’s also not patriotic because he was born and raised until he was 16 in Pakistan.”

Ahmed bought the message offered by American-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, among others, that Muslims who do not wage jihad, “literally will not find salvation under their faith.”

The problem is especially acute for converts, a study by the Henry Jackson Society found. They were involved in nearly a quarter of the 171 al-Qaida related offenses in the United States since 1997.

Zachary Chesser wanted to join the Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab not long after converting to Islam. Chesser is serving 25 years in prison for trying to provide material support to al-Shabaab and for his role in threatening the producers of “South Park” following an episode portraying the prophet Muhammad in a bear suit. The producers wanted to show that Islam is the only major religion which prompts violent reactions to any criticism or mockery.

His case generated a bipartisan report on online radicalization by the Senate Homeland Security Committee. In a handwritten letter from prison, Chesser told committee staffers that, “My religion, the state of affairs in the Muslim world and a desire to alleviate suffering within it led me to desire to fight jihad.”

Muslims investigating their faith find two choices, he wrote, “do nothing and pray or fight jihad somewhere. Increasingly, ‘somewhere’ is here. One does not typically run across the fiqh [jurisprudence] of diplomacy and negotiations unless to go into great depth.”

“The one who sets out to learn inevitably sees jihad as viable and preferable at some point,” Chesser wrote.

Rather than merely ignoring Chesser’s path to radicalization, and his language, a counter-narrative is needed to rebut the narrative put forth by al-Qaida, Awlaki and other religious scholars that are readily accessible on the Internet. There are heroic efforts made by individual Muslims. But it is here that the government policy, stoked by national Islamist groups (see sidebar), proves woefully misguided.

During an appearance on CNN after the Marathon bombing, former radical Islamist Maajid Nawaz advocated “challenging the jihadist ideology, discrediting their propaganda.” Ask someone to identify the symbols and leaders representing radical Islam, and “[y]ou’d think of the black flags, you’d think of the leaders such as bin Laden, Awlaki, Ayman Zawahiri. If I asked the same question for leaders and symbols of democratic activism in the Middle East today, we’re much harder pressed to think of those leaders and symbols. And that tells us something about the power of the radical Islamist brand today versus the power of the democratic brand. And that’s what we should really be focusing on.”

But you can’t counter narratives when you refuse to acknowledge their existence. That’s what the current policy does.

In a separate CNN appearance, Nawaz said Muslim jihadists see America as the true enemy in a global war. “The younger [Tsarnaev] brother, let’s remember, said in his interview that he was fighting on behalf of the Afghans and the Iraqis. He’s probably never visited those two countries. Yet somehow, he felt that he owed more allegiance to Iraq and Afghanistan than to the very country that adopted him,” Nawaz said.

The American-Islamic Forum for Democracy has launched a Muslim Liberty Project aimed at promoting patriotism as compatible with faith, rather than promoting the notion of a universal “ummah,” or Muslim nation. The 2008 DHS directive on language frowns upon use of the word “liberty,” saying that “many around the world would discount the term as a buzzword for American hegemony.

Forum founder Zuhdi Jasser said national Islamist groups have failed to lead on the issue.

“And that many of the leadership in our community says, oh, there’s no problem. These guys weren’t even really Muslims. We don’t have the narrative about victimization, America’s biggest, America’s anti-Muslim, anti-Islam, they’re killing Muslims abroad. They’re in Muslim lands,” Jasser said. “This narrative is not balanced by other Muslim leaders, the reformists that are anti-Islamist that believe in American liberty, and that imbalance creates a narrative that makes them feel that this society is not theirs, that they’re visitors.”

Jasser is a devout Muslim working to elbow his way into the discussion about Islam in America. When Islamist groups like CAIR or the Muslim Public Affairs Council – which are used to controlling the microphone – cannot argue against the merits of Jasser’s message, they quickly turn to vicious ad hominem attacks.

A look at the home pages for CAIR, MPAC, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society and others shows plenty of blanket condemnations of the Boston attacks and statements that they do not represent Muslims. But no one has produced a detailed rebuttal to the ubiquitous online rhetoric that radicalized the Tsarnaevs and dozens of other young people.

In a recent column, Canadian physician and writer Ali A. Rizvi, an atheist who left Islam, criticized what he called “the ‘anything but jihad’ brigade” which wants to consider every possible motivation for the Boston attacks and a disrupted terror plot in Canada, except for religious radicalism, despite what Tsarnaev told investigators.

If terrorists say they were motivated by their interpretation of Islam, it should be openly discussed, Rizvi wrote. Doing so is not an indictment of all Muslims any more than saying “smoking is bad” is the same as saying “all smokers are bad.”

“Timothy McVeigh (also a terrorist by any definition of the word) didn’t yell ‘Jesus is great!’ before carrying out the Oklahoma City bombing,” Rizvi wrote. “His brand of terrorism wasn’t linked to Christianity, because it wasn’t carried out in the name of it. (In contrast, the bombing of abortion clinics is terrorism universally acknowledged as being linked with Christian religious extremism.)”

Radical rhetoric is not shunned when it comes to other forms of political violence. When Jared Laughner killed six people and wounded 13 others, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., in January 2011, media attention immediately turned to a political ad that featured crosshairs over various congressional districts, including Giffords’. Subsequent investigation, however, failed to turn up any political motivation for Laughner’s madness.

Similarly, when some Tea Party rallies drew people carrying arms, talking heads expressed concern that it posed an inherent risk of violence.

Nobody tried to stifle those debates and, if they had merit, they would have been vigorously pursued. It should be no different when Muslims pursue political violence which they say is in furtherance of their religious beliefs.

It’s time to review the policy on politically correct language.
May 14, 2013

Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/4016/keeping-our-heads-in-the-sand-after-boston

The post Keeping Our Heads In The Sand After Boston appeared first on National Writers Syndicate.