http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2215/More-Reasons-to-Investigate-Huma-Abedin.aspx At his Iftar dinner, President Obama prasied Huma Abedin as “nothing less than extraordinary in representing our country and the democratic values that we hold dear.” Walid Shoebat disagrees, writing: “The Abedins for decades were actually serving a foreign entity, the government of Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs, and not American Democracy as [...]
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/daniel-greenfield/al-qaeda-allied-qatar-buys-into-europe%e2%80%99s-busiest-airport/ London’s Heathrow Airport is the busiest airport in the European Union with 70 million passengers passing through its corridors. It is busier than France’s Charles de Gaulle Airport and Spain’s Madrid-Barajas Airport. It has more than three times the traffic of New York’s JFK Airport and receives flights from around the world. Heathrow’s operator, [...]
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/huma-abedin-islamist-connections-and-willful-blindness/ Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and New York Times bestselling author who put the Blind Sheik behind bars in the first World Trade Center bombing. He is the author of Willful Blindness and, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. FP: [...]
President Obama has dismissed and derided the former military and intelligence officers who believe his administration passed out sensitive national security information for partisan gain. In a press conference yesterday, he said of the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund and similar groups—“I don’t take these folks too seriously.”
Unsurprisingly, the White House has been quick to attack the men behind these accusations instead of explaining to the American people that this administration has not leveraged defense secrets for positive press reports. The best Obama was able to muster in his defense yesterday was “this kind of stuff springs up before election time.”
Of course, this does not adequately address accusations of leaks that many believe could amount to treason. While the specific source of the leaks remains in question, as a former intelligence officer, I see why so many informed observers, including the OPSEC whistleblowers, smell something rotten at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Let’s press into the facts of the case.
From the start of the controversy, the news articles that leaked the information claimed that their sources were members of “Obama’s national security team.” That would seem the drain the pool of possible leakers rather quickly, but alas—no progress has been made on the White House-approved investigation.
Even without that massive clue, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence pointing to the White House as the source. The leaks are obviously political because they are positive. Leaks usually hurt administrations, but not these leaks. Whoever told the press about these sensitive national security matters had very high-level access and used it to lionize the President. From the Bin Laden raid details to the President’s so-called “Kill List,” the leaks bolstered the perception that Obama had transformed into a hawk.
In response to the OPSEC group’s accusations, media outlets often tout that Obama’s Department of Justice has brought more Espionage Act prosecutions—six and counting—than every President before him combined. They cite this to further a narrative that Obama takes leaking seriously, but that’s a misreading. The prosecutions have everything to do with appearances for Obama and very little to do with national security.
Leaks can create major political headaches, as seen during the Bush years. To blunt this liability, the Obama administration established an early precedent: leak, and Attorney General Holder’s DOJ will ruin your life. This approach ensnared a range of offenders—from legitimately dangerous offenses to a case against former NSA analyst Thomas Drake that completely fell apart in court.
Thus the Obama administration has maintained a two-track enforcement approach to leakers. Senior political operatives seem to get away with them; working-level national security professionals cower in fear of DOJ’s wrath.
Instead of pulling clearances and firing alleged leakers, Obama’s DOJ jumped right to felony charges in these instances. Regardless of the trial outcomes, the message to all who have classified access and a political disagreement with Obama was heard loud and clear.
And what liberals claimed was laudable behavior under President Bush—leaking– was now treasonous under Obama. For a President who ran on a promise of transparency, this was a particularly craven abandonment of previously espoused principle.
Contrast the draconian enforcement approach to working-level intelligence employees with the zero arrests that have been made in relation to the major national security disclosures that set off the current furor. Despite the reckless revelation of sources and methods in the recent leaks, it is a near certainty that no senior White House officials will face charges or even lose their security clearance because of them.
Republican delegates arriving in Tampa for the convention this week will likely find one thing more oppressive than the humidity: hordes of motley Occupiers, political puppeteers, Teamsters, Code Pink activists dressed as giant female body parts, open-borders extremists, vegan Marxists, and tattooed anarchists, all assembling for their quadrennial temper tantrum.
One major target is the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, and anything ever associated with him. Plans include a tent city called “Romneyville” and protests against any companies assisted by Romney’s old firm, Bain Capital.
The purpose, in line with the campaign against the Republican Party being waged by the Obama presidential campaign and its Super PACs, is to depict Romney as a heartless capitalist, oblivious to the suffering of people who can’t make it in the modern economic system.
It is as yet unclear how many protesters will trek to Tampa and endure the heat. Nonetheless, in a ritual that grows more sophisticated with every new Occupy camp and political convention, protesters and their ACLU lawyers have been “in negotiation” with Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn and the city council for several months, demanding permits, demanding special restraints on the police, and threatening lawsuits if they don’t get their way.
The threat is not an empty one. After the 2004 Republican Convention in New York City, the ACLU published a 69-page report, Rights and Wrongs at the RNC, detailing the extensive legal campaign they waged to suppress the police’s ability to keep order during anti-RNC protests. The report was funded by George Soros, who is thanked in the endnotes. Soros is also a major donor supporting the ACLU’s many campaigns against law enforcement.
Rights and Wrongs at the RNC is now the leftist playbook for applying legal and financial pressure on cities before, during, and after protests. Municipalities that dare to host economic summits or try to rein in illegal Occupy encampments find themselves, and especially their police, virtually held hostage by the media strategies and legal actions detailed throughout the manual.
Ordinary citizens (and groups like the Tea Party) cannot stroll into city hall and demand special rules of engagement when dealing with the police. But this is precisely what is being done on behalf of Occupy protesters in city halls and university presidents’ offices across the country. Fear of legal backlash was one reason so many elected officials seemed paralyzed last autumn in the face of the Occupiers’ refusal to obey municipal laws.
The protesters who are about to hit Tampa’s streets, no matter how garish-looking or headline-grabbing, are mere pawns in this chess game. The lawsuits and forced “negotiations” being played out behind closed doors are where the real action is taking place.
And in this game, threats of violence are another crucial chess piece. The ACLU and protest leaders repeatedly insist that they have nothing to do with the violence that erupts in the vicinity of their “peaceful” marches. Yet in reality, violent protest serves their needs. The lawyers file police brutality charges if the police take any action to stop rioters, and they accuse the police of “failing to protect” the public and other protesters if the police don’t stop the riots quickly enough. No matter what police do, they are automatically accused of “silencing free speech.”
The media can’t get enough of the free speech angle, even if it doesn’t apply in any way to the reality on the ground, where rioters smash store windows and mob police vans.
The Anti-Police Narrative
Police in Oakland, New York City, St. Paul, Chicago and elsewhere have endured a sort of multi-pronged legal attack ever since the 1999 WTO riots devastated Seattle’s business district and set anti-globalization protesters on a new course. A dozen years later, after every new clash between protesters and police, police alone are subjected to drawn-out public inquiries and lawsuits. Even when they are found to have been behaving professionally, the police receive re-training, new limitations for engaging even the most violent protesters, and, sometimes, personal consequences.
In another case, the UC Davis pepper spray incident from November 2011, police were acquitted of charges of behaving inappropriately after an internal affairs committee found that the off-camera actions of the U.C. Davis protesters constituted a real threat. Yet, campus police officer John Pike, who used pepper-spray to disperse the protesters, was still dismissed from his job recently.
In spite of the ubiquity of the legal chess game, it remains largely unexamined. Less than a week before the convention, the Tampa media have not scrutinized the acceptance of violence as a strategy by the main activist groups coordinating the anti-RNC protests, and there has been sparse coverage of the violent protesters coming to Tampa. This November 2011 article on anarchist protesters, by Tampa Bay Times reporter Jessica Vander Velde, is an exception.
The litmus test for participating in the new protest movements is “respecting a diversity of actions,” sophisticated wordplay that means, specifically, that no protester should stop another protester from using violence or vandalism, nor should they report them to authorities if they know of such plans in advance. In practice, it means more than that: as journalist and onetime activist leader Mark Satin wisely observed back in 2000, while participating in protests at the Philadelphia RNC:
Ever since Seattle, protesters have been claiming that any violence ‘not caused by the police’ has been the result of bad apples or weird anarchists…”
When you watch what goes on at street level, though, you get a very different perspective on things.
True, probably fewer than 500 protesters in Philly were smashing windows, punching cops, overturning dumpsters, etc.
But the violent protesters were never stopped or even verbally discouraged by the thousands of other protesters. On the contrary-whenever violence was being wrought, the norm was for the “nicer” protesters to conduct support activities, such as chanting, cheering, and running amok so the police couldn’t easily give chase.
Besides, the theoretically neat distinction between “violence” and “nonviolence” becomes much less neat at street level. Is it not violent to spray-paint taxpayer-supported buses and buildings?
Is it not violent to shout endless insults at police officers-or to constantly harangue them about the “martyrdom” of a guy (Mumia) convicted of killing a police officer?
Is it not violent to keep working-class Philadelphians from being able to drive home at night because you and your friends have contempt for normal political channels?
There weren’t “good” and “bad” protesters in Philly. The protesters were an organic whole. They may have done different things on the street, but their separate acts were as connected as fingers on a hand.
And when you looked closely at that hand, it was really ugly.
The Tulsa PD is punishing a police captain for refusing to attend an Islamic “cultural event” at a local mosque.
Is it a case of anti-Muslim bigotry or a principled stand against creeping sharia? Is it insubordination on the part of a rebellious police officer, or is it simply a case of police department management being caught with their heads up their brass?
A Tulsa police captain is suing his department to regain his lost pay and assignment after he was suspended for two weeks and transferred for refusing to attend a “cultural event” at a Tulsa mosque. Captain Paul Fields, a 17-year veteran of the department and a devout Christian, informed his chief that he would not attend the event, billed as a “Law Enforcement Appreciation Day,” to be held in March 2011 at the Islamic Cultural Society of Tulsa.
According to the lawsuit (PDF), in January 2011, Tulsa Deputy Police Chief Alvin Webster announced in a staff meeting that the event was upcoming and solicited volunteers to attend. In February 2011, an email regarding the event was sent to all Tulsa police officers. Attached to the email was a flier from the Islamic Society describing the event and inviting police officers to attend. When neither Captain Fields nor any of his subordinates responded to the invitation, a subsequent email was sent informing Fields that his attendance was no longer voluntary but mandatory, and that officers from each shift under his command were also expected to attend.
Capt. Fields responded with an email of his own, informing his superiors that he believed the order was unlawful as it violated his religious convictions and that he would not be attending. He also said he would not order any of his subordinates who held similar convictions to attend the event.
Efforts were made to persuade Capt. Fields to change his mind, but when he did not he was served with his transfer and suspension for failing to observe Rule 6 of the Tulsa Police Department Rules and Regulations – Duty to Be Truthful and Obedient.
Granted, while Capt. Fields, like any police officer, does indeed have a duty to be truthful and obedient, he should not have a duty to serve as a prop in the service of Muslim religious proselytizing and the advancement of Muslim political aims.
As stated in Capt. Fields’s lawsuit, the Islamic Society of Tulsa “supports and promotes” on its website both the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America, both of which were identified as unindicted coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-funding case. The lawsuit further describes a network of individuals associated with both the Islamic Society of Tulsa and the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization guided by what is known as its “Strategic Goal Memo,” which includes the following passage:
The process of settlement is a “Civilization Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan [a.k.a., Muslim Brotherhood] must understand their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
The Islamic Society of Tulsa tried to put a benign face on its law enforcement event, but Capt. Fields was well founded in detecting sinister motives and refusing to participate. But even if there were no links, however tenuous, between the Society and terrorist groups, should Capt. Fields or any police officer be ordered to attend a religious event on duty? If a Muslim police officer had been ordered to attend a Christian event, is there a sentient being in America who believes his superiors would not acquiesce (and quickly!) to his objections?
Hillary Clinton, the liberal darling of the left — and lately touted as the replacement for our “gaffe-prone” vice president, Joe Biden — has certainly proven herself to be a team player on Obama’s and the Democrats’ policy of division and opportunism in all things racial. She has just completed a trip to South Africa, where she discussed numerous issues with Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, South African minister of international relations and cooperation. The two politicians issued a joint statement for strategic dialog.
Here is a partial list of the strategic initiatives they agreed to:
* the signing of a U.S. $2 billion declaration of intent between the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. and South Africa’s Industrial Development Corporation to provide credit guarantees to stimulate development of South Africa’s renewable energy sector;
* the establishment of a Global Disease Detection Center in South Africa, co-directed by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and South Africa’s National Institute for Communicable Diseases;
* a R5.2 million (U.S. $650,000) USAID program for judicial management and leadership program to support South African combating sexual and gender-based violence and build upon best practices that can be shared with other countries in the region …
You get the idea about what this statement and trip were all about: building ties in a troubled world by reaching out to our global neighbors. What was conspicuously absent was any statement from Hillary or Obama on the atrocities being committed against the Afrikaners in the region. Genocide Watch, an international alliance to end genocide, chronicles the crimes against the Boers by a member organization of the ANC (South Africa’s ruling party in power), and officials of the South African government are prompting Genocide Watch to place South Africa alternately between stage 5 (“polarization”) and stage 6 (“preparation”) of their genocide scale.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/obamas_world_through_a_glass_darkly.html For anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear, and who is not terminally obtuse, the present incumbent of the Oval Office has deliberately helped engineer Islam’s latest and successful lust for world domination through sharia law and geopolitical contrivance. The Muslim cry of “first the Saturday people and then the Sunday [...]
The Naked Truth
Shall we pretend that when the Sunday Times Arts Section blasts us with a review of dancers inserting dildos in their anuses, their reviewer is simply commenting on what is out there in the zeitgeist? Alistair Macaulay cites this along with several other examples of choreographed anal sex as examples of “exposed flesh in dance…opening up new areas of thought and feeling.” They are included in a critique entitled “Nakedness in Dance, Taken to Extremes” that was the lead article with accompanying photographs in the Aug 19th Sunday Times. Another dance cited had the male dancer bend over from the waist exposing the inner portion of his backside and a rear view of his genitals to the captive audience. As if to prove that this attempt to epater le bourgeois and to simultaneously under-react to the politics of gay choreography is just one of many phenomena in the dance world, Macaulay ends with a discussion of the cataclysmic effect of removing ballerina’s tights from classical ballet: “the look of the bare leg drastically changes the entire aesthetics of the form. Muscular details of thigh, knee, calf become suddenly distracting.” Hmmm – that bare ballerina leg becomes a game changer while the graphic depiction of uncommon sexual acts doesn’t raise the critic’s temperature: “Even for those of us who have now seen a great many naked bodies onstage, the bent-over rear view of Mr. Weinert in “Gobbledygook” was something new. It was not, however, a problem. Though I didn’t much admire the work as a whole, that use of nakedness made Mr. Weinert memorably vulnerable.”
A video translated from Arabic by MEMRI [we blogged about it yesterday] shows a July 2012 interview with Ahlam Tamimi, the woman who murdered our daughter and many other people’s children.
In it, she speaks clearly, deliberately, openly, in front of the camera and to the obvious delight of the interviewer who cannot restrain his smiles and pleasure.
No one who sees this can possibly be in any doubt about this woman’s feelings about terrorism: she believes Hamas-style terrorism should grow bigger, should become more murderous.
She regrets she did not kill more children. She says it.
She says a large portion of the people living here in this city, Jerusalem, where my family and I live, agree with her. I don’t know if she is right. But I am horrified that she believes she is, and that – as far as I know – no one
on the Arab side is disputing it.