Scozzafava Quits Congressional Race In NY District 23

Wow. With only days left before the election, Dede Scozzafava , the maligned liberal Republican candidate for the Congressional seat for New York's 23rd District has called it quits. Her name will still be on the ballot but she's told her supporters to go ahead and vote for others. Isn't it odd that she wouldn't endorse the Conservative?

Here's the story at Breitbart:

NY Republican abandons election bid

A New York Republican on Saturday abandoned her bid to enter the US Congress, days before an election that pitted her against a Conservative Party rival and divided the country's political right.
In a statement Dede Scozzafava said that after several months of campaigning her supporters should feel free to defect to rival camps, even though her name would still appear on the ballot.
The mother-of-four was figured in what would have been a low-key Congressional race for New York's 23 district, but which has been transformed into a battle for the soul of the Republican party.
Despite her selection as the Republican candidate, Scozzafava -- who backed legal abortion and gay rights -- struggled to rally the party's conservative base.
Many Republican Party notables flocked to her deeply conservative rival Douglas Hoffman, including former Alaskan governor and failed vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty -- both believed to nurse White House ambitions.
After a drubbing at the hands of Democrats in last year's presidential and congressional elections, conservatives have called for the Republican party to return to its "core values."
"I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my Party will emerge stronger," Scozzafava said.
Hoffman still has to face the Democratic candidate Bill Owens in the Tuesday poll.

Video: Trailer For "Young Americans: The 'Unwinnable' Ramadi Episodes "

FEED YOUR HEAD

Considering All of the Countries That Obama Has Visited, Which Strategic One HASN'T He Been To?....Afghanistan

This really is a good piece over at Family Security Matters that calls out Obama for his lack of first hand knowledge of Afghanistan - it speaks to the issue that Obama has flitted around the globe since becoming President but at a time when he is making the biggest decision of his Presidency, Obama has NOT visited Afghanistan. Why not?

Visit the War Zone, Mr. President

Despite all the Obama administration's
chin- rubbing and hand- wringing about how to proceed in Afghanistan, the president hasn't been to the war-torn country since entering the White House.

Actually, it's worse: He hasn't been to Afghanistan in almost 15 months – since he made a quick two-day visit in July 2008, as a senator and presidential candidate
.

Think about it: If you were involved in a critical issue overseas – such as a big business deal or the health of a loved one – wouldn't you go and visit, so that you'd have the benefit of seeing things firsthand before making an important decision?

Now, Joe Biden visited Afghanistan as vice president-elect before the Inauguration – and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry just came back from a trip, and on his return briefed the president.

But Obama has been relying on the views and insights of others, received at meetings and briefings amid all the creature comforts of the White House – 7,000 miles from Kabul. (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apparently hasn't been there, either.)

Sure, the president has lots to attend to here at home – such as socializing health care, ballooning the deficit and redistributing wealth, not to mention date night with the first lady. But that hasn't kept him from going abroad – a lot.

He's been to France, the Czech Republic, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Russia, Italy, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Trinidad and Ghana, to name a few.

Plus Denmark – to plead for the 2016 Olympic games for Chicago. (After getting a lot of grief for not meeting with his commander in Afghanistan, Obama did squeeze in a 20-some-minute meeting on Air Force One with Gen. Stanley McChrystal during his brief trip to Copenhagen.)

Plus, he's heading for China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore next month – and he'll surely make Oslo for this year's Nobel ceremonies in December, to pick up his Peace Prize.

It's clear: While racking up the frequent-flyer miles courtesy of the US taxpayer, he's not set foot in Afghanistan. (President George W. Bush and Veep Dick Cheney made five visits to Afghanistan.)

Somehow, though, for all his pro-troop rhetoric here, Obama hasn't seen fit to visit the 60,000-plus brave U.S. troops over there in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, morale is reportedly declining while the White House dithers over . . . sorry, mulls its next steps.

It means a lot to our service members to rub elbows with the commander-in-chief – to break bread in the mess hall and get asked about your hometowns and how you're doing. Hey prez, how about a game of hoops with the troops?

While going into harm's way, these men and women need to know that their president believes in them and their mission; that they'll get what they need to fight; that someone is looking after their wounded comrades and loved ones back home.

And they should hear it from him – in person.

Of course, some insist Obama's conspicuous absence in Afghanistan is pure politics – that he doesn't want his anti-war, left-wing base to see him as supporting wars they believed he'd end when they elected him.

Regardless, Mr. President, you owed it to the troops, the American people and your own decision-making to have gone to Afghanistan before now. But you didn't. It's a shame and wrong for many reasons.

Fortunately, you have a chance to make up for it: Thanksgiving is just around the corner. Don't spend it in the White House, but instead with some courageous Americans fighting for our country a long way from home.

Pakistani President Declares That Offensive Won't End With South Waziristan

This is probably the best news any of us could have gotten today (well, I guess an announcement of the resignation of Barack Hussein Obama as President would have been better, but we'll take this). The president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, said today that the offensive against the Taliban and al Qaeda going on this very minute in South Waziristan will not end with that operation...that Pakistan will continue to drive the jihadis and insurgents from the country.

From the article at DAWN, here's how he put it:

President Zardari, speaking Friday to members of his Pakistan People’s Party, said the offensive ‘was imperative and there was no turning back from it until the complete elimination of the militants,’ according to a statement from his office.

Now, all of this comes as a huge relief because there was concern that once the South Waziristan offensive was completed, that the Pakistani government would turn back - that they would leave other provinces alone like North Waziristan. If we can believe Zardari, it sounds like the operations will continue.

The shame in all of this is that the Pakistani government's new resolve in this area of expelling the Talibana and al Qaeda couldn't be coming at a worse time - that being because Barack Hussein Obama has totally fucked up the U.S. and NATO efforts in Afghanistan. Let's face it, with this tremendous gutting of the Taliban in Pakistan, now would be the perfect time for American and NATO forces to be hammering the Taliban in the southern and eastern provinces of Afghanistan - more or less putting the Taliban into a vise...but oh no, Obama picks this time to put everything on hold and let him "think" about the whole strategy.

Militant fight won’t end in Waziristan: Zardari

ISLAMABAD: President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari says the offensive in tribal regions that shelter Taliban fighters will press on until all the country’s militants are wiped out, an apparent reaction to US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s warning that al-Qaida also needs to be targeted.
President Zardari, speaking Friday to members of his Pakistan People’s Party, said the offensive ‘was imperative and there was no turning back from it until the complete elimination of the militants,’ according to a statement from his office.
Clinton said during a visit to Pakistan this week that once the South Waziristan operation was finished, Pakistan would have to ‘try to root out other terrorist groups, or we’re going to be back facing the same threats.’

Video: House Healthcare Bill REWARDS States Who Don't Have Medical Liability Reform Measures

Video: Iraq Classic...Insurgents Telling Their Last Stories Around The Campfire

Double Jeopardy in the New Hate Crimes Legislation?

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

A few days ago, Hans Bader writing for Stop the ACLU reported on the hate crimes legislation Bill. This article is intended to be a further discussion of what is behind the language in the Bill. The question is, is double jeopardy a factor in this new legislative language?

Dual Sovereignty

The answer is kinda-sorta. It's really more about The Dual Sovereignty Doctrine negating the double jeopardy clause in the 5th Amendment.

The government now does have the right to try hate crime suspects after they have been tried by the state, and even if already tried and found guilty by the state. This position is confirmed by a letter from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to members of the U.S. Senate. Read it at NationaReviewOnLine. So how does it happen a person can be tried twice for the same crime?

Here is a portion that I believe gives the DOJ the opportunity to retry a hate crime: (The text of the Bill is here).

(b) (1) IN GENERAL - No prosecution of any offense described in the subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or his designee, that- (C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or (D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

(b) (2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

This gives the DOJ the right to try any case on behalf of a victim they feel has not received justice, while also eliminating "the badges...and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude."

 A quick reading of the Bill might lead you to think it will simply "support" state's with money, but it goes much deeper than the $5 million to be given to states in each of the years 2010 and 2011. If a state can "certify" the need for government assistance to "investigate or prosecute the hate crime," then that state will get that assistance. But read about the"sham and cover" exception a few paragraphs below. We have to ask why this administration believes this legislation is necessary.

The Dual Sovereignty Doctrine expects those administering under the Doctrine to "limit" their actions. This from TheFreeLibrary:

The court did not, however, fully eliminate the double jeopardy prohibition from this context. The dual sovereignty doctrine continues to be limited by what is referred to as the "sham" exception, which was described by the Bartkus Court.

The sham exception provides that a prosecution by one sovereign cannot be used as a "sham and a cover" for another sovereign's re-prosecution of the same defendant.

This doctrine would operate to prevent, on double jeopardy grounds, a prosecution brought by one sovereign with the encouragement and support of another sovereign that has already failed in its attempt to prosecute the same defendant.

The doctrine is founded on the rationale that the two sovereigns are acting as one. Unfortunately, this exception has been construed so narrowly as to make it difficult to be utilized successfully.

Apparently, this DOJ and Barack Obama believe that justice is not done often enough, and courts do not punish, often enough, those who commit hate crimes? So the question remains: is it possible for any violent crime to be classified as a “hate crime” when it is perpetrated against a Jewish or a white person?

U.N. Official Claims U.S. Predator Drone Attacks In Pakistan Violate Al Qaeda's "Human Rights"

Just when you think you've heard every single bit of lunacy known to mankind come out of the United Nations, something like this comes around to convince you that the organization should be renamed to: United Asylum.

I'll let you read the story below from The Investigative Project on Terrorism but look at this one line from the U.N. official:

"My concern is that these drones, these Predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law." He also stated, "The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions, are not in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons."

You know, I'm having trouble finding out what citizenship this asshat , Alston carries - I check Wiki and find nothing about his upbringing - best I can surmise is that this piece of shit is from Australia but if any readers can find more info, please leave in comments.

Either way, this is the kind of idiocy that reigns at the U.N. - every single radical islamic terrorist in the world is on a protected list at the U.N. ....apparently even al Qaeda now meets with their standards for protection.

UN Official Challenges US Drone Attacks


In a little noticed but critical piece of news, the BBC reports that Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, has warned the United States against striking terrorists from unmanned drones. He has gone so far as to state that such actions "may violate international human rights laws."
Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, told the BBC: "My concern is that these drones, these Predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law." He also stated, "The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions, are not in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons."
Alston, a professor at New York University, also has stated that the US government and the CIA need to explain how such measures are legal in the first place. The previous explanation from the US government clarified that the United States uses a framework to respond to unlawful killings (should they occur), and that it did not believe that the UN General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council had any role in relation to killings carried out during an armed conflict. Alston rejected these arguments, calling them "untenable," and demanded that the US furnish proof of the legality of its actions in wartime circumstances.
The weight of such a decision by a high-ranking UN official is astounding. Rather than evaluate the United States' wartime actions against a terrorist entity, which is oppressing millions of Afghanis and murdering thousands of civilians in indiscriminate bombings, the UN is forcing the United States to justify unmanned strikes against high ranking Al Qaeda leaders.
Some drone attacks have missed the marks and civilians tragically have been killed. However, they've also been among the most effective means of killing Al Qaeda leaders and keeping it off balance. It is difficult to see how this wouldn't give terrorists the upper hand, forcing the United States to pick between running afoul of the UN Human Rights Council, or endangering the lives of tens of thousands of troops and civilians.

Reality Sets In On United Nations and Obama...Ahmadinejad Pwnd Them AGAIN

I told you all this was going to happen, remember? Yep...right here I told you.

From the report at Breitbart:

The mood is grim behind the scenes at the headquarters of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, with diplomats expressing dismay at Iran's response to a Western proposal to defuse the standoff over its nuclear program.
Publicly at least, world powers insist the deal is not dead, saying that Tehran may still swing around and accept an offer meant to hamper any ability to make a nuclear warhead while providing it with fuel for its research reactor.

But diplomats familiar with the issue—some from countries directly involved in drawing up the plan—say Tehran's reaction is so far off the mark that they are skeptical the initiative can be salvaged.
And if the deal dies, it could kill off even more significant outreach toward Iran.

So here we are again...Obama reaches out to Iran, they shit all over his shoes. I'm beginning to believe that our new President is a masochist.

Analysis: Iran enrichment deal up in air

VIENNA (AP) - The mood is grim behind the scenes at the headquarters of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, with diplomats expressing dismay at Iran's response to a Western proposal to defuse the standoff over its nuclear program.
Publicly at least, world powers insist the deal is not dead, saying that Tehran may still swing around and accept an offer meant to hamper any ability to make a nuclear warhead while providing it with fuel for its research reactor.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is describing Iran's reply Thursday to the plan as an "initial response." The U.S. State Department says it is still awaiting a "formal response from Iran."
And Iran's official IRNA news agency on Friday cited an unidentified official as saying that Iran's response Thursday was only its view on the deal—and not a definitive answer—as it prepares for a new round of talks.
But diplomats familiar with the issue—some from countries directly involved in drawing up the plan—say Tehran's reaction is so far off the mark that they are skeptical the initiative can be salvaged.
And if the deal dies, it could kill off even more significant outreach toward Iran.
An Oct. 1 meeting between Iran and five world powers, including Washington, was heralded as a tangible reflection of the new U.S. policy of talking with America's enemies. Senior U.S. and Iranian negotiators met one on one separately, and follow-up negotiations were tentatively agreed on—but only if the Islamic Republic signs on to the enrichment plan.
Now, instead of planning for new negotiations, talk has turned to a fourth set of U.N. Security Council sanctions to punish Tehran's nuclear defiance, with British officials saying Friday the council may consider additional penalties early next year. Asked about sanctions, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs replied: "The president's time is not unlimited."
The offer seems simple. With Iran needing fuel for its research reactor, Russia would take most of the Islamic Republic's low-enriched uranium and enrich it to the higher level needed to fuel the reactor. France would then turn this material into fuel rods for the Iranian facility.
A win-win deal—at least on the surface. Iran would get the fuel it needed for the reactor. And the world could breathe easier after Iran shipped out most of its low-enriched uranium because it would no longer have enough to turn into nuclear warhead material—at least not for the year or so that it would need to replenish its stockpile.
It is relatively simple to turn fuel-grade uranium into weapons-grade material—and the West fears that Tehran could decide to do just that. Iran says it is not interested in nuclear arms and wants only to create fuel for a planned network of reactors.
But any such network is decades away, meaning Iran has no immediate use for the enriched uranium it has accumulated. That makes its reluctance to ship it out in one shipment and then wait until it is returned in research reactor fuel form all the more vexing. For some, it increases suspicions that Tehran may indeed have other plans for the stockpile.
Details of Iran's response to the draft deal drawn up by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei have not been made public. But diplomats familiar with its details say Thursday's Iranian counteroffers are meant to ensure that it gets to keep most of its enriched uranium.
Since its clandestine enrichment program was revealed seven years ago, Iran has amassed more than 3,300 pounds (1.500 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium at its cavernous underground facility at Natanz.
The ElBaradei plan would commit Iran to turn over more than 2,600 pounds (1,200 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium—more than the commonly accepted amount needed to produce weapons-grade material. If that happens, Iran would not be able to replenish its stockpile to levels that would again yield enough enriched uranium for further enrichment into weapons-grade material for about a year.
Instead, Tehran is demanding what diplomats accredited to the IAEA describe as the "slice and dice" or the "dribs and drabs" approach—shipping out a small amount, waiting until it comes back in the form of fuel rods and then exporting the next small batch. Other diplomats say Iran has also offered to enrich what it has to the level needed for the research reactor domestically under IAEA supervision.
But both of these approaches are rejected by the U.S. and their allies. The first would leave Tehran with enough material to turn into the fissile core of a nuclear warhead. The second would actually empower it to get part way there because the process of turning out weapons grade uranium becomes simpler with each higher stage of enrichment.
While suggesting that it was prepared to discuss the ElBaradei plan further, the IRNA report Friday said it would not ship out most of its uranium and then wait for a return shipment of fuel rods, describing that stance as a "red line" that would not be abandoned.
The wording left open whether Tehran was willing to send most of its enriched stockpile abroad if it immediately got fuel rods in return—it would have to wait for up to a year for the material it now possesses to be turned into such rods.
But—considering what diplomats say Iran demanded in Thursday's response—the IRNA dispatch is more likely reinforcing the demand that Tehran be allowed to ship out a small batch, wait for it to be turned into fuel rods, and then ship out the next amount.
One of the diplomats—who like others interviewed demanded anonymity because his information was confidential—said he had partial sympathy for Tehran's reluctance to give up its "crown jewels." Iran's enrichment program—and the stockpile of material it has amassed with it—are key pieces of leverage in any talks with the U.S.
Still, for the West, Iran's call for more talks is disheartening.
Less than a month ago, Western participants of the Oct. talks—the first negotiations between Iran and six world powers in more than a year—came out that meeting ebullient with what they thought was Iranian agreement in principle to the enrichment deal. But talks in Vienna last week dashed Western hopes that they would cement agreement.
Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, whose country holds told the European Union's rotating presidency, expressed the frustration felt by the West.
"It's the same old tricks," he told the AP: "A back-and-forth for further talks."

Video: Rep. Michelle Bachmann Invites You, Me, and Everyone to D.C. Next Week To Fight The Healthcare Bill

Video: The Obamacare Hotline...Your Future Phone Menu

Video: Doing The Traditional Islamic "AK-47" Ritual Dance

Video: "Chop Chop Square" - Where the Saudis Do Their Beheadings

With Obama Determined To Neuter America's Military Stength, China's Military Builds Up At An Alarming Rate

A Navy admiral from the U.S. fleet is extremely concerned about the military buildup that is going on in China and one doesn't have to be a genius to be able to put two and two together....U.S. intentions to scale down military strength and spending leads to huge upswing in China's military buildup. See how that works? See what happens when a brand new President of the U.S.A. signals weakness? Afterall, we can't really expect a new President here to be concerned about the security of our nation, can we?

From the report at Breitbart:

A U.S. Navy admiral expressed new concern Friday over China's military buildup and urged Beijing to be clearer about its intentions.
With China's military growing at an "unprecedented rate"—spending was up almost 15 percent in the 2009 budget—the U.S. wants to ensure that expansion doesn't destabilize the region, Rear Adm. Kevin Donegan told reporters on a visit to the Chinese territory of Hong Kong.

"When we see a military growing at that rate, we're interested in transparency and the understanding of the uses of that military," said Donegan, commander of the USS George Washington aircraft carrier strike group, a key part of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

I guess we should keep an eye on the career of this Navy admiral - something tells me that his position might just "change" after opening up about this, as it has become obvious that the Obama administration isn't too keen on anyone revealing their strategy of de-nutting America's military. But let's face it, the Chinese would be idiots if they didn't try to position themselves as the world's top power now, especially after America went ahead and elected a leader who is intent on removing the U.S.A. from that position - someone has to fill the void at the top and the Chinese appear to be stepping up to the plate.

No one out there has any issue with the world's largest Communist regime becoming the world's superpower, now do they?

US admiral concerned about China military buildup

HONG KONG (AP) - A U.S. Navy admiral expressed new concern Friday over China's military buildup and urged Beijing to be clearer about its intentions.
With China's military growing at an "unprecedented rate"—spending was up almost 15 percent in the 2009 budget—the U.S. wants to ensure that expansion doesn't destabilize the region, Rear Adm. Kevin Donegan told reporters on a visit to the Chinese territory of Hong Kong.

"When we see a military growing at that rate, we're interested in transparency and the understanding of the uses of that military," said Donegan, commander of the USS George Washington aircraft carrier strike group, a key part of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
Donegan's comments come as a top Chinese general visits the United States on a mission to strengthen trust between the two militaries and dispel U.S. concerns about the growth of the People's Liberation Army.
Xu Caihou, the PLA's second-highest ranking officer, told President Barack Obama on Wednesday that ties between the two countries' militaries play "an important role in enhancing strategic mutual trust and deepening their pragmatic cooperation," according to Chinese media reports.
Donegan's remarks echo the concerns of other U.S. military leaders who say fast growth in China's military spending raises questions as to how Beijing plans on deploying its new power.
China has boosted spending by more than 10 percent annually for almost two decades, and the official figure of $71 billion this year is thought by many analysts to represent only a portion of total defense spending. It still amounts to only a fraction of U.S. defense spending.
China says much of the increase is used to improve salaries and living conditions for soldiers, but it has also been adding sophisticated new warships, submarines, fighter jets and other weapons systems to its arsenal. PLA leaders have also said they are considering building an aircraft carrier, but such a development is thought to be years, if not decades, away.
Donegan acknowledged the possibility of a Chinese aircraft carrier, but also said he was concerned with anti-access weapons. This class of weapons includes missiles and submarines that can threaten U.S. forces in the region and prevent them responding in the event of a crisis.
"I am absolutely concerned," Donegan said.
He went on to say, "When a navy is doing that, we just want to make sure it's transparent enough so those in the region understand what they're doing."
Ties between the two militaries have been repeatedly roiled by China's objections to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, claimed by Beijing as its own territory, as well as Chinese efforts to disrupt Navy surveillance missions off its shores.
A series of confrontations involving vessels from the two navies has raised concerns over China's rising determination to defend what it sees as its territorial interests in the South China Sea, where the U.S. has long operated as the major international power.
Donegan said the Navy would continue to operate in international waters—something that could come in defiance of Beijing's claims it has the right to bar surveillance work inside its exclusive economic zone.
"We are going to continue to operate in the South China Sea and international waters and not in territorial seas of another country," he said.
The George Washington, considered the crown jewel of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, is currently visiting Hong Kong for the first time in its 17-year history.

Video: Embedded Reporter With Pakistani Military In South Waziristan Finds 9/11 Linked Documents In Taliban Camp

Video: Footage of Assault By Islamists In Detroit On News Reporter and Photographer

After 60 + Days of Fucking The Dog On The Afghanistan Troop Request, Obama Now Wants To Poll Tribal Leaders Across Afghanistan

I'm sorry, folks...I'm nearly at a loss here. For more than 60 days, President Barack Hussein Obama has sat on this thumbs in contemplating the URGENT troop request from his General in Afghanistan - this decision by Obama has lasted longer than some military campaigns in U.S. history...but wait we have and wait have the troops whose necks are on the line. We've sat and sat and sat while Obama has held meeting after meeting (with golf and international trips inbetween) and now, when there were rumors that a decision was finally, FINALLY near...Barack Hussein Obama has decided that he wants a poll done of Afghan tribal leaders across the country as to whether they need "help" or not.

I AM NEARLY FUCKING SPEECHLESS HERE!

Why doesn't this damn clown just come out and tell us that he isn't going to make up his mind until he can finally get a better picture of how the polls in America are shaping up so he can make the best decision for himself, politically.

This isn't a case of being incompetent. This isn't a case of no leadership skills or qualities. This is simply....criminal. This is a man, a Commander-in-chief who has put the lives of our troops and the security of our Nation BEHIND his political future. This is an evil man, people.

If we don't remove this parasite from Office, this country will be torn apart at the seams - this latest non-decision of Obama's is beyond negligent, it is treason. And no where in this article from the Washington Post does it say anything about how long this Putz-in-Chief thinks this little polling of Afghan tribal leaders will take or quite frankly, how he's going to do it. I figure that 75% of the people sent out to interview the tribal leaders will be shot dead by the Taliban during the process. Somebody fucking pinch me here....this HAS GOT TO BE A NIGHTMARE!

Obama seeks study on local leaders for troop decision

President Obama has asked senior officials for a province-by-province analysis of Afghanistan to determine which regions are being managed effectively by local leaders and which require international help, information that his advisers say will guide his decision on how many additional U.S. troops to send to the battle.

Obama made the request in a meeting Monday with Vice President Biden and a small group of senior advisers helping him decide whether to expand the war. The detail he is now seeking also reflects the administration's turn toward Afghanistan's provincial governors, tribal leaders and local militias as potentially more effective partners in the effort than a historically weak central government that is confronting questions of legitimacy after the flawed Aug. 20 presidential election.
"This is obviously a complicated security environment in Afghanistan, and the president wants the clearest possible understanding of what the challenges are to our forces and what is required to meet that challenge," said a senior administration official who has participated in the Afghanistan policy review and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it. "Any successful and sustainable strategy must clearly align the resources we provide with the goals we are trying to achieve."
As U.S. forces in Afghanistan endure the deadliest month of the eight-year-old conflict, Obama is weighing a request by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, for a quick jump in forces to blunt the Taliban's momentum against concerns that too many new troops could help the insurgency's recruiting efforts.
Administration officials say that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and national security adviser James L. Jones, a retired four-star general, support Obama's request for a more detailed status report on each province that could identify potential U.S. allies among Afghanistan's local leaders, some with less-than-sterling human rights records.

The weeks-long White House review has been shaped by a central tension between the broad counterinsurgency strategy endorsed by the military and a narrower counterterrorism campaign against al-Qaeda that some senior administration officials favor.
McChrystal, who took command of the 100,000 U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan in May, is promoting a plan that calls for concentrating forces around urban areas to better protect the Afghan population and pulling back from remote regions. His idea calls for speeding the training of Afghan forces, expanding civilian efforts to improve Afghan governance and starting other long-term programs to win the support of the population that the insurgency draws from.
About half the 44,000 troops McChrystal requested would be sent to take back Taliban sanctuaries in southern Afghanistan. The others would push into western Afghanistan, where the U.S. military has only a slight presence, and reinforce operations in the mountainous east. One brigade would train Afghan army and police forces.
Even after weeks of review, administration officials say a range of options is still under consideration, including whether additional U.S. forces could be deployed in phases. Although Obama had been expected to announce his decision before leaving Nov. 11 on a 10-day trip to Asia, administration officials say he may wait until he returns.
"I think it's important to hear and to get this right," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Wednesday.

Canada's Head of Intelligence Reems Canada's Media and Civil Rights Groups Over Coddling Terrorists

All I can say is HOORAY for Richard Fadden! Fadden is the head of the Candian Security Intelligence Service and the spanking he gives to Canada's liberals, civil rights advocates and media is well past due but welcome none the less. This is the same message that needs to be expressed in America, believe me and I give all of the credit in the world to Mr. Fadden for taking this stand - I'm sure he'll pay the price in the next few days.

Here's the story at Breitbart:

Top spy claims terror suspects painted as 'folk heroes'

OTTAWA - The head of Canada's spy agency says terror suspects are too often portrayed as romantic revolutionaries.
Richard Fadden, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, chastised the country's civil-rights advocates and media Thursday, accusing them of presenting a distorted picture of the threat accused extremists pose.
"Our elites tend to avert their eyes, and media tend to give what little coverage they grant on this subject to groups that seem to feel that our charm and the maple leafs on our backpacks are all that we need to protect us," he told a gathering of academics and security officials.

"Many of our opinion leaders have come to see the fight against terrorism not as defending democracy and our values but as attacking them. Almost any attempt to fight terrorism by the government is portrayed as an over-reaction or as an assault on liberty."
In his first public speech as CSIS chief, Fadden called for a nuanced debate worthy of a G8 country, saying Canada is not immune from extremism.
"Terrorism is the ultimate attack on liberties. If terrorists believe in anything, it is nihilism and death, and they are truly equal- opportunity oppressors," he told the annual meeting of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies.
"So why then, I ask, are those accused of terrorist offences often portrayed in media as quasi-folk heroes despite the harsh statements of numerous judges. Why are they always photographed with their children, giving tender-hearted profiles and more or less taken at their word when they accuse CSIS or other government agencies of abusing them?
"A more balanced presentation is what I'm hoping for."
He said Canada has a serious blind spot when it comes to genuine discussion of terrorism. As a result, young people charged with plotting violence are considered too ill-prepared or unsophisticated to carry out such deadly acts.
"I seriously doubt, however, whether editors would allow this kind of reasoning to be used in news coverage of those accused of murder or robbery."
Fadden said a "loose partnership" of single-issue, non-governmental organizations, advocacy journalists and lawyers has succeeded to some extent in "forging a positive public image for anyone accused of terrorist links or charges."
Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International's Canadian chapter, responded that human rights organizations fully understand the critical importance of government acting to protect citizens from terrorism and other horrifying human rights abuses.
"We regularly criticize governments when they fail to do so and leave people without protection. But we insist that governments do so in full compliance with the crucial human rights obligations that they themselves have developed and agreed to over the decades," Neve said in an email message.
"Defending the human rights of individuals accused of terrorism is not about standing up for terrorism or romanticizing terrorism. It is about standing up for human rights, plain and simple."
Fadden, a longtime bureaucrat, took over as CSIS director in late June, inheriting several thorny problems.
The spy service's cases against two terror suspects held on security certificates faltered when it failed to disclose important evidence.
A third case, against Adil Charkaoui of Montreal, collapsed because CSIS pulled material it did not want to become public.
Fadden defended that move Thursday, saying the sensitive material amounted to a "roadmap to our tradecraft and sources" for would-be terrorists.
"We chose the path that would cause the least long-term damage to Canada and withdrew the information."
After speaking, Fadden refused to take questions from reporters, saying he didn't want to turn the proceedings into a media event.
In his speech, he endorsed a federal move to make it easier for security agencies to intercept phone calls and emails.
Fadden said terrorists should not have a "virtual safe haven" that spans the globe.
"We need the tools to separate those who tweet from those who terrorize."
The proposed federal legislation would require telecommunications service providers to include intercept capabilities in their networks. It would also allow authorities to obtain information about subscribers and their mobile devices without a warrant.
Opponents have raised concerns about the scope of information involved and how it would be used.
In July, the CSIS watchdog said the intelligence service may need major changes after finding it ignored concerns about human rights and Omar Khadr's young age in deciding to interview the Toronto-born teen at a U.S. military prison.
The Security Intelligence Review Committee called for "guidance and advice" from Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan to help the spy service meet legal and public demands in the post-9-11 world.
A key issue is the agency's dealings with countries that do not always respect human rights, and whether the spy service's relationship with them puts jailed Canadians and others at risk of abuse.
Three Canadians tortured in overseas prisons are suing the government over the role security agencies played in passing information to foreign police and intelligence officials.
In addition, the spy service's role in the case of Montrealer Abousfian Abdelrazik, who was stranded for years in Sudan, is being scrutinized by the agency watchdog.

Video: "Redecorating" The Side Of An Afghan Mountain

L.A. Times Tries To Repair Rift of Obama/McChrystal By Slamming Bush/Petraeus

Well, it's come full circle now...probably the one aspect of President George W. Bush's presidency that nearly everyone would have admired has now been thrown into the BDS pit by the L.A. Times as the radical leftist newspaper has decided to frame Bush's relationship with Petraeus as a "bad" thing ...in hopes that they can cover up the dysfunction that is starkly played out each day in the relationship between President Obama and Gen. McChrystal.

As you can see here from the article at the L.A. Times, they have trotted out the typical "anonymous" sources for some real gems:

"No one wants another Petraeus," said the Defense official. "No one wants another celebrity general."

I don't know, that sounds more like an L.A. Times editor than it does a "Defense official", doesn't it?

Let's face it - Obama's handling of the Afghanistan War has been deplorable and what has been revealed is a Commander-in-Chief who is both inept and combative with military commanders...so here comes the MSM to the rescue - these clowns at the L.A. Times decide to deride Petraeus, they decide to slam Bush's close relationship with Petraeus and then, they try to tie a nice pretty bow on this "new" style of relationship that Obama has with the military.

Well, the truth of the matter is this - President George W. Bush did indeed have a special relationship with General Petraeus....one in which the President took a risk, he went out on a limb to trust a General's new strategy...and that leadership by Bush brought the U.S. a dramatic victory in Iraq. But read the Communist Pravda of southern California and that scenario becomes a bad thing.

Keep trying to cover it up chumps but even the most illiterate of Americans can decipher the fact that Barack Hussein Obama HATES the military and there is NO respect for him as Commander-in-Chief ANYWHERE in the U.S. military. It will come out one day just what a fucking mess this President has made of the chain of command.

Obama redefines White House relationship with top field commander

Reporting from Washington - President Obama and his predecessor differ significantly in their approach to America's wars. They differ at least as much in their relationship with their top battlefield commander.During the Bush administration, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the then-ground commander in Iraq, assumed the role of a trusted advisor who frequently visited the White House or talked to the president by phone.But Obama's commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, occupies a defined place in the chain of command. The two have met face-to-face twice -- and one of those was after the general infuriated the White House by discussing U.S. strategy in an overseas speech.The reasons for the marked contrasts run deeper than personal preferences. Under Obama, top Pentagon officials have worked to keep McChrystal out of the spotlight, in part to avoid creating "another celebrity general" as the White House debates its Afghan strategy.Senior military officials have pushed for a more traditional relationship between Obama and his field commander than existed between President Bush and his field commanders, in particular Petraeus.Whether that approach will succeed in persuading the White House to endorse McChrystal's plan for Afghanistan is not yet clear.McChrystal has made recommendations on strategy and troop levels for Afghanistan that are the subject of intense debate within the administration. Obama is expected to decide over the next two weeks whether to approve his general's strategy and request for 40,000 additional troops.Some in the Pentagon think that with strong backing from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, much of McChrystal's request will be approved. Others worry that the lack of a personal connection between McChrystal and Obama may have made it more difficult for the commander to explain his proposal and answer concerns. "There is no division" between Obama and McChrystal, said a Defense official, one of several speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the relationship. "It is just an absence of a relationship."Officials close to Mullen and Gates say the two men have been forceful in presenting McChrystal's views to Obama and are comfortable with how the president prefers to be briefed on the war."There is a general comfort level with the manner with which the president has chosen to get his military advice," said a military officer in Washington.The preference appears to appeal to the Pentagon as well. Top Pentagon officials, including Mullen, wanted to avoid a repeat of 2007, when the job of defending plans to increase the number of troops in Iraq fell to Petraeus.Some officials felt that Petraeus was unfairly pushed into the political fray and became the subject of political attacks, such as when the liberal group MoveOn.org branded him "General Betray Us" in a newspaper ad.Others thought Petraeus held too much of the spotlight and that other military voices failed to get a proper hearing."No one wants another Petraeus," said the Defense official. "No one wants another celebrity general."One military officer based in Kabul, Afghanistan, said that the McChrystal command's regular contact with Gates and Mullen made up for less communication directly with the president. "Too many people were trying to make this out to be a lack of communication. It is really just the opposite," said the officer. "There has been great communications with the chain of command to include the secretary of Defense."The Bush-Petraeus relationship left perceptions that the chain of command had been left out."The problem is not that Petraeus and Bush had a one-on-one relationship," said an Obama administration official. "The problem was that other people were cut out of the conversation."Many disagree that the relationship between Petraeus and Bush subverted the chain of command. Current and former officials noted that both Mullen and Gates participated in Bush's weekly conference calls with Petraeus.Eliot A. Cohen, the author of "Supreme Command," which examines the wartime relationships between civilian and military leaders, said presidents must have regular conversations with their field commanders. "It has to be a dialogue," Cohen said. "One way you judge what is going on is the body language, the look in the eye of your commander. That is basic leadership." Cohen, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and a former senior official in the Bush administration, argues that the Obama White House has been too quick to dismiss some things the previous administration did. "Whatever Bush did, they are going to do the opposite without much reflection," he said. "But it is a mistake to keep your theater commander at arm's length."Some Pentagon officials think the Obama White House is a bit wary of the military. Administration officials who are veterans of the Clinton White House may recall jarring collisions with the uniformed services. The Clinton White House and military officials clashed openly on the issue of gays serving in the military, for instance, leading to the disputed "don't ask, don't tell" policy in effect now.Thomas X. Hammes, a retired officer and military theorist, says each president must nurture his own relationships."It is about personalities," he said. "What is the best formula for a marriage? It is two personalities that have to do something difficult together."

Video: Ever Wonder Which War Pr0n Vid Started It All?

Video: When Gram and Gramps Need To Teach The (Drunk) Younger Generation A Lesson

Video: :Drumroll: The Javelin....

CAIR Congressional Intern Bounced off Capitol Hill

By Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

First I was astounded that anyone can buy interns on Capitol Hill. The fact that I was astounded is astounding. Of course, I know that anyone can buy anything in Washington, D.C. First, we learned that a CAIR memorandum says it spent $50,000 to place two "fellows" in Congress in 2007, and now we learn that Iyad Awadallah, a CAIR intern on Capitol Hill was forced to leave the US Capitol Visitors Center Congressional Auditorium "after behaving in a threatening manner..."

According to this hot post at The Jawa Report, Awadallah appeared at a conference on "Freedom of Speech and Religion" today and began to videotape the speakers. He was told the conference registration did not allow taping of any kind, or the taking of photographs. That didn't stop him.  He was removed from the building by Capitol Hill police just before Senator Jim DeMint was to speak.

According to The Jawa Report, the scheduled speakers have "been the subject of death threats by Muslims."

CAIR attacks:

The [CAIR] press release claimed that Awadallah was told by one conference participant that “we want to cut their [Muslims’] necks off.” However, Awadallah entered the auditorium during one of the sessions and never had the opportunity to speak with any of the conference attendees.

There is no information in this report about where the intern, Iyad Awadallah of Boca Raton, FL has worked or is working on Capitol Hill.  Read about the $50,000 spent to plant a Muslim intern in Congress: CAIR Buys Interns - Liberals Object.

Pakistani Military Has Surrounded Uzbek Base In South Waziristan, Let The Massacre Begin

All I can say is hopefully, by morning we will see a layer of Uzbek blood and guts coating the soil of Kaniguram, South Waziristan, Pakistan.

From DAWN:

Troops surround ‘Uzbek base’ in S. Waziristan

ISLAMABAD: Security forces have surrounded Kaniguram, an important base of Uzbek militants in South Waziristan, from three directions and preparing to storm the town.
Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira and Armed Forces Spokesman Maj-Gen Athar Abbas told newsmen on Wednesday that important fronts around the town had been secured.
Gen Abbas said security forces had also achieved substantial successes on two other fronts. He said good progress had been made on the Jandola-Saroragha axis and important heights had been secured in Nawazkot area on the Razmak-Makeen axis.
On the Jandola-Sararogha front, he said, troops were making good progress and securing heights along the main Kotkai-Sararogha road, overlooking the town of Sararogha. Troops secured the important the Nullah road junction, 2km north of Ganrakas and the important point 1233 west of the Kotkai-Sararogha road. Besides, Inzar Kalay has been cleared.
Three training complexes have been destroyed in Murghabund and 25 centres and nine caves Kotkai.
On the Shakai-Kaniguram axis, the military spokesman said, the important front of Karwan Manza about 2km east of Kaniguram had been secured. It dominates Kaniguram from the east and overlooks the town of Karama towards southeast on the Kaniguram-Kotkai road.
Karama is a stronghold and training centre of foreign terrorists.
On the Razmak-Makeen axis, security forces are consolidating their positions at Shaga, point 6813 Tip-Ghar Top, Lagar Narai and Sharakai Sar and carrying out a search operation in Nawazkot area. During clearance operations, 15 bunkers and Sanghars have been destroyed, along with 37 rockets.
Gen Abbas said 25 militants were killed in South Waziristan and huge cache of arms and ammunition was seized on Tuesday and Wednesday. He said five soldiers suffered injuries.
He rejected a perception that the Taliban had made tactical withdrawal from Kotkai in order to launch another assault and said that the Taliban leadership was on the run.
‘Let us look at the present, the future will take care of itself,’ he remarked.
Answering a question, he said the exact whereabouts of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan chief Hakimullah Mehsud were not known, but there were indications that Qari Hussain and Waliur Rahman were still in the area. About TTP Swat chief Fazlullah, he said the noose around him was being tightened.
Responding to another question, he said the US-led Nato forces had readjusted some of their security posts near the border with Pakistan. However, he said Pakistan was still awaiting details it had sought about the relocation of the posts.
He said the operation enjoyed public support as well as backing of tribes. Militants were fleeing to North Waziristan. He appealed to the people of the agency to brace themselves up to deal with the situation.
Asked if the army still had reservations over the controversial Kerry-Lugar bill, he said the army had expressed its opinion in a press release issued after the meeting of corps commanders. He pointed out that the release had stressed that it was for parliament to decide the fate of the bill.
Gen Abbas said there were reports that militants were preparing 12 to 13 years old children for suicide attacks.
Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira condemned the Peshawar blast said it was a clear indication that militants who were facing defeat were targeting innocent civilians out of frustration. ‘What sort of jihad is this? What religion are they preaching?’
He said militants were getting financial and material support through the Afghan route. He said they were also getting their share from the Afghan drug money.

Video: Barney Frank Says The Right Ruined The "Image" of Government

Video: Calling In The Taliban Exterminators (Apaches)

Video: Footage From 4 Years Ago When Pakistan's Jundullah Kidnapped Iranians Inside of Iran

Who Were The Chicago Terrorists, Plotting To Strike The Danish Newspaper, In League With?

This really is a fascinating piece over at The Long War Journal that shows that the two Americans charged with a terror plot to attack the newspaper in Denmark that published the Mohammed cartoons, were well aligned with al Qaeda and Pakistani terror groups.

A bit from the article:

Chicago natives David Coleman Headley and Tahawwur Hussain Rana have been charged in federal court with plotting to conduct attacks against a newspaper in Denmark, according to a criminal complaint that was unsealed today at the US District Court in Chicago. Headley was in contact with al Qaeda commander Ilyas Kashmiri and two unnamed Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives.

The operation was called the "Mickey Mouse Project," and, according to a senior US intelligence official contacted by The Long War Journal, the plot involved "assault teams" assigned to attack the headquarters of Jyllands-Posten and kill the staff. Further arrests in Denmark related to the plot are expected.
The attacks were to be "modeled" on the November 2008 assault in Mumbai and the attacks on police centers in Lahore and the Pakistani Army General Headquarters in Rawalpindi this month, the official said.

Now, before you start scratching your head as to why a guy with a nice Christian name like "David Coleman Headley" would be involved in a terror plot against a newspaper that "insulted" islam, this fool changed his name awhile back - his real name is Daood Gilani.

While the connections that these two had to islamic terrorists in Pakistan is startling, one of the most disconcerning aspects of all of this is the patience these terrorists have - imagine, the Mohammed cartoons were printed by this Danish newspaper FOUR YEARS AGO! Kind of makes you wonder if next week we might see an attack take place on Salman Rushdie. Which begs to the point that islamic terrorists never go away...they never fade away....your only choice is to hunt them down and kill them.

Kashmiri, Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives aided 2 Americans in foiled Danish terror plot

Two American citizens who have been indicted for plotting terror attacks overseas have direct connections to a senior al Qaeda commander and two Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives.
Chicago natives David Coleman Headley and Tahawwur Hussain Rana have been charged in federal court with plotting to conduct attacks against a newspaper in Denmark, according to a criminal complaint that was unsealed today at the US District Court in Chicago. Headley was in contact with al Qaeda commander Ilyas Kashmiri and two unnamed Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives.
Headley, who changed his name from Daood Gilani in 2006, was detained on Oct. 3 after he attempted to travel to Pakistan. Headley has been charged with "one count of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts involving murder and maiming outside the United States and one count of conspiracy to provide material support to that overseas terrorism conspiracy," according to a press release written by the US Department of Justice.
Rana, a Canadian citizen from Pakistan, was detained on Oct. 18. Rana was was charged with "one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorism conspiracy that involved Headley and at least three other specific individuals in Pakistan."
Both Headley and Rana have been plotting to attack "facilities and employees of Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten," the Danish newspaper that published controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2005. The publication of the cartoons sparked violence and protest. The Taliban in Afghanistan have vowed to conduct retaliatory attacks in Denmark and Europe after the publication of the cartoons.
The operation was called the "Mickey Mouse Project," and, according to a senior US intelligence official contacted by The Long War Journal, the plot involved "assault teams" assigned to attack the headquarters of Jyllands-Posten and kill the staff. Further arrests in Denmark related to the plot are expected.
The attacks were to be "modeled" on the November 2008 assault in Mumbai and the attacks on police centers in Lahore and the Pakistani Army General Headquarters in Rawalpindi this month, the official said. Kashmiri is known to have played a role in these attacks; he was a commando in Pakistan's army and for years has trained jihadi groups from Kashmir and other allied groups to conduct military operations.
Headley communicated with Ilyas Kashmiri and Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives
Headley began plotting the attack against Jyllands-Posten in October 2008 after posting a message expressing his desire to avenge the perceived slight against Islam and Mohammed. "I feel disposed towards violence for the offending parties," Headley wrote at "abdalians" forum, an internet group for graduates of a Pakistani military school.
By late 2008, Headley was in touch with a Lashkar-e-Taiba operative "who has substantial influence and responsibility within the organization and whose identity is known to the government" and another operative with close connections to Kashmiri. The first Lashkar operative was detained by Pakistan during the summer of 2009, and released later.
Headley traveled to Pakistan as well as Copenhagen and other locations in Europe several times, using Rana's business as a cover. He even visited Miramshah in South Waziristan, the headquarters of the notorious Haqqani Network, al Qaeda's biggest ally among the Taliban, where he claimed he met Kashmiri. He remained in contact with the Lashkar operatives and received direction to focus on the Denmark attack. Headley's contact with Kashmiri was directed through one of the Lashkar operatives.
The reported death of Kashmiri in mid-September put Headley in a panic, according to the criminal complaint. Kashmiri was thought to have been killed in a US airstrike in North Waziristan on Sept. 14. On Sept. 21, Headley found out Kashmiri was alive, and made arrangements to meet him and the Lashkar operative during his planned trip to Pakistan in October.
Arrests highlight the extent of al Qaeda and allied movements' reach
US intelligence officials contacted by The Long War Journal said that the detention of Headley and Rana show how al Qaeda and allied jihadist movements cooperate to achieve the same goals.
"This case shows you how al Qaeda is operating in Pakistan," a senior military intelligence official said. "You have the HuJI chief [Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami leader Kashmiri] working with Lashkar-e-Taiba commanders while based in North Waziristan allocating resources for an attack in Denmark that is being facilitated through the US."
"This is why we call it AQAM," the abbreviation for al Qaeda and allied movements, a term used in US military and intelligence circles. "At times their planning, allocation of resources, and operations are indistinguishable. Their goals are identical; they want to hit us here as well as carve out their caliphate there."
Kashmiri was brought into the "Mickey Mouse" plot to "impart his military knowledge" on the team that was to carry out the assault, an official said.
Some officials believe that al Qaeda got too fancy for the Denmark plot by working through US operatives.
"They [al Qaeda] want to show they can use the US as a base to attack other countries," the official said. "They were too clever by half."
Background on Ilyas Kashmiri
Ilyas Kashmiri is considered by US intelligence to be one of al Qaeda's most dangerous commanders. He served as the operational chief of the Harkat-ul Jihad Islami, an al Qaeda-linked terror group that operates in Pakistan, Kashmir, India, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. Kashmiri was recently listed as the fourth most wanted terrorist by Pakistan's Interior Ministry.
Kashmiri is now serving as the "acting chairman of the military committee as Saif al Adel has moved up the ranks," a senior official told The Long War Journal.
Kashmiri is thought to have played a major role in the multi-pronged suicide attack against government and security installations in the eastern Afghan province of Khost in May, the military intelligence official said.
Last year, Kashmiri reportedly drafted a plan to assassinate General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, Pakistan's top military officer, but the plan was canceled by al Qaeda's senior leadership, according to a report in the Asia Times.
Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, Laskhar-e-Jhangvi, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and several other Pakistani terror groups have merged with al Qaeda in Pakistan, and operate under the name of Brigade 313. This group is interlinked with Pakistan's Taliban and also recruits senior members of Pakistan's military and intelligence services, a senior US official told The Long War Journal.
Brigade 313 has been behind many of the high-profile attacks and bombings inside Pakistan, including multiple assassination attempts against former President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Gilani. Brigade 313 is one of the six known units in the Lashkar al Zil, al Qaeda's paramilitary Shadow Army.
Kashmiri is also a longtime asset of Pakistan's military and intelligence services. He served as a commando in the elite Special Services Group (SSG), Pakistan's special operations unit trained by Britain's Special Air Service. In the early 1990s, Kashmiri was ordered by the military to join the Harkat-ul Jihad Islami, and later he was urged to join the Jaish-e-Mohammed, which he refused to do.
Kashmiri reportedly dropped out of favor with the military after refusing the military's suggestion to join Jaish-e-Mohammed. In 2003 he was arrested after being accused of involvement in the assassination attempts against then-President Musharraf, and was later released. After the 2007 Pakistani Army assault on the radical Lal Masjid in Islamabad, he set up camp in Ramzak in North Waziristan, and was joined by several Pakistani Army military officers. Kashmiri is widely thought to have maintained his links with the radical elements in Pakistan's military and intelligence services throughout his time operating with jihadi groups.
Kashmiri was behind the assassination of Major General Faisal Alvi, the retired commander of the SSG, in Rawalpindi in late 2008. Alvi was killed just months after sending a letter to General Kiyani. In the letter, Alvi accused two generals of forcing his retirement. According to The Times Online, Alvi said he was forced to retire after threatening to expose the two generals' involvement with the Taliban.
Kashmiri is on the record as swearing allegiance to Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar as far back as 1999.
"[W]e folks have taken oath from Mullah Omar and we consider him as Ameerul Momineen [the leader of the faithful]," Kashmiri told a Pakistani reporter a decade ago. "We have absolute permission from him to go to any place and engage ourselves in jihadi activities."

Video: But How Do The PEOPLE Feel About Government Run Healthcare Insurance?

Video: Obama Gets His Ass Handed To Him

Video: French Marines Engage Taliban

First Amendment

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle



Wake up, America



View at YouTube

I find myself amazed at the poor quality of education that $41,500 a year buys at Harvard Law School. You would think that for that amount of money they would at least teach the US Constitution. But it seems not to be the case, especially with one of their most famous graduates, Barack Hussein Obama, our current President.

I wonder what part of the First Amendment they did teach him or was he absent that day? For no person who has been taught the US Constitution would ever forget the words of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Yet President Obama has chosen to ignore this and is pushing for full restrictions on our right to Free Speech:

The U.N. Human Rights Council approved a U.S.-backed resolution Friday deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right.

The inaugural resolution sponsored by the U.S. since it joined the council in June broke a long-running deadlock between Western and Islamic countries in the wake of the publication of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

American diplomats say the measure — co-sponsored by Egypt — is part of the Obama administration's effort to reach out to Muslim countries.

"The exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society," the resolution states, urging countries to protect free speech by lifting legal restrictions, ensuring the safety of journalists, promoting literacy and preventing media concentration.

Not the sort of "outreach" the majority of Americans want. We like our Freedoms very much. Free speech is a protected right here in the US. Our own Supreme Court has affirmed the concept that "Even the most hateful and harmful speech is protected speech." (NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY v. SKOKIE, 432 U.S. 43 [1977])

Oh yes, we can say what we want about a religion without the fear of blasphemy laws. Oh happy day!

Mr. Condell need not worry about the United States losing our Freedoms soon. Not as long as Article VI of the Constitution is the law:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Or in layman speak:

"This Constitution will be the hightest law in the land. No law or treaty can be written or ratified that would violate this Constitution."

This whole idea of forcing Islamic blasphemy laws came about because of the riots over the Danish Muhammad Cartoons, it is only fitting that this post on Free Speech end with these cartoons.

To Muslims around the world:

Feel free to riot. For that shows to us the true face and spirit of Islam. A backward cult suitable only for children and those with the intelligence of an imbecile.

The rest of us will just laugh at your ignorance and keep on speaking our mind!

Have You Ever Wondered WHY Britain Allowed So Many Islamic Immigrants In? Well, The Truth Is Out...It Was Planned, It Was All About Multiculturalism

As it says in this article at Family Security Matters, the "cat is out of the bag" and the news is disturbing at the very least. The word is out that the humongeous and hideous number of islamic immigrations into Great Britain over the past decade and a half was all planned by the government....it was executed on purpose IN ORDER TO MAKE BRITAIN MORE MULTICULTURAL! I kid you not.

Read this and if you are in Britain, weep. If you are in America, read this and get ready to fight this new plague upon our land.

The Uncovered Conspiracy to Transform Britain

So now the cat is well and truly out of the bag. For years, as the number of immigrant
to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened.

Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate?

The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very makeup of this country without telling the electorate.

There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage.

This astonishing revelation surfaced quite casually last weekend in a newspaper article by one Andrew Neather. He turns out to have been a speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

And it was he who wrote a landmark speech in September 2000 by the then immigration minister, Barbara Roche, that called for a loosening of immigration controls. But the true scope and purpose of this new policy was actively concealed.

In its 1997 election manifesto, Labour promised “firm control over immigration” and in 2005 it promised a “crackdown on abuse.” In 2001, its manifesto merely said that the immigration rules needed to reflect changes to the economy to meet skills shortages.

But all this concealed a monumental shift of policy. For Neather wrote that until “at least February last year,” when a new points-based system was introduced to limit foreign workers in response to increasing uproar, the purpose of the policy Roche ushered in was to open up the UK to mass immigration.

This has been achieved. Some 2.3million migrants have been added to the population since 2001. Since 1997, the number of work permits has quadrupled to 120,000 a year.

Unless policies change, over the next 25 years some seven million more will be added to Britain’s population, a rate of growth three times as fast as took place in the ‘80s.

Such an increase is simply unsustainable. Britain is already one of the most overcrowded countries in Europe. But now look at the real reason why this policy was introduced, and in secret. The Government’s “driving political purpose,” wrote Neather, was “to make the UK truly multicultural.”

It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental makeup and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.

It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another “multicultural” identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.

Spitefully, one motivation by Labour ministers was “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

Even Neather found that particular element of gratuitous Left-wing bullying to be “a manoeuvre too far.”

Yet apart from this, Neather sees nothing wrong in the policy he has described. Indeed, the reason for his astonishing candor is he thinks it’s something to boast about. Mass immigration, he wrote, had provided the “foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners” without whom London could hardly function.

What elitist arrogance! As if most people employ nannies, cleaners and gardeners. And what ignorance. The argument that Britain is better off with this level of immigration has been conclusively shown to be economically illiterate.

Neather gave the impression that most immigrants are Eastern Europeans. But these form fewer than a quarter of all immigrants.

And the fact is that, despite his blithe assertions to the contrary, schools in areas of very high immigration find it desperately difficult to cope with so many children who don’t even have basic English skills. Other services, such as health or housing, are similarly being overwhelmed by the sheer weight of numbers.

But the most shattering revelation was that this policy of mass immigration was not introduced to produce nannies or cleaners for the likes of Neather. It was to destroy Britain’s identity and transform it into a multicultural society where British attributes would have no greater status than any other country’s.

A measure of immigration is indeed good for a country. But this policy was not to enhance British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was to destroy its defining character altogether.

It also conveniently guaranteed an increasingly Labour-voting electorate since, as a recent survey by the Electoral Commission has revealed, some 90 percent of black people and three-quarters of Asians vote Labour.

In Neather’s hermetically sealed bubble, the benefits of mass immigration were so overwhelming he couldn’t understand why ministers had been so nervous about it.

They were, he wrote, reluctant to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all to Labour’s core white working class vote. So they deliberately kept it secret.

They knew that if they told the truth about what they were doing, voters would rise up in protest. So they kept it out of their election manifestos.

It was indeed a conspiracy to deceive the electorate into voting for them. And yet it is these very people who have the gall to puff themselves up in self-righteous astonishment at the rise of the BNP.

No wonder Jack Straw was so shifty on last week’s Question Time when he was asked whether it was the Government’s failure to halt immigration which lay behind increasing support for the BNP.

Now we know it was no such failure of policy. It was deliberate. For the government of which Straw is such a long- standing member had secretly plotted to flood the country with immigrants to change its very character and identity.

This more than any other reason is why Nick Griffin has gained so much support. According to a YouGov poll taken after Question Time, no fewer than 22 per cent of British voters would “seriously consider” voting for the BNP.

That nearly one quarter of British people might vote for a neo-Nazi party with views inimical to democracy, human rights and common decency is truly appalling.

The core reason is that for years they have watched as their country’s landscape has been transformed out of all recognition – and that politicians from all mainstream parties have told them first that it isn’t happening and second, that they are racist bigots to object even if it is.

Now the political picture has been transformed overnight by the unguarded candor of Andrew Neather’s eye-opening superciliousness. For now we know that Labour politicians actually caused this to happen - and did so out of total contempt for their own core voters.

As Neather sneered, the jobs filled by immigrant workers “certainly wouldn’t be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley –fascist au pair, anyone?”

So that’s how New Labour views the white working class, supposedly the very people it is in politics to champion. Who can wonder that its core vote is now decamping in such large numbers to the BNP when Labour treats them like this?

Condemned out of its own mouth, it is New Labour that is responsible for the rise of the BNP — by an act of unalloyed treachery to the entire nation.