Barack Hussein Obama Gets His Wish....Muslim Brotherhood Wins Big In Egyptian Elections, Demands Power To Form New Government

Election workers count ballots for the parliamentary elections in Luxor, Egypt, Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2011. Egypt's military rulers are taking credit for the strong turnout in the country's first parliamentary elections since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, the head of the election commission proclaims that the turnout so far is "massive and unexpected,." (AP Photo)


Well, it's not like we didn't see this coming but the reality can now sink in to all free people across the world that the Muslim Brotherhood appears to be on their way to winning big in the Egyptian elections and have already called for unlimited power in forming a new government. Way to go Barack Hussein Obama! You got what you wanted! A islamic terrorist group now runs one of the most advanced and most heavily armed nations in the Middle East. Gotta give you credit, Barack, you wanted to stick it to Israel and all free people in the Middle East and this plan of yours to endorse and support and prop up the revolution in Egypt has worked perfectly.

From the article at Breitbart:

Partial results Wednesday showed the Muslim Brotherhood emerging as the biggest winner in Egypt's landmark parliamentary elections, and leaders of the once-banned Islamic group demanded to form the next government, setting the stage for a possible confrontation with the ruling military.

The generals who took power after the February fall of Hosni Mubarak have said they will name the government and the parliament would have no right to dissolve it. They have also sought to wrest from the new parliament the more long-reaching and crucial role of running the process for writing the new constitution.

But the Brotherhood's confidence was riding high after the unexpectedly large turnout this week for two days of voting. Millions lined up at the polls for the first of multiple rounds of balloting in their country's first free election in living memory.

Even before polls closed on Tuesday, Mohammed Mursi, head of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, told reporters outside a polling center in Cairo that the majority in parliament must put together the government, which he said should be a coalition of the main parties.

Another top Brotherhood figure, Sobhi Saleh, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that Mursi's comments were a message to the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces not to act unilaterally.

I want to make this perfectly clear. When Egypt, under the Muslim Brotherhood, tears up the peace treaty with Israel, it's all on Barack Obama. When Hamas begins receiving state-of-the-art weaponry from Egypt, it's all on Barack Obama. When Hamas uses those weapons to kill innocent Israeli women and children, it's blood on the hands of Barack Obama.

There's a reason why Hosni Mubarek outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. There's a reason why four U.S. Presidents agreed with Mubarek's policy of outlawing the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, thanks to one Barack Hussein Obama, we all will find out first hand the reason why.

Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood says wants to form gov't


CAIRO (AP) - Partial results Wednesday showed the Muslim Brotherhood emerging as the biggest winner in Egypt's landmark parliamentary elections, and leaders of the once-banned Islamic group demanded to form the next government, setting the stage for a possible confrontation with the ruling military.

The generals who took power after the February fall of Hosni Mubarak have said they will name the government and the parliament would have no right to dissolve it. They have also sought to wrest from the new parliament the more long-reaching and crucial role of running the process for writing the new constitution.

But the Brotherhood's confidence was riding high after the unexpectedly large turnout this week for two days of voting. Millions lined up at the polls for the first of multiple rounds of balloting in their country's first free election in living memory.

Even before polls closed on Tuesday, Mohammed Mursi, head of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, told reporters outside a polling center in Cairo that the majority in parliament must put together the government, which he said should be a coalition of the main parties.

Another top Brotherhood figure, Sobhi Saleh, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that Mursi's comments were a message to the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces not to act unilaterally.

"You can't come and say, 'I choose the government and I sack the government.' Its over, the people have emerged," he said. "If you impose a government on me that I don't endorse, you are creating tension in the relationship."

The high turnout, he said, shows that Egyptians want a fully empowered parliament and that "you, yourself, are subject to the people's authority," referring to the generals.

Final results from the round, which covered nine of Egypt's 27 provinces, will be issued Thursday night. The Brotherhood appeared convinced it surpassed already high expectations. Saleh, for example, boasted the group won 50 percent. But the true extent of its win was not yet known. In rural provinces in particular, the main party of the ultraconservative Islamist Salafis, who are more hard-line than the Brotherhood, appeared to do surprisingly well, cutting into the Brotherhood vote. In other places, the main liberal-secular grouping made a strong showing.

A collision between the military and the Brotherhood over the next stage of the transition would add yet another layer of turmoil in this nation of 85 million after nearly 10 months of disputes and rivalries since Mubarak was ousted by an unprecedented wave of protests, led by liberal and secular activists.

Such a confrontation would also put liberals in a tight position: They generally oppose the military's domination as undemocratic, but also worry an emboldened Brotherhood will turn the country toward Islamic rule.

The 80-year-old Brotherhood was banned under Mubarak and subjected to waves of arrests and oppression, but still built the country's strongest political organization. With Mubarak's fall, they have been unrelenting in their determination that they finally gain what they see as their rightful portion of power. For much of the past months, that has meant support for the military to ensure that elections take place.

The military, headed by Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, has been equally determined to keep its grip since the ouster of Mubarak, one of their own.

Their transition plan means that the new parliament would be a weakened body.

The Egyptian system gives the president the right to name the government, and the military has insisted it as head of state will keep that power. The generals have also set guidelines for who will make up a 100-member body to write the new constitution, even though a military-backed referendum in March gave that power to the new parliament.

Moreover, the new parliament may only sit for a few months. It will hold its inaugural session in January. Under the military's timetable, a constitution must be written and adopted in time for presidential elections slated for the end of June. A new president will most likely call a new parliamentary election to be held under the provisions of the new constitution.

Saleh, who ran as a Brotherhood candidate in the Mediterranean coastal city of Alexandria and was heavily favored to win, said the ruling council must coordinate with the parliament. "The public mood in Egypt now is against dictatorship," he said.

He spoke of the Brotherhood as the majority force that must be allowed to shape the next stages. He boasted that the group won 50 percent of the vote and "this percentage will be higher in the future."

Saleh said the Brotherhood would seek a broad government including liberal parties, not a strictly "Islamist" coalition with the Salafis.

"We seek diversity because we believe that we don't live alone in Egypt. We will be the core of moderation in parliament," he said. "If the extremists want to go too far to the right, they will find themselves alone in this corner."

Monday and Tuesday's voting will determine about 30 percent of the 498 seats of the People's Assembly, parliament's lower house. The subsequent two rounds, ending in January, will cover other provinces in turn. Then the process repeats until March to elect the less powerful upper house.

Partial results from across the first-round provinces, which included most notably Cairo, Alexandria, the southern cities of Luxor and Assiut, showed the Brotherhood in the lead, according to judges overseeing the count. About half to 80 percent of the votes had been tallied in the various provinces.

But the Salafi Nour Party and a liberal-secular alliance known as the Egyptian Bloc appeared to be making strong showing in some places, the judges said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the results were not final.

For example, according to a Brotherhood statement based on its monitoring of the count, the Brotherhood so far had 30 percent of the vote in the Nile Delta province of Kafr el-Sheikh, while the Nour Party had 22 percent, unexpected for their party created only months ago. In the Red Sea province, the Egyptian Bloc placed second to the Brotherhood.

Holger Asks Why #50: Bailout?

Holger Asks Why . . .


When the Obama Administration agrees to free up American dollars to pour into European banks to help the floundering European countries...and the Obama Administration, in turn, has to BORROW that money from China to give to the European banks....well, why does the stock market go UP at that news?

I mean, we'll never get the money back to pay back China, right?

Isn't it really just a bailout?

P.s. Sorry, one more question. Why don't the Europeans just get the money from China themselves?

--

Video: Just Another Day In Iran...You Know, Hanging Some Guys In Honor of Sharia (it's more like they were thrown OVER the bus than under it)

Who Is Blowing Up Iran?

Satellite image of damage at a missile site near Bid Kaneh, where an explosion happened on November 12.

We've been getting very sketchy details regarding numerous explosions that have been going on in Iran...at least more details did finally come out regarding the one that killed one of the commanders of the Revolutionary Guard there but even that report is suspect. But this article, from Family Security Matters, talks about the real chance that the resistance inside of Iran is more formidable than we had imagined and is indeed conducting operations inside of Iran.

If this author's take on things is correct, and it turns out later that the Obama administration did NOT sign off on total support of this faction inside of Iran...and in that I mean providing weapons, intel, protection and monetary support, then there should be some real hell to pay for the leadership in America.

Who's Blowing Up Iran?


Another week, another explosion at or near an Iranian military installation (or is it a nuclear research facility?). As usual, the regime doesn’t know what to say. The mullahcracy is so intensely divided that different “spokesmen” from different ministries/news outlets/cults/mafias put out different versions. There was an explosion, or at least “the sound of an explosion.” This goes out on the wires. Then, no, there was no explosion, it was just the sound of our fierce military training. Then again, yes, there was something, but not to worry, just go home and shut up. And so it goes in the Islamic Republic of Iran, as our president so loves to call his intended international partners.

I’ve been reporting for many months about the ongoing sabotage of pipelines, refineries, military sites, Revolutionary Guards’ aircraft and trains, and groups of regime thugs. and have received the usual cold shoulder from publications “of record,” which is to say silent sneers. But the tempo of attacks, most notably the monster blast a week ago that vaporized General Moghaddam and his foreign visitors (at least some of whom had taken the shuttle from Pyongyang to be with him on what they wrongly expected would be a happy day) led the Washington Post’s man in Tehran, Thomas Erdbrink, to note the phenomenon in a useful story entitled“Mysterious Explosions Pose Dilemma for Iranian leaders.” He gives us a pretty good rundown of the explosions, and, living as he does in Tehran, gives ample space to regime “explanations” such as bad welding, western sanctions, and so forth. Given the number of foreign journalists who have come to a bad end in Iran, you’d do the same.

Safe in London, on the other hand, Roger Cohen of the New York Times has no doubt about what’s happening: his guy Obama is waging a secret war against the mullahs. “It would take tremendous naïveté,” he lectures the great unwashed, “to believe these events are not the result of a covert American-Israeli drive to sabotage Iran’s efforts to develop a military nuclear capacity. An intense, well-funded cyberwar against Tehran is ongoing.”

So color me tremendously naive. I would really love to believe Roger Cohen; the very idea that Obama, at long last, has ordered a response to the Iranian war against the west (totally unmentioned, needless to say), is delightful. But I don’t believe it, and Cohen doesn’t give us any evidence for it, aside from intoning, as the mullahs themselves are so wont to do, that it’s the infidels and the Zionists.

Yes, there’s a cyberwar, but Revolutionary Guards generals don’t get vaporized by Stuxnet. And Cohen’s judgment is so swayed by his fandom for Obama that it verges on the worst of the early Chris Matthews. Try this, for example:

Foreign policy has been Obama’s strongest suit. He deserves great credit for killing Osama bin Laden, acting for the liberation of Libya, getting behind the Arab quest for freedom, winding down the war in Iraq, dealing repeated blows to Al Qaeda and restoring America’s battered image.

I suppose some copy editor took out “ordering the” before “killing” and the “of” right after it, but sure, full marks for seeing it through. As for the Libyan, Egyptian, Tunisian and Iraqi decisions, the jury’s out, and seems to be leaning against Cohen’s client nowadays. The blows to Al Qaeda–by which he is referring to drone attacks and the like–are fine, albeit the really vicious body blow was the defeat of AQ and their sponsors in Iraq. If you think our national image has been “restored” under this president as a result of his great foreign policy, more power to you. Ring up Roger in London, maybe he’ll give you tea.

Since I’m pretty much the only guy in town who forecast the war against the mullahs, and it’s now so obvious that even MSM reporters and columnists can mention it without blushing, I’m sticking to my story. I don’t think the ongoing assault against the regime is coming from outside Iran. I think it comes from the Iranian opposition within the country. And I think it shows that the opposition is a great deal stronger than the experts have opined.

If you were Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, what would you be saying to that unhealthy face in the mirror? You’d say, “they come and go at will; they obviously have the full cooperation of traitors at very high levels of the regime, even inside the Guards. They not only knew Moghaddam was going to be there, but exactly where and when. Now Isfahan, another heavily guarded base. That doesn’t look like Zionists and infidels, whose pathetic collaborators we round up easily over and over again; it looks like people who are trusted and supported by the traitors in my own house.”

When a regime cracks, even very high officials start to do favors for the opposition, hoping to avoid the worst if the regime comes down. Khamenei knows that the head of the shah’s secret intelligence service went on to hold the same position under the fanatical Ayatollah Khomeini. Recent events will have convinced the supreme leader that his own security may be as compromised as the shah’s was.

Add to this the dreams common to regular users of opium (Khamenei is one of them) and you’ve got a very explosive situation.

Video: Manning the Turret In Afghanistan

Video: Raw Footage of Houston Shooter

Iranian Riot Police Sit On Their Hands As Iranian Protesters Invade and Fire Bomb Britain's Embassy In Tehran

Iranian students with pictures of the Queen taken from inside the British embassy in Tehran

You know, the Brits thought they had seen the ultimate humiliation when the Iranian navy captured their vessel a few years ago and degraded the entire British navy and marines by their treatment and videotaping of the captured Brits but today, when Iranian protesters went totally out of control....who stormed the British embassy in Tehran....who firebombed the building, brought down the Union Jack, burned it and replaced it with the Iranian rag and the whole time...Iranian riot police sat there and watched....well, this was the ultimate slap in the face.

From The Telegraph:

The most extraordinary scenes came at Britain’s embassy near Tehran’s central bazaar, where riot police simply stood by as demonstrators broke into the main building and tore down pictures of The Queen, looted sensitive documents, smashed windows and even threw petrol bombs.

Chanting “death to England”, the protesters - many of them organised by a student branch of the pro-regime Basiji militia - burned the British flag and set a car on fire in protest at sanctions imposed last week on the Iranian banking system.

Diplomats were forced to seek refuge in a secure room behind reinforced doors and windows, from where they managed to use secure communications to alert London. According to one report, six embassy staff had to be rescued by police after being held hostage by the protesters for several hours.

While I was at The Telegraph story, I went into comments there to see what British citizens had to say about this latest bad behavior by the Iranians. Check out these two comments:

"Nighthawk to base: "descending to FL 250, nearing Amadinejad compound area" . Base to Nighthawk "drop special load". Nighthawk to base "Overhead target area, dropping load". Base to Nighthawk: "confirm impact". Nighthawk to base: "target destroyed, climbing and returning to base". The Iranian leadership is truly asking for serious trouble, and the above scenario is likely to come about in 2012. Amadinejad, you'd better get ready to fry soon after your latest trespass and other unsettled scores."


"There is only one method for dealing with rabid dogs! The longer we wait the more the disease spreads."

Personally, I like both suggestions there from comments at The Telegraph. My case for bombing the ever loving shit out of Iran gains more momentum each day.

British relations with Iran sink to lowest in decades as Tehran embassies are stormed


The most extraordinary scenes came at Britain’s embassy near Tehran’s central bazaar, where riot police simply stood by as demonstrators broke into the main building and tore down pictures of The Queen, looted sensitive documents, smashed windows and even threw petrol bombs.

Chanting “death to England”, the protesters - many of them organised by a student branch of the pro-regime Basiji militia - burned the British flag and set a car on fire in protest at sanctions imposed last week on the Iranian banking system.

Diplomats were forced to seek refuge in a secure room behind reinforced doors and windows, from where they managed to use secure communications to alert London. According to one report, six embassy staff had to be rescued by police after being held hostage by the protesters for several hours.

Hundreds of demonstrators also surrounded a second compound, Gholhak Gardens in northern Tehran, where similarly chaotic scenes unfolded.

After chairing an emergency meeting of the Government’s crisis committee on Tuesday night, David Cameron described the assault as “outrageous and indefensible” and warned there would be “serious consequences” for the Iranian regime. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, will address the House of Commons on Wednesday, where he is expected to detail retaliatory measures.

Iran’s government attempted to express regret for the incident, claiming police had tried to stop the protesters, but Mr Hague made clear he held the Iranian government responsible for the attack.

“The United Kingdom takes this irresponsible action extremely seriously,” Mr Hague said. “I spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister this afternoon, to protest in the strongest terms about these events and to demand immediate steps to ensure the safety of our staff and of both Embassy compounds. While he said that he was sorry for what had happened and that action would be taken in response, this remains a very serious failure.”

The Prime Minister added: “The failure of the Iranian government to defend British staff and property was a disgrace. The Iranian government must recognise that there will be serious consequences for failing to protect our staff.”

The attacks were the culmination of months of steadily worsening relations between Britain and Iran that came to a head last week after Britain imposed sanctions on the Iranian banking system following a UN report that Iran had tried to develop nuclear capable missiles in defiance of sanctions.

At the weekend, Iran’s parliament passed a bill calling for the expulsion of Britain’s ambassador Dominick Chilcott, in retaliation for the move, while some Iranian MPs even suggested protesters should try to emulate students who stormed the American embassy in 1979 during the ‘den of spies’ crisis.

As the attacks began, Mr Hague was forced to leave the House of Commons during the Chancellor’s autumn statement to take personal charge of the Foreign Office response. Iranian diplomats in London were soon called into the Foreign Office where senior officials expressed British “outrage” and demanded Iran meet its obligations under the Vienna Convention.

The UN Security Council also condemned the infringement of diplomatic territory, as did the US, Russia and the EU. President Barack Obama said the attack was "not acceptable" and "all of us are deeply disturbed" by the event.

Order finally began to be restored in the compounds at dusk as Iranian riot police used tear gas and baton charges to clear the compounds and force back the crowds.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry said that several demonstrators had been arrested and that the incident would be investigated.

However it was still uncertain that both compounds had been fully secured. Iranian news reports said that both properties had been evacuated. A Foreign Office spokesman refused to specify how many staff would be flown out of Iran in the wake of the attacks.

Officials admitted that trouble had been expected after Britain announced it would withdraw all co-operation with the Iranian banking system last week in response to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report on the country’s nuclear ambitions.

The trouble flared after student groups linked to the regime called demonstrations outside the British embassy to mark the one year anniversary of the assasination of an Iranian nuclear scientist, Majid Shahriari. Iran has blamed Western intelligence agencies for his murder.

“We had expected trouble and taken a number of measures - there are regularly protests at the embassy,” said one British official. “What we had not anticipated was that a large number of people would turn up and break into the embassy with the Iranian security forces doing nothing to stop them.”

Staff described their shock as Iranian security forces failed to defend the main gate.

“It is very hard to describe just how the situation stopped being under control of the Iranians,” said one diplomat. “It is very disturbing that this failure of diplomatic hospitality could have taken place.

Gen Hossein Sajadinia, Tehran’s police chief, told the Fars news agency several protesters who had entered the British embassy had been arrested and would be handed over to the courts.

Nevertheless hardliners within the Islamic regime will exult in pictures that amount to humiliating scenes for a country viewed a pernicious influence on Iran.

The Union flag was torn down to be replaced by the Iranian flag and Shia religious banners. Replicas of the flag was burned alongside homemade versions of the US and Israeli flags.

The Royal crest was carried out through the gates of the compound past riot police in full protective uniform.

The attackers even tried to emulate the students who stormed the American embassy in 1979 by forming a “conquers committee”. American hostages were held for 444 days and resulting in a rift in relations that has not been repaired.

Iran’s increasing isolation and economic distress under sanctions has made Britain’s sprawling diplomatic presence in Tehran an obvious outlet for the regime-sponsored anger. Fawaz Gerges, the director of the Middle East Centre at LSE, said Britain’s diplomatic ties with Iran had become a deadly embrace. He said the Foreign Office would have weight the strategic advantages of the Tehran embassy against the risk to its staff.

“This is the end of the diplomatic road with Britain,” he said. “Iran regards itself as being at war with the US and Britain and are trying to retaliate by zeroing in on the British presence in Tehran.”

Officials denied that any staff had been taken hostage blaming confusion for reports of hostage taking.

Sing Along With Fast and Furious

Al Shabaab Beheads Two Teen Boys In Somalia, Display Heads To Create Fear on the Streets

Ask the people of Somalia how glad they are al Shabaab is in their country. Ask Somalians who aren't Muslim how they feel about submitting to Islam. Ask the Somali people if they'd be for the complete elimination of al Shabaab.

From Daily Nation.

Al-Shabaab beheads two men


Two youth were on Sunday beheaded in Afmadow town, Southern Somalia, by Al-Shaabab militia for allegedly spying for the Transitional Federal Government and Kenya Defence Forces.

This comes as the Kenya security agencies arrested four more suspected members of the Islamist militia group in Lamu.

The heads of the two young men, who were seized by the militants a few days ago, were displayed in the town streets, according to area residents.

“The incident has caused fear in the general public,” a resident who did not want to be named (for security reasons) told a Mogadishu-based radio.

The youth were reportedly accused of having links with the Government of Kenya and the TFG. They were also accused of directing Kenyan planes that carried out air raids in Jubaland.

Recently, Al-Shabaab militants promised to punish anybody found working with the TFG and the Kenyan troops that crossed into Somalia in mid-October in hot pursuit of the militia.

Meanwhile, four suspected members of Al-Shabaab were arrested by Kenya Navy in Lamu at the weekend.

Lamu West deputy police boss Joseph Sigei said the four were arrested on Saturday in the high seas as they advanced deeper into Kenya territorial waters.

“They are being interrogated in the sea but no arms were recovered during the arrest,” Mr Sigei told the Nation on Sunday.

He said the four Somali men were arrested aboard a speed boat containing several jerrycans of petrol and police suspected that they were fleeing the ongoing joint military operation in Somalia.

The arrest brings to nine, the number suspected members of Al-Shabaab arrested in Lamu since last week.

Five other suspects were arrested on Friday aboard a speed boat from Somalia while heading towards the Lamu Archipelago.

The fiver were seized by marine police on patrol at midday on Manda Island near an exclusive tourist resort.

The suspect were identified as Mr Ali Mohammed, Mr Ahmed Omar, Mr Abdullah Mohammed, Mr Mohammed Abdi Mohammed and Mr Jarma Mohammed Adan.

Mr Sigei said the suspects docked their boat near Takwa Ruins and walked on foot towards Manda Beach Hotel before they were cornered by armed police officers deployed in the area.

The Isolationist Delusion

What an incredible article that Frank Gaffney has offered up here from Family Security Matters! In this day and age when Congressman Ron Paul continues to preach the idea of isolationism to his herd of followers and we see more and more people across this country taking the bait, a voice of reason and fact is heard in this debate....right here, right in this article.

I have pulled no punches in the past nor will I now in regards to Ron Paul. He is certifiably nuts when it comes to the defense of this country, when it comes to dealing with the threats to America in this world and when it comes to explaining how enemies of our country came to hate America.

Hopefully, some newcomers to the faulty philosophy of Paul will read this article and be saved from his poisonous message.

The Isolationist Delusion


I had an unsettling flashback last week listening to two of the Republican presidential candidates talk about foreign policy. Representative Ron Paul of Texas and former Utah Governor Jon Hunstman espoused isolationist stances that called to mind one of the most preposterous public policy debates in decades.

As I recall, the occasion was a Washington, D.C. event sponsored in the early 1990s by a group of libertarians. A colleague and I were invited to rebut the following proposition: “Resolved, the Constitution of the United States should be amended to prohibit the use of military force for any purpose other than defending the nation’s borders.”

Our side of the debate pointed out that, however superficially appealing such an idea might appear, it was ahistorical, irrational and reckless.

After all, if history teaches us anything, it is that wars happen – as Ronald Reagan put it – not when America is too strong, but when we are too weak. In the run-up to World Wars I and II, we followed more or less the libertarians’ prescription, and disaster ensued.

By contrast, for over six decades, the world has been spared another global conflagration because the United States military has been both formidable and forward-deployed. Do we really want to try our luck and once again indulge in a “come home America” posture?

Now, in fairness, an argument could have been made (and was) in the aftermath of President Reagan’s successful use of all instruments of national power to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War, that we were without serious peers or adversaries. Even then, however, the unlikely durability of such an assessment made it a poor basis for U.S. disengagement from the world.

But no one in their right mind would mistake today’s strategic environment as one in which we are unchallenged – or even as one that is stable, let alone tranquil.

Indeed, virtually everywhere one turns, there are rising threats to our interests and security. The Chinese, Muslim Brothers and other Islamists, Russians, Latin American Chavistas, Iranians and North Koreans are among those who increasingly sense weakness on our part. They are responding as thugs everywhere do to such vacuums of power – by becoming more assertive, aggressive and dangerous. Ditto erstwhile “allies” like Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt.

Unfortunately, such behavior is only likely to become more of a problem as the perception takes hold that Barack Obama’s abandonment of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan amounts to strategic defeats for America. Add to the mix a U.S. military that is being eviscerated by arbitrary and deep cuts in defense spending and it is a safe bet that the so-called “international community” will only become more inhospitable to freedom.

If this is so obvious, though, why do Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman and their libertarian and other supporters not get it? Some of these partisans may simply know nothing of the world. That explanation certainly does not apply to a former U.S. ambassador to China like Gov. Huntsman, however.

Then, there’s the “we can’t afford to be ‘the world’s policeman’” argument. Its corollary is that we face grave economic difficulties and must remedy them before we can bear the costs associated with having a military second to none.

Again, hard historical experience teaches otherwise. The costs associated with maintaining armed forces that deter aggression are vastly less than those involved in waging wars, particularly on a global scale. And our economy depends critically on our ability to maintain access to markets and resources, open sea lanes, etc.

For his part, Ron Paul maintains that the defense budget is not being cut, just its rate of growth. In fact, the roughly half-a-trillion dollars in reductions to which President Obama agreed will result in actual cuts. Add on another $600 billion and you have what the Pentagon calls “negative real growth.”

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of the isolationist delusion is the idea that we have angered others by our policies and our presence in distant lands, which they regard as provocative interference. It follows that, if only we stop engaging in such behavior, they will leave us alone.

The truth of the matter is that adherents to the Islamic doctrine of shariah and Chinese and Russia nationalists have aspired to rule the world – or at least large stretches of it – for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. In other words, they have been hostile long before the United States was founded, let alone the last century when it started exercising power on the global stage.

That being the case, the isolationists’ siren song must be rejected: Were it to become national policy (either in the form of the extreme position of a long-ago debate or the less obviously absurd one advanced by Messrs. Paul and Huntsman in the recent candidates’ forums), we would confront the prospect of fighting in due course these (or other) adversaries on our own soil, rather than elsewhere.

A recent Rasmussen poll indicates that by a 50-36% margin, the American people have more confidence in Republicans than Democrats when it comes to national security matters. That is a potentially decisive advantage. It must not be compromised – either by picking candidates who will not enjoy and do not deserve such trust, or by the GOP running to the left of President Obama’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who is correctly warning of catastrophe if our armed forces are denied the funds they need to do their abidingly important job around the world.

Rep. Allen West On Illegal Immigration

Video: 1/5 Marines In Afghanistan

Russians Point Finger of Blame At U.S. & NATO For Violating Pakistani Sovereignty...Umm...Wanna Talk About Eastern Europe, Guys?

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. — File Photo by AFP

Talk about pot calling the kettle black. The Russian Foreign Minister got all high and mighty today criticizing the U.S. and NATO for violations of Pakistan's sovereignty after the border clash that left some 25 Pakistani soldiers dead. Well, Mr. Russian Foreign Minister...how about you step down off your pedestal of sovereignty purity and we'll discuss a little about Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania and perhaps even touch upon Georgia and the Ukraine. You wanna talk about Russian respect for nations of this world?

Jerks.

The story is from DAWN.

No excuse to violate Pakistan sovereignty: Russia


MOSCOW: Russia’s foreign minister, commenting on the Nato cross-border air attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, said on Monday that a nation’s sovereignty should always be upheld, even when hunting “terrorists”.

“The Russian Foreign Minister… emphasised the unacceptability of violating the sovereignty of states, including during the planning and carrying out of counter-terrorist operations,” the ministry said in a statement.

Video: CNN Gets Pwned By Fake U.S. Student Freed From Egypt ... LOL

Is the World Offering Up Israel To Islam On a Platter?

This is a phenomenal article from Family Security Matters about the darkness coming over this world as the lone non-Arab, non-Islamic state in the Middle East, Israel, finds itself with nearly too many threats to overcome.

It is my hope that enough people will wake up to the fact that there can be NO MORE CONCESSIONS to Islam ANYWHERE in this world. This war has been going on for nearly 1400 years and won't end on its own. The time is now to throw everything into the path of the horde.

An Ever Darkening World


In the first volume of my trilogy, Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state, I ended the conclusion page as follows:

“I for one realize that Islam will never accept a non-Islamic state in lands once conquered in the name of Allah … Therefore I will no longer end my articles or essays with the phrase, ‘Victor Sharpe writes about Jewish history and the Arab-Israel conflict.’ Instead, I will state that, ‘Victor Sharpe writes about Jewish history and the Islamist-Israel conflict. Alas, that is what it is, what it always has been, and what it always will be.’”

I wrote that at the end of 2006.

In Volume Two, which ended in December, 2009, I concluded with these words:

“The appeasement of the Arab and Muslim world will bring the exact opposite of what the appeasers seek. Winston Churchill wrote the following: ‘Appeasement is like feeding a crocodile in the hope he will eat you last.’ ”

I went on to add:

“The crocodile has no feelings of sympathy, nor does the Muslim Arab whose culture considers concessions a form of weakness and will offer no reciprocal concessions but cruelly demand more and more. It reminds me of the ancient saying from the Jewish Ethics of the Fathers: ‘Whoever is merciful to the cruel, ends by being cruel to the merciful.’ ”

This third volume of Politicideincludes example after example of just such appeasement by growing numbers of individuals in the West towards the voracious Muslim appetite for world conquest, for a Caliphate and for triumphant Islam. Those individuals include politicians, tenured professors, journalists, entertainers, et al.

Nations seek to gain time before the Islamic tide washes over them through appeasement. They do so by ever growing hostility towards the embattled Jewish state in the hope of assuaging the Islamic appetite. But it is all folly.

Western European nations are now submerged in an ever growing, Sharia compliant, Islamic monster that is within the gates. In a generation or two, France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, the Scandinavian countries and Britain may no longer retain a Judeo-Christian culture or civilization except in small pockets, always besieged by a Muslim majority they so foolishly allowed to grow and strengthen within their borders.

The world is changing as both Adrian Morgan and Steve Myers so eloquently warned in my book. And Israel, the one Jewish state, now finds itself after years of foolish concessions to an implacable Muslim and Arab foe, left with so little land, and with a Palestinian Authority occupying territory in the very heartland of the Jewish people’s patrimony - Judea and Samaria - called by its Jordanian Arab name: the West Bank.

And then there is the Gaza Strip: A finger of land pointing into Israel’s heart like some cancerous tumor. This territory is occupied by Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood branch of the so-called Palestinian Arabs. As Adrian Morgan, editor of Family Security Matters, in his foreword pointed out, this Islamic organization is motivated by an abiding hatred of Jews and not only wishes to exterminate the Jewish state and all its citizens, but seeks to destroy Jews throughout the world.

And now, after Israel in 2005 drove out its own citizen from their villages and farms in the Gaza Strip, 10,000 Jewish refugees from Gaza now live within Israel, their lives embittered by such a breathtakingly stupid Israeli concession.

Since Israel withdrew from Gaza in the hope that the Arabs would live peaceably with them and share in the benefits for all that comes from a true and lasting peace, Israeli villages and towns in southern and central Israel have endured a relentless barrage of some 12,000 deadly missiles.

As I write this, lethal Grad missiles, looted from Muamar Gaddafi’s Libyan weapons caches, have been brought overland into the Gaza Strip - with Egyptian complicity - and are raining down upon the Israeli cities of Ashkelon and Ashdod. Israeli civilians are being killed and maimed.

So many Israeli concessions forced upon past, weak Israeli leaders by friends and foes alike have endangered Israel’s existence more than the combined military and terroristic Arab aggression against her since her reconstitution as a Jewish nation in 1948.

As you will have read in the many chapters of this volume, and the two previous volumes, Israeli concessions have never been met by Arab and Muslim concessions: Never.

The outrageous euphemisms employed to mask Israeli capitulation are well known. “Land for Peace” is the term used to sanitize Israeli national suicide. Land, precious land, with spiritual, historical, and strategic value to Israel, is given away to persuade the Muslim Arab enemy to join in the benefits of peaceful coexistence.

But it is a disastrous charade played upon the Jewish state for, in return for painful Israeli concessions of territory, the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians, never, ever offer peace.

Another suicidal euphemism to mask Israel’s gradual destruction is, “The Two-State-Solution.” This abomination has permitted a delusional belief that two states can live side by side in peace with each other. One state is Israel, a democratic nation. The other state would be “Palestine,” an artificial creation and a terrorist entity that would live and breathe in relentless and genocidal aggression towards its neighbor, Israel.

For such a state to exist that patently and demonstrably has no desire, because of its adherence to its Islamic faith, to ever give up its ambition to destroy the Jewish state, will be the ultimate fatal error of any Israeli government.

It is national suicide and the very euphemism, “Two-State-Solution,” echoes in its hideous similarity that other euphemism employed by Nazi Germany as it systematically exterminated 6,000,000 Jews: “The Final Solution.”

Let me quote from words I wrote in one of the chapters in this book; words which, I believe, must be stated over and over again.

“Even though the native and indigenous peoples of Israel are the Jews, and even though the Land of Israel was given to the Jewish people in an eternal covenant with God, it does not matter to Islam’s adherents, for wherever the Muslim foot has once trod triumphal, that territory is forever regarded as Islamic.

“If such territory is lost to Muslims, then Allah has been diminished and the land must be retaken. Peace, then, is merely a mirage in the desert sands.

“Too many world leaders fail to understand the Muslim mindset. Israeli leaders, who of all people should know better, still fall into the fatal trap of believing that the Western model of lasting peace between nation-states can equally apply in the Middle East between Muslim and non-Muslim nations. It is a fatal fallacy.”

Thus we reach the end of 2011 with this third volume of Politicide. It is a year in which anti-Semitism is on the rise by quantum leaps and the international guilt that permeated nation states after the Holocaust is fast withering away. The spectacle of the individual Jew as a victim is now increasingly replaced with the Jewish state itself cast in the role of the persecuted Jew.

The baffling alliance of the Left with Islam is a phenomenon stalking the world. Its target is the Jewish state even though the Left is protected and free to exercise its political will within the Israeli democracy, yet forbidden to challenge all powerful Islam within the fifty seven Muslim nations; Even proscribed brutally by many.

And today, the extreme Left has unleashed an anti-Capitalist, anti-Free Market, anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Jewish army of radical students and mostly young people, many brainwashed by their professors in colleges and universities, with the usual aging hippies and useful idiots among them, called “Occupy Wall Street.”

Many cities in the United States and throughout the ever decrepit West are allowing these demonstrators to take over parks and squares, turning public places into unhealthy quagmires. Among the leftist placards are those with pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel and anti-Jewish slogans.

Phyllis Chesler, the feminist writer, saw as far back as 2003, what horrors were emerging in the West. Writing in her book, “The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It,” she penned the following:

“When feminists, gay rights groups, and civil rights activists choose to support Islamic countries where women are subject to honor murders, where homosexuals are imprisoned and sometimes executed, and - in the case of Sudan today and Saudi Arabia before 1962 - slavery is practiced, something irrational is at work. Only anti-Semitism can explain this weird Marxist-Islamic alliance.”

Indeed the Left and Islam in their unholy alliance target the Jewish state. That Islam will turn upon the leftists is guaranteed, yet it will let the Left work its evil upon Israel before, like Churchill’s crocodile, it devours its erstwhile partner.

In the Passover story, which is enshrined in the Haggadah, the book retelling the events of the Exodus and of the order of the Seder meal, there is a profound and millennial old passage:

“Not one man alone has risen up against us to destroy us, but in every generation there have risen up against us those who sought to destroy us; but the Holy One, blessed be He, delivers us from their hands.”

And so it was and still is.

So let me end with the words of Steve Myers, editor of Israel News Daily and Page One Daily, from his words of praise to this third volume of Politicide:

“Every word of Victor Sharpe's trilogy is well-chosen; even the titles.

“He points out that, as Israel finds itself in dire straits, it often forgets God’s promises to the Jewish people. Even Israel’s own leaders seem willing to compromise and allow Israel to fall into the abyss. If Israel’s leaders will not defend its right to its land: Who will?”

Hopefully you, dear reader, will become one of those who choose to defend and support Israel and what is left of the Free World’s struggle to survive and prosper in an ever darkening world.

The War of Mogadishu Claims 70 African Union Troops, Al Shabaab Still Clinging To a Couple of Districts

Hell on Earth. Mogadishu, Somalia. Same thing.

A new report has confirmed that 70 African Union troops were killed by the Muslim terrorist group al Shabaab inside of Mogadishu back in late October after the al Shabaab group concocted a nearly perfect trap for the soldiers from Burundi and Uganda.

From the report at The Long War Journal:

Shortly after battling African Union forces in the Daynile district in Mogadishu on Oct. 20, Shabaab released photographs and then later a video of scores of corpses of what appeared to be African Union soldiers who were slain during the battle. Shabaab claimed killing more than 70 African Union troops, but the African Union claimed the images were "faked." We now learn that Shabaab did indeed kill more than 70 African Union troops.

There was little resistance, with a few Shabab fighters fleeing in front of them. Civilians smiled from the bullet-riddled doorways, saying things like, "Don't worry, Shabab finished."

But suddenly the entire neighborhood opened up on the peacekeepers with assault rifles, belt-fed machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, "women, kids, everyone," Corporal Arakaza said. It was a classic envelope trap, with the Shabab drawing the peacekeepers deeper into their lair, sealing off the escape routes and then closing in from all sides.

Dozens of peacekeepers were wounded, including Corporal Arakaza, who was shot through the groin, and more than 70 killed in the span of a few minutes.

As you will see in the article, just about every African nation in the area has troops in Somalia - Burundi, Uganda, Nigeria and now Ethiopia is back in the mix and yet the islamic group al Shabaab continues to hold some sections of the city. It's my guess that if Ethiopia had a freer reign on tactics, they could mop up Mogadishu if they wanted to but they've been a bit gun shy from past blastings from the media. At the same time, there's not many in the world that wouldn't, at least secretly, want to see al Shabaab completely destroyed on Somali soil.

Report confirms 70 African Union troops killed in Mogadishu


Shortly after battling African Union forces in the Daynile district in Mogadishu on Oct. 20, Shabaab released photographs and then later a video of scores of corpses of what appeared to be African Union soldiers who were slain during the battle. Shabaab claimed killing more than 70 African Union troops, but the African Union claimed the images were "faked." We now learn that Shabaab did indeed kill more than 70 African Union troops. From The New York Times:

Oct. 20 was a particularly bad day. Shortly after dawn, several hundred peacekeepers marched into Deynile, one of the last Shabab strongholds in Mogadishu.

"It started off easy, too easy," groaned Cpl. Arcade Arakaza, a Burundian peacekeeper, from a hospital bed in Nairobi.

There was little resistance, with a few Shabab fighters fleeing in front of them. Civilians smiled from the bullet-riddled doorways, saying things like, "Don't worry, Shabab finished."

But suddenly the entire neighborhood opened up on the peacekeepers with assault rifles, belt-fed machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, "women, kids, everyone," Corporal Arakaza said. It was a classic envelope trap, with the Shabab drawing the peacekeepers deeper into their lair, sealing off the escape routes and then closing in from all sides.

Dozens of peacekeepers were wounded, including Corporal Arakaza, who was shot through the groin, and more than 70 killed in the span of a few minutes. But the African Union soldiers clawed back, eventually capturing a chunk of Shabab territory.

The NYT reports that more than 500 African Union troops from Burundi and Uganda have been killed in the four years since the "peacekeepers" deployed. Their mission intensified when Ethiopia withdrew from Mogadishu in 2009 after occupying the Somali capital for just over two years.

The NYT article claims that African Union forces have made significant progress in the four years since they have been in Mogadishu. But despite recent gains due to Shabaab's withdrawal from several districts in the capital, the al Qaeda-linked terror group still controls several areas (Daynile is still under Shabaab control, for instance). And the Kenyan military, which invaded southern Somalia nearly six weeks ago, still hasn't seized Afmadow and Kismayo, two major Shabaab strongholds. Ethiopia has even rejoined the fight, sending troops in from the west (the scope of the current Ethiopian involvement is still unclear; it appears one or two battalions of Ethiopian troops have entered the country).

Video: Nothing Starts the Week Off Like a Couple of Warthog Runs

Video: Just One of Those Things You've Probably Never Seen Before

Video: Remember "That" Declaration?

Member of Israel's Knesset Warns That Israel Must Prepare For War If Egypt Deploys In the Sinai

The facts of the Middle East are often unmistakeable...and the reality of Israel's precarious position amongst its neighbors is usually sobering.

This is from Israel National News:

MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) warned Sunday that Israel must prepare for the possibility that Egypt will deploy its military in the Sinai peninsula – and respond to that act as a declaration of war.

Eldad, who is a member of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Security Committee, said Israel "must prepare for the annulment" of the treaty, or its abrogation without a formal annulment.
Israel could face a situation in which "the Sinai will no longer be just a place for storing arms and training, and military forces beyond what was agreed upon in the peace treaty will enter it," he said. "World public opinion should be prepared for the fact that this would be a casus belli," he said.

Let's face it, Egypt is a damn crap shoot right now on what is going to go down there - we could end up seeing a Muslim Brotherhood coup in that country but what would that mean for their military? There is no love lost between Egypt's secular military leadership and the Muslim Brotherhood and it's my guess that Israel would lick its chops going up against some sort of patchwork military assembled by the messed up MB jihadis. But at the same time, we could see a fake head of state heading up Egypt who is basically a puppet of the MB and that would probably keep the military there in tact.

Israel is going to need to remain steadfast over the next year - they are in a bad situation in that all of their preparations and intel regarding Syria and Egypt are probably worthless now as the times are achanging.

Let's hope that there are some cooler minds in Egypt who have seen the benefits of their long term treaty with Israel.

MK: Prepare for War If Egypt Deploys in Sinai


MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) warned Sunday that Israel must prepare for the possibility that Egypt will deploy its military in the Sinai peninsula – and respond to that act as a declaration of war.

Eldad, who is a member of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Security Committee, said Israel "must prepare for the annulment" of the treaty, or its abrogation without a formal annulment.
Israel could face a situation in which "the Sinai will no longer be just a place for storing arms and training, and military forces beyond what was agreed upon in the peace treaty will enter it," he said. "World public opinion should be prepared for the fact that this would be a casus belli," he said.

Eldad added that he does not believe Israel's government will take these steps, but also said that "we cannot afford not to do this" because "otherwise we will find Egyptian divisions hurtling in our direction through Sinai."
US forces deployed in the Sinai provide no protection, he said, because they might be evacuated "by means of a single phone call" as occurred in the case of a UN force stationed in Sinai before the Six Day War.

Blog Talk Radio: "The Awakening" - The Conservative Surge

The Awakening

The Conservative "Surge"

Listen to internet radio with Holger Awakens on Blog Talk Radio

--

The Truth Behind the NATO Air Strikes On Pakistani Troops

People burn NATO and U.S. flags as they shout slogans against the NATO airstrikes on Pakistani military checkposts in Mohmand tribal agency, during a protest in Multan, Pakistan, on Sunday.

Okay, you can read all you want about the "outrage" of the Pakistanis over the NATO airstrikes that killed 25 of their troops the other night on the Pakistan/Afghan border and you can read al about how President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are calling for full investigations, but what I'd like to point to is the damn TRUTH behind what happened.

Let me frame it up. NATO and Afghan troops were rooting out Taliban fighters inside of Afghanistan on Saturday night when all of a sudden Afghan army troops came under fire from across the border in Pakistan. Due to the ferocity of the attack from the Pakistan side, air strikes were ordered in and the coordinates that were given by those on the ground were hit.

Here's the truth, from The Wall Street Journal:

Two Afghan officials working in the border area where the attack took place said Sunday that the joint force was targeting Taliban forces in the area when it received fire from a Pakistan military outpost. That prompted the coalition force to call for an air attack on the Pakistani posts, said an Afghan Border Police official in the area. Pakistani officials were informed of the operation before it took place, he said.

"There was firing coming from the position against Afghan army soldiers who requested support and this is what happened," said a third Afghan official in Kabul, where Gen. Allen met with top government leaders for a special security meeting to discuss the incident. The Afghan official in Kabul said the government believes that the fire came from the Pakistan base—and not from insurgents operating nearby.

That view was bolstered by one Western official who discussed the attack with military officials in Kabul on Sunday.

"They were fired on from a Pakistani army base," the Western official in Kabul said. "It was a defensive action."

Okay, now, let's look at what the Pakistanis say happened:

Pakistan's military disputes this version of events. Military officials say the posts were attacked without warning at 2 a.m, while most of the around 50 soldiers were sleeping, and that NATO helicopters and jets even attacked Pakistani military forces sent in as back-up during the two-hour assault.

So I ask you ... do you seriously believe that U.S. aircraft sent in attack helicopters and dropped JDAMs on a bunch of sleeping Pakistani troops? NATO scrambled jets into the skies in the middle of the night to bomb an outpost that was quiet as a church mouse so they could kill sleeping Pakistani troops. Yeah right. Why didn't NATO just load up some bombers and take out a Pakistani military base in Islamabad and kill around 2,000?

This is complete bullshit And in the end, we will all find out that the Pakistanis lied through their teeth on this - their guys started firing willy nilly into the operation on the Afghanistan side and paid the price for not checking out who they were firing on.

If you are a NATO commander and your troops and Afghan troops are getting pounded by fire coming from inside Pakistan, wouldn't you take the same action?

Afghans Say Pakistan Fired First in NATO Attack


NATO and Afghan forces on a nighttime operation Saturday came under fire from across the border in Pakistan before they called in an air strike on two Pakistani military border posts that left 25 soldiers dead and the U.S.'s relations with Pakistan in tatters, according to Afghan and Western officials' version of events.

Pakistan's army reacted angrily, calling the "unprovoked" raid on the border posts an "irresponsible act." The military denied firing on NATO forces and questioned why the coalition undertook a sustained two-hour attack on well-known border positions, involving helicopters and fighter jets, which also injured 25 other soldiers.

"No first fire came from Pakistan troops," said a senior Pakistani military official Sunday. "But they did respond in self-defense after NATO gunship helicopters and jet fighters carried out unprovoked firing."

In retaliation, Pakistan indefinitely shut down North Atlantic Treaty Organization supply lines through Pakistan and said it was reevaluating its military, intelligence and diplomatic links with the U.S. Authorities gave the U.S. two weeks to pull out of a Pakistani airbase that Washington has used in the past to launch drone strikes on Taliban militants, attacks which have become increasingly unpopular among Pakistani people.

Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, in a telephone conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday, communicated her "deep sense of rage" for the attack, which she said had set back efforts to improve relations, Pakistan's foreign ministry said in a statement.

On Sunday, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen promised a full inquiry in to the "tragic unintended incident." He termed the deaths of Pakistani personnel "unacceptable and deplorable."

Enlarge Image
1126paknato01
1126paknato01
Wali Khan Shinwari/European Pressphoto Agency

NATO supply trucks sitting idle after Pakistani officials closed the border crossing into Afghanistan to protest the NATO attack.

The Obama administration pledged a full investigation into the attack.

Mrs. Clinton, a U.S. government statement said Saturday, committed to reviewing the "circumstances of the incident" and stressed "the importance of the U.S.-Pakistani partnership."

The attack is a major setback for U.S. efforts to bring Pakistan onside as President Barack Obama's administration works to find an exit strategy from the 10-year war in Afghanistan.

Mrs. Clinton, in an October visit to Islamabad, attempted to forge an agreement with Pakistan to squeeze militants operating in Pakistan's border areas and to get the country's help in bringing Taliban leaders to peace talks.

A Western official with knowledge of the discussions said both sides had begun to rebuild confidence ahead of a key international meeting in Bonn, Germany, next month to discuss the situation in Afghanistan.

The attack Saturday set the clock back on a relationship that had only just begun to recover from a number of incidents, including the secret U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil in May and the killing of two Pakistani men in Lahore by a Central Intelligence Agency contractor in January.

"It will be difficult to make much progress in the days to come," the Western official said.

The incident took place hours after Gen. John R. Allen, the coalition commander in Afghanistan, met Friday with army officers in Pakistan to reduce rising tension on the poorly demarcated border. Gen. Allen said a one-star coalition general will lead an investigation into Saturday's deaths.

Afghan and U.S. officials say their troops are increasingly facing fire from Pakistan's side of the border. Pakistan is angry over the increased incidence of cross-border raids by Afghan and NATO forces.

As U.S. military, Pakistani forces and Afghan officials sought to piece together the deadly and destabilizing incident, three Afghan and one Western official said the attack took place in response to fire from the remote Pakistani posts in the Mohmand tribal region, a lawless border area that abuts Afghanistan's eastern Kunar province.

Two Afghan officials working in the border area where the attack took place said Sunday that the joint force was targeting Taliban forces in the area when it received fire from a Pakistan military outpost. That prompted the coalition force to call for an air attack on the Pakistani posts, said an Afghan Border Police official in the area. Pakistani officials were informed of the operation before it took place, he said.

"There was firing coming from the position against Afghan army soldiers who requested support and this is what happened," said a third Afghan official in Kabul, where Gen. Allen met with top government leaders for a special security meeting to discuss the incident. The Afghan official in Kabul said the government believes that the fire came from the Pakistan base—and not from insurgents operating nearby.

That view was bolstered by one Western official who discussed the attack with military officials in Kabul on Sunday.

"They were fired on from a Pakistani army base," the Western official in Kabul said. "It was a defensive action."

A U.S. official in Kabul said insurgents may have been firing into Afghanistan near the Pakistani border outpost Saturday morning, which prompted coalition forces to strike back. He pointed to an incident in September 2010, when a NATO helicopter fired on a Pakistan outpost, killing two soldiers.

"It was a situation where insurgent forces butted right up against a Pakistani border post and used that as a firing position. When we fired back, we hit Pakistani security forces. This is a possibility we're circulating here for Saturday's incident," the official said.

Military officials in Kabul said insurgents in Pakistan have also used empty Pakistan border bases to stage attacks, which may have been the working assumption of the coalition forces who called in the air strike.

Pakistan's military disputes this version of events. Military officials say the posts were attacked without warning at 2 a.m, while most of the around 50 soldiers were sleeping, and that NATO helicopters and jets even attacked Pakistani military forces sent in as back-up during the two-hour assault. Pakistan says it has increased the number of soldiers at border posts like these as part of a campaign in Mohmand this year to wipe out the Taliban in the area.

Pakistan's military set up check posts in the mountainous terrain of the Mohmand tribal agency after security forces launched a crackdown there against the Pakistan Taliban earlier this year. Officials claimed to have destroyed the Pakistan Taliban's training centers and bases, declaring the Mohmand region cleared of insurgents. Local tribal fighters supported the security forces.

The posts hit by NATO on Saturday are built on the mountain called Salala in Mohmand. The area borders parts of Afghanistan that are believed to be Afghan Taliban strongholds, and Pakistan Taliban routed in the offensive are believed to have fled there. Tribal elders of the local lashkars, or peace committees, in Mohmand are infuriated over the NATO attack and issued warnings of waging a fight with coalition forces Sunday.

"We have sacrificed our lives in the fight against Taliban who killed hundreds of our tribesmen," said Malik Mohammad Ali, a tribal elder from Mohmand.

The incident comes as the U.S. has begun to more publicly voice concerns that Pakistan's military, despite fighting militants in places like Mohmand, is harboring some factions of the Taliban as a way of influencing events in Afghanistan after most international troops pull out in 2014. At the least, U.S. officials say, Pakistan is failing to stop some militants firing on U.S. troops from close to Pakistani military posts.

But the U.S. also has attempted to get Pakistan army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, to play a larger role in bringing the Taliban into nascent peace talks that have so far failed to bear fruit.

Gen. Kayani's ability to accede to U.S. demands is greatly limited by events like the one Saturday, which stoke anti-U.S. fervor in Pakistan, said Talat Masood, a retired general and defense analyst.

"Those who have been more moderate, even those people are asking is it worth having a relationship with the U.S.?" Mr. Masood said. "It will be very difficult for Gen. Kayani to defend the alliance."

Mr. Masood said he had taped a television chat show Saturday after the attack on the border posts during which he was the only participant arguing that the U.S. wouldn't have targeted Pakistani soldiers in Mohmand as a deliberate act of aggression.

Few observers, though, expect a complete breakdown in relations.

Pakistan has shut its border, which will temporarily hurt NATO's supply chain to Afghanistan, but the country continues to rely on billions of dollars in military and civilian aid from the U.S. Washington, likewise, needs Pakistan to keep up pressure on Taliban militants in the tribal region, and as a supply route.

"This is a need-based relationship. It will have its temporary hiccup, probably in the form of the suspension of NATO cargo," said Imtiaz Gul, director of the Center for Research and Security Studies, an Islamabad-based think tank.

During the national security meeting Sunday, Afghan leaders also solidified plans to carry out the second phase of plans for coalition forces to cede security control to Afghan forces across the country.

The new plan includes six of the country's 34 provinces, including Kabul, seven major cities, including Jalalabad, and dozens of districts, including Helmand province's Marjah, which was the first target last year of U.S. Marines at the forefront of the American military surge meant to cripple the Taliban-led insurgency.

If the transition is a success, it will put Afghan forces in the lead in protecting more than half of the country's population, officials said.

During the first phase of the transition process carried out earlier this year, Afghan forces assumed control of seven cities and provinces.

Minnesota State Government Shutdown Last Summer Saved Minnesota Taxpayers $5 Million!

Okay, I am going to give you all a lesson in media bias here...not that you need ANOTHER one but this one is pretty funny. The crux of this concerns the government shutdown that occurred in the state of Minnesota last summer when the Republican controlled state legislature refused to raise taxes on the people to address state budget deficits and the liberal state Governor vetoed any legislation that did NOT raise taxes. The Democrats in Minnesota positioned the state government shutdown as the apocolypse...that the state would never recover from the huge losses of shutting down the nanny state.

Well, from the article at TwinCities.com, look at what actually the net result was of the government shutdown:

Minnesota budget officials said today that a 20-day government shutdown in July cost the state nearly $60 million but saved it about $65 million in salaries that weren't paid to state employees.

In a report released today, the Minnesota Management and Budget department said the state lost almost $50 million in revenue and spent about $7 million preparing for the shutdown and $3 million in recovery costs. Those cost estimates could rise, it said.

But that was more than offset by savings in payroll costs for about 19,000 state employees laid off during the shutdown.

So there you have it. Cold hard facts that the state government shutdown actually SAVED the Minnesota taxpayers $5 million dollars!

So, how did the media present the potential cost of the government shutdown back in July? Let's take a look at some of the headlines from various Leftist media back in July scaring the people of Minnesota, threatening a huge cost to everyone because the damn Republicans were holding their ground:

Minneapolis Star and Tribune: " Shutdown cost will bring sticker shock"

MyFox9: "Minnesota Government Shutdown Costs Taxpayers Millions"

Kare11: "Analyst warns about 'great costs' of gov't shutdown"

Hell, look at the headline from the article above from TwinCities.com that actually proves that the shutdown saved the taxpayers money:

"Officials: Minnesota government shutdown cost nearly $60 million"

So, let's just say that I'm a lazy voter in the state of Minnesota and I'm an even lazier news reader....I run across the headline above and don't read the article....I'm going to have a negative view of the shutdown right? Once again, the media carries the water for the liberals - once again the American people (in this case, the people of Minnesota) get lies and distortion in their news.

Here's the end run of the government shutdown in Minnesota last summer. The liberal Governor, Mark Dayton, bet his entire political capital that the government shutdown would cause a catastrophe for the people and cost the state huge dollars - and next year, he could use that fodder to catapult Democrats back into control of the state legislature. His bet was a bad one. The shutdown had little effect unless you were one of the unionized state workers and in the end, the shutdown SAVED the taxpayers money.

So, when the 2012 elections come around, how do you think the media will portray the Governor's tactics of using the state shutdown as a political ploy?

Officials: Minnesota government shutdown cost nearly $60 million


Minnesota budget officials said today that a 20-day government shutdown in July cost the state nearly $60 million but saved it about $65 million in salaries that weren't paid to state employees.

In a report released today, the Minnesota Management and Budget department said the state lost almost $50 million in revenue and spent about $7 million preparing for the shutdown and $3 million in recovery costs. Those cost estimates could rise, it said.

But that was more than offset by savings in payroll costs for about 19,000 state employees laid off during the shutdown.

The report did not include lost productivity and other, unspecified "indirect impacts." The shutdown angered and inconvenienced many Minnesotans, delaying road construction projects, shutting down state parks and the lottery and cutting off the flow of alcohol to some bars.

Budget Commissioner Jim Schowalter said that except for those state employees, the shutdown was essentially a wash because a court-appointed master ordered that many programs were essential and had to be funded during the shutdown. State spending continued at an 80 percent clip.

"The broad economic impact didn't really occur," Schowalter said. "The biggest story was the human impact, and the impact on the state's reputation."

The shutdown came after Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton and GOP legislative majorities couldn't agree on how to close a $5 billion budget shortfall.

Video: Let's Ride Along With the Kiowas As They Slaughter Taliban

Video: If Your Son or Daughter Is Fighting For America In Afghanistan...Don't Watch This

Australian Parliament Member Tells Aussies They Are Being Fed Halal Meat Without Knowing It

From TheWest.com:

Halal meat converting Aussies: MP



A WA Liberal MP has claimed Australians are unknowingly being converted to Islam by eating Halal meat.

In a speech to Parliament yesterday, backbencher Luke Simpkins said most Australians did not know that most of the meat they ate came from animals killed in accordance with Muslim law.

“By having Australians unwittingly eating Halal food we are all one step down the path towards the conversion, and that is a step we should only make with full knowledge and one that should not be imposed upon us without us knowing,” Mr Simpkins told Parliament.

“What is happening is wrong. Too often the minorities in this country are looked after without regard to the majority.”

Mr Simpkins said he had carried out an unofficial survey in his northern-suburbs electorate of Cowan and had discovered that most meat at major chains such as Coles or Woolworths had been killed under Halal conditions, but had not been labelled as such.

He tabled a petition demanding that all Halal meat be clearly identified, complaining people could not buy meat for their “Aussie barbecue” without the influence of the “minority religion”.

Mr Simpkins said that Mohammed the prophet of Islam had talked of how the religion could be expanded around the world by getting people to eat Halal meat.

“He reportedly said, ‘The non-believers will become Muslims when, amongst other things, they eat the meat that we have slaughtered’. This is one of the key aspects to converting non-believers to Islam,” Mr Simpkins said.

The petition tabled by Mr Simpkins had been organised by the Barnabas Fund, an organisation that supports Christians living in Muslim countries.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said Opposition Leader Tony Abbott should pull Mr Simpkins into line.
“All members of Parliament should be looking to promote understanding and harmony between religions. Mr Simpkins has done the complete opposite,” he said.

Video: Expressing Yourself Under Islam Just Isn't Easy

Intelligence Experts Warn That Hezbollah's Infiltration of the CIA Operations Is Catastrophic

We have known for a long time how Hezbollah, the terrorist group in Lebanon funded by Iran, is global in their intelligence and terror operations - what is coming out now is just how GOOD that Hezbollah is in this area of counter-intelligence. The recent developments where Hezbollah and Iran exposed CIA-backed networks in their midst is more than disturbing...it points to what just might be happening on the other side of the coin.

From the article at Family Security Matters:

The recent setback for the U.S. Intelligence Community – specifically CIA – wherein scores of operators working for the Agency were seized by Iranian security forces in Iran and Hizballah (Iran’s proxy army) in Lebanon; speak to two disturbing truths. The first is that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Hizballah, which is both financially and operationally supported by the IRGC, maintains human intelligence and counterintelligence capabilities that are as “formidable” as any fielded by the West. Secondly, they are aggressively operating against us.

According to Reuters, former CIA operations officer Bob Baer says,"Hizballah’s security is as good as any in the world's. It's the best. It's better than that of the KGB [the former Soviet spy agency]."

And at least one expert refers to Iran and Hizballah’s aggressive counterintelligence operations and recent success as bordering on war.

Professor Walid Phares – an advisor to the U.S. House’s Anti-Terrorism Caucus and the author of several books on Jihadist terror (including Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America), tells us, "This latest operation by Hizballah’s against a major U.S. intelligence agency is bordering on an act of war. Lebanon is a sovereign country, and a terrorist organization has had the freedom to wage counter-espionage operations against CIA, and they have detained individuals they believe were working with that U.S. agency. If the Lebanese government endorses this operation, it would be responsible for an act of aggression bordering on an act of war against the United States.”

It's been my contention that we have completely booted the whole handling of Hezbollah from a U.S. perspective. As this terror group gained more and more political power in Lebanon, we should have had concrete plans to eliminate their top leadership and freeze much of the flow of weapons into Lebanon - those kinds of plans were thwarted with the election of Barack Hussein Obama who had one advisor who actually pitched for a relationship with Hezbollah and also, there has been a tendency in America to pawn off Hezbollah as only an Israeli problem.

Well, Hezbollah is a world problem and the sooner we recognize that, the better. It's my opinion that since Hezbollah has had to battle the wits of Mossad out of Israel for its very existence over the years, they have become better and better at the counter-intelligence. If they hadn't gotten better, they wouldn't have survived. The issues now are that the head of the monster, Iran, is going to start using that expertise across the Middle East and in other global operations.

So, once again, I make the plea that Iran must be subdued militarily. And with that operation, even though funding for Hezbollah would be cut off, the Hezbollah operations would need to be destroyed as well.

Intelligence Experts: Terror Group's Penetration of CIA is "Catastrophic"


The recent setback for the U.S. Intelligence Community – specifically CIA – wherein scores of operators working for the Agency were seized by Iranian security forces in Iran and Hizballah (Iran’s proxy army) in Lebanon; speak to two disturbing truths. The first is that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Hizballah, which is both financially and operationally supported by the IRGC, maintains human intelligence and counterintelligence capabilities that are as “formidable” as any fielded by the West. Secondly, they are aggressively operating against us.

According to Reuters, former CIA operations officer Bob Baer says,"Hizballah’s security is as good as any in the world's. It's the best. It's better than that of the KGB [the former Soviet spy agency]."

And at least one expert refers to Iran and Hizballah’s aggressive counterintelligence operations and recent success as bordering on war.

Professor Walid Phares – an advisor to the U.S. House’s Anti-Terrorism Caucus and the author of several books on Jihadist terror (including Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America), tells us, "This latest operation by Hizballah’s against a major U.S. intelligence agency is bordering on an act of war. Lebanon is a sovereign country, and a terrorist organization has had the freedom to wage counter-espionage operations against CIA, and they have detained individuals they believe were working with that U.S. agency. If the Lebanese government endorses this operation, it would be responsible for an act of aggression bordering on an act of war against the United States.”

Phares adds, “If the Lebanese government considers such operations against a U.S. agency on Lebanese soil as rogue – and conducted without legitimate Lebanese government authority – then it should demand Hizballah cease its activities against the U.S.” He says, the Lebanese government – which receives military support from the U.S. – may raise the matter of U.S. espionage operations in Lebanon in bilateral discussions with the U.S. government. But Hizballah has no legal authority to conduct such counter-espionage operations against what is considered to be an ally of Lebanon.

Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R-NC) – who chairs the U.S. House Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counter Intelligence – says both the immediate issue and the threat extends far beyond Iran and Lebanon.

Wednesday, she said, "This operation alleged by Hizballah against CIA resources in Lebanon shows
their determination to hurt the United States. This terrorist organization claims their war efforts are only pursued in their war against Israel. But their heavy involvement in terror operations against American interests in Iraq and the Gulf area, and in Latin America all the way to Mexico south of our borders, shows clearly that they are targeting U.S. national security.”

Recall that my colleagues and I have discussed at length the tri-border area of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay that has – according to a 2009 study by the Rand Institute – “emerged as the most important financing center for Islamic terrorism outside of the Middle East.”

Myrick says, “This latest claim by Hizballah in Lebanon only adds to their intentions to target U.S. interests." But it is the effective penetration of a U.S. intelligence agency by Iran and Hizballah that disturbs most.

“The reality is someone who knew of these names must have leaked them to the organization [Hizballah],” says Phares. “That person or persons is either a member of Hizballah or they are working with the terrorist group. The U.S. Congress should investigate the possible penetration Hizballah may have developed over the years enabling it to have these kinds of access to names.”

Clare Lopez, deputy director of the U.S. Counterterrorism Advisory Team, says, “Up against Hizballah on its own turf, it seems that U.S. intelligence is out of its league. HIzballah's intelligence capabilities, learned from the Iranians, are highly sophisticated and include the full classical tradecraft skillset as well as very competent counterintelligence capabilities.”

A former member of the U.S. Intelligence Community who spoke to us on condition of anonymity, says, “This should come as no surprise to anyone who understands the sophistication of these jihadist enemies and their professionalism in the skills of classical clandestine tradecraft. U.S. Intelligence Community failures to identify, effectively confront, and defeat the Islamic jihadist enemy speak not only to erosion of that skillset within the CIA, but also to catastrophic failure to master an understanding of the enemy ideology, the ideology of Islamic jihad.”

The former operator added, “Intent and motivation are as critical as capability to the enemy's strategy and absent their accurate assessment, will lead as surely to defeat as failure to measure capability. America's enemies have penetrated its Intelligence Community in the past and betrayal of top CIA assets abroad has been tracked to moles deep inside the system more than once.”

How this plays out is anyone’s guess for the near future. But what we cannot continue to neglect are the overt threats and activities of Iran and Hizballah, the developing sophistication of their covert capabilities, their global reach and obvious intent, and the fact that – as former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff says - Hizballah "makes Al Qaeda look like a minor league team."