What happens after Korans are burned in Afghanistan?

by danmillerinpanama

29 February 2012 by danmillerinpanama

Who did it, why and under what circumstances?
What should and should not be done?

The military justice system demands justice for our troops.  It does not
permit revenge upon them to curry favor with others, even our enemies.

The burning of an unstated number of Korans in Afghanistan and the aftermath have been much in the news.  However, little has been reported factually about who did it, who if anyone told them to do it and/or why.  It has not even been reported, beyond speculation, whether the Koran Burners were members of the United States military, some other military organization or civilians.  According to this NY Times article, it was done by “American” personnel who “threw Korans into a pit of burning trash.”  According to the linked February 21st article, also at the NY Times,

According to Afghan workers who witnessed the events, around 10 or 11 p.m. on Monday a dump truck escorted by a military vehicle drove up to the landfill at Bagram Air Base, where 20 or so Afghans work. Two uniformed NATO personnel, a man and a woman, began unloading bags of books from the back of the truck and throwing them into a pit for incineration. NATO officials said it was not yet clear if the two people were troops or civilians. Some civilians also wear military uniforms and can easily be mistaken for soldiers. The Afghan workers described the pair as Americans.
Accounts from some of the workers at the landfill suggested that the two people were oblivious to the significance of what they were doing. They made no attempt to hide the books, instead appearing to be routinely carrying out their duties.
“When we saw these soldiers burning books, we moved closer to see what was going on, and one of the boys said, ‘It is Holy Koran,’ ” said one of the laborers, Zabiullah, 22. “And we attacked them with our yellow helmets, and tried to stop them. We rushed towards them, and we threw our helmets at the vehicles.” (Emphasis added)

Reliable information remains difficult to find.  Let’s therefore assume that the uniformed people who threw bags of refuse into the fire were U.S. Military personnel, that they were not burning Korans for the mere joy of burning them and that they were performing duties assigned by someone in a position to assign those duties.  If not, the apparently contrite letter written by President Obama (hardly his first apology to the world for our many sins) probably makes even less sense than is apparent — that’s speculation, since the text has not been released and, according to Press Secretary Carney, “is not appropriate to show” to reporters or, by extension, to the rest of us.  According to a travel pool report, it was “a lengthy, three-page letter on a host of issues, several sentences of which relate to this matter.”  In any event, whatever President Obama may have said seems not to have had many desirable effects.

As noted by Ambassador Bolton, President Obama’s apology probably enhanced the Islamic sense that the United States (or at least the Obama Administration) is increasingly weak, gutless and ineffectual. That perception appears to have been gaining international acceptance.  While consistent with the Obama presidency, that is not a wise message for any President of the United States to send.

The violence continued: on February 27th,

A suicide car bomber struck early Monday at the gates of Jalalabad airport in eastern Afghanistan, officials said, killing nine people in an attack insurgents said was revenge for U.S. troops burning Qurans.
. . . .
The bomber drove up to the gates of the airport — which serves both civilian and international military aircraft — shortly after dawn and detonated his explosives in a “very strong” blast, said Nangarhar provincial police spokesman Hazrad Mohammad.
Among the dead were six civilians, two airport guards and one soldier, Mohammad said. Another six people were wounded, he said.
An AP photographer saw at least four destroyed cars at the gates of the airport.
NATO forces spokesman Capt. Justin Brockhoff said that no international forces were killed in the early morning attack and that the installation was not breached by the blast.
. . . .
“This attack is revenge against those soldiers who burned our Quran,” Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in an email.
More than 30 people have been killed in protests and related attacks since the incident came to light this past Tuesday, including four U.S. soldiers.

The number of dead there is apparently now up to nine and things do not seem to be going well in most of Afghanistan.

At least in the absence of reliable information about who did what, in what circumstances and why, does this apology to “the noble people of Afghanistan” by the commander of the NATO coalition in Afghanistan, United States General John Allen, make a great deal of sense?

According to the young gentleman interviewed in the first video, we need to be even more respectful of the feelings of savages devout adherents to the Religion of Peace who like to behead and otherwise kill us and other “infidels” because otherwise we will continue to lose their hearts and minds.  We will also continue to lose our own because we will continue to be beheaded and killed in other Islamically acceptable ways.  Might the young gentleman be right?  Clearly, savagery trumps patience and reasoning, or at least that seems to be the administration position.  As asked here,

What, if anything, does the president have to say to the parents, orphans and widows of the murdered Americans in Afghanistan? His  silence on those murders suggests, at a minimum, some sort of deranged “understanding” of the killers’ motivation, as if to say, “well, what do you expect?  American soldiers slimed the Holy Koran, so obviously angry Muslims were going to slaughter some Americans.”
Does this mean that the president has issued Muslims a pass on barbaric violence?  Does it mean that he sees a moral equivalence between burning holy Islamic writ and killing infidels?

Official apologies to Islamists continue.

Let’s assume that the beastly Koran burners are members of the United States military and therefore cannot be tried by a court dispensing Islamic justice.  In the absence of a Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Afghanistan that so provides (none   exists), they are instead subject only to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) — as are their military commanders.  What happens next? Here is what President Karzai said:

[A]ccording to a BBC translation of his remarks made Sunday, [Karzai] told the Afghan people he was speaking to them after discussing the matter with “jihadi leaders,” “prominent scholars,” and Afghan elected officials, and that he spoke for the “pure sentiments” of the “Afghan nation” and the “Islamic world,” when he said: “We call on the US government to bring the perpetrators of the act to justice and put them on trial and punish them.”

According to this statement from The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Government Media and Information Center,

NATO officials promised to meet Afghan nation’s demand of bringing to justice, through an open trial, those responsible for the incident and it was agreed that the perpetrators of the crime be brought to justice as soon as possible.

How can the demands of the pure sentiments of the “noble” Afghan people for “justice,” public trial and punishment be met?  Who are to be tried? The two apparently low-ranking enlisted personnel who threw the bags into the fire? Whoever told them to do it? Whoever might have been his supervisor? How far up the chain of command can it go? Can guilt be presumed, a public trial farce held following which they shall be punished to Afghanistan’s “pure” satisfaction?  How? By being hung, disemboweled and/or beheaded and their bodies dragged through the streets?  Less probably would not be satisfactory and — in view of General Allen’s statement in the video above — could instead be a signal for further rioting and death at the hands of those same noble people.
What should happen?

In a January 16th article entitled Should politics and foreign policy affect our military justice system, I wrote based on my experiences as an Army JAG captain (1966-1970) about the UCMJ and its implications for several marines who had childishly had a video made of themselves urinating on deceased Taliban heroes.  Obviously, their actions were intentional and they knew what they were doing.  The same principles should and must apply here if we are to make any legitimate claim that we follow the rule of law and are not descending to a level of savagery approaching that in Afghanistan.

Whether the, as yet, undisclosed military personnel who burned some Korans are to be tried by court martial or by a potentially less severe system of justice should not be up to the whims of Afghanistan or to those in the Obama Administration intent upon apologizing to that (or any other) country.  Nor, if they are to be punished, should punishment dictated by “pure Afghan sentiments” — or by those of the no less “noble” Obama Administration — be imposed.
If punishment is to be sought, there are essentially five ways to proceed:

General court martial;
Special court martial;
Summary court martial;
Field grade non-judicial punishment (Article 15) and
Company grade non-judicial punishment.

They are listed above in descending order of potential severity; the first two are generally open to some extent to the public under conditions ensuring the maintenance of proper military decorum conducive to the administration of justice. A conviction is ordinarily treated as conviction of a federal felony, the effects of which can jeopardize future prospects (if any) of the felon.  The latter is not the case for the last three.  Under none of the five procedures can the verdict to be delivered and the punishment to be imposed (other than what is maximum punishment possible) be foreordained.
What has the Obama Administration properly to do with any of this?  It should have very little to do with it.  The Manual for Courts Martial (MCM), an Executive Order supplementing and consistent with the UCMJ, provides:

Rule 104. Unlawful command influence
(a) General prohibitions.
(1) Convening authorities and commanders. No convening authority or commander may censure, reprimand, or admonish a court-martial or other military tribunal or any member, military judge, or  counsel thereof, with respect to the findings or sentence adjudged by the court-martial or tribunal, or with respect to any other exercise of the functions of the court-martial or tribunal or such persons in the conduct of the proceedings.
(2) All persons subject to the code. No person subject to the code may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence the action of a court-martial or any other military tribunal or any member thereof, in reaching the findings or sentence in any case or the action of any convening, approving, or reviewing authority with respect to such authority’s judicial acts.

As contended in my January 16th article,

Although not themselves subject to the UCMJ, the Commander in Chief, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense should respect the intent of the MCM, an Executive Order. They should not take actions which, if taken by a commander, would amount to command influence.  Leaving aside all other considerations, they should refrain because defense counsel in a military trial would likely raise what they had done — possibly by analogy to command influence and at least in the context of pre-trial publicity. Counsel’s failure to do so could and probably would be cited as incompetence in any subsequent appeal.

We may already have passed the point of no return.  We don’t know what instructions the NATO field commander, United States General Allen, has given (or may give) to his subordinates or they to theirs.  Assuming trial by court martial or non-judicial punishment proceedings under Article 15 of the UCMJ, to what pressures will subordinate commanders be, or consider themselves to be, subject?  Will they feel under obligations to do what they believe President Obama (or President Karzai) desires rather than what their consciences and their oaths of office — to the United States Constitution and to neither President Obama nor President Karzai — and the UCMJ demand of them?  The oath of office for U.S. military officers is as follows:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God.

Let’s hope that they as well as their superior commanders, including the Commander in Chief, remember and honor that oath.  Let’s also hope that none of them take this satirical video by Andrew Klaven seriously.

Is The Fix In?

Yesterday I posted Because You Leak relating to the world that Israel would not give Barack Hussein Obama an early warning when they attack Iran.  Now the reason for this attitude by the Israelis has been made known.

Obama, Iran in secret nuclear deal

My sources inside Iran tell me that President Obama, seeking to protect the recovering U.S. economy and bolster his chances of being re-elected in November, apparently has entered into an informal agreement with Iran that he believes will defuse the nuclear weapons crisis and keep Israel from attacking the Islamic regime.

The agreement calls for the United States to acknowledge that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, and for Iran to hand over its highly enriched uranium, which is necessary for nuclear weaponization.

Iran, for its part, though engaging Obama, has no intention of abiding by the agreement and is stepping up its nuclear enrichment program clandestinely, even as it prepares for a war it believes it can win.

When Obama took office in 2009, he threw out the Bush administration’s aggressive posture in negotiating with Iran and instead sought a new approach, one of diplomacy and friendship. He had a golden opportunity to support millions of Iranians who took to the streets over Iran’s fraudulent elections that June, but instead turned his back on freedom and democracy while believing that negotiations with the Islamic regime would yield results.

Once the protests had died down, the Iranians, after months of promises, announced that a proposed agreement by the West that limited their nuclear activity was no longer acceptable and that they had successfully enriched uranium to 20 percent, which is nine-tenths of the way to nuclear weaponization.

The Iranians have now expanded their nuclear program to the point where they not only have enough low-enriched uranium for six nuclear bombs but also have doubled their stock of highly enriched uranium of 20 percent. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently reported that Iran has added 3,000 more centrifuges to the Natanz facility, bringing the total to 9,000, and has started enriching to 20 percent at the previous secret site, the Fordow facility, which is deep within a mountain and secure against any attack. Such production could give Iran weapons-grade uranium for nuclear bombs within weeks.

Obama knows that Israel is losing patience with the lack of progress over Iran’s unabated continuation of its illicit nuclear program despite four sets of U.N. sanctions and other sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the European Union. He also knows that any confrontation between Israel and Iran will drag America into an unwanted war and therefore destabilize the American economy and harm his chances of re-election.

Iran knows that its best chance to delay any attack on its nuclear and military facilities and its best opportunity to be in a win-win situation is to once again engage Obama, believing he is weak, that Iran holds the key to his re-election and that a Republican win in November could mean direct confrontation

As revealed in January, Obama sent a message to the Iranian leaders through three different channels. Part of it, disclosed by the Iranian officials, reflected a message by the U.S. president asking for cooperation and negotiation based on mutual interests, but more importantly, it assured Iran that America will not take any action against the Islamic regime.

Sources within Iran reveal that Khamenei, in a secret meeting with his top officials and military commanders, has issued a directive to push for a step-by-step Russian proposal to defuse the crisis in which Iran would only hand over its 20 percent enrichment stock while keeping all low-enriched uranium stock (enough for six nuclear bombs) and cooperate more with the IAEA (all the while continuing its enrichment activity). In exchange, the West would ease up on the sanctions as each step is taken.

The U.S., for its part, had to announce that Iran is not after the nuclear bomb, backing Israel into a corner and pressuring it not to take any action.

In the same meeting it was decided that if the West did not take the offer, then a limited war in the region could help the Iranian leaders further consolidate power at home, incite further uprisings in the region, become the leader of the Islamic movement by attacking Israel and still save some of its nuclear facilities, which are either at secret locations or deep underground. And that would justify their pursuit of the nuclear bomb.

The Obama administration responded positively. First, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsy, publicly announced that Iran is a rational actor and that it is not after a nuclear bomb. Then, just as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to arrive in Washington for talks with Obama over Iran’s nuclear program, the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies said Iran has already stopped efforts to build a bomb.

This despite the most recent IAEA report clearly indicating the military aspect of the Iranian nuclear program and last week’s announcement by the U.N. nuclear agency that Iran has ramped up by 50 percent its production of highly enriched uranium, well beyond what is normally needed for peaceful nuclear energy.

In response to the Americans meeting Khamenei’s demands, the Iranian supreme leader responded by publicly announcing that Iran has never sought and will never seek nuclear weapons as it regards possession of such weapons a great sin.

Other Iranian officials did their part by announcing that the cooperation with the IAEA will continue to once again show the world that claims of Iran wanting a nuclear bomb are unfounded.

In this high-stakes game, Iranian leaders believe Obama is hamstrung by politics, and even if war comes, ultimately Russia and China will intervene to support Iran,  and therefore giving Iran a victory similar to the outcome of the 200demanding a cease-fire6 Hezbollah-Israel war.

Though an election year, Obama must know that radicals ruling Iran, if given time, will obtain nuclear weapons, changing the world as we know it forever, no matter who is in the White House come 2013

Source

Given this information no one can now accept that Obama will be trying to throw Israel under the bus.  His re-election is at stake.  It is just too bad that Benjamin Netanyahu is not on board for this plan.  His only concern is his nation, his people.  And will do anything possible to prevent Iran or Obama from bringing about a Second Holocaust!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions

Hat tip to Iggymom

When is a child a person?  At conception?  Viability?  Birth?  In the last case it is none of the above.  According to Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne if you don't want the child and give birth, you have the right to kill it.

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Alberto Giubilini

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

Francesca Minerva

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.


Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

Read the full story here

I suppose this is the next step by the left to "empower" a woman. Why should anyone be "burdened" or "saddled" with a child.  The child has no value.  It cannot ask work, dress itself, feed itself.  It is nothing to these so-called ethicists.  Ethics?  These two don't know the meaning of the word.  They feel as long as the "mother" doesn't want the child, she should have the right to kill it.

The American Declaration of Independence states this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Have we forgotten those words?  Have we forgotten the simplest commandment of G-d:

Deuteronomy Chapter 5


16.  Thou shalt not murder.

Why should a child, born into the world, be MURDERED for the reason that it is inconvenient for the woman.  She should have thought of the consequences of her actions 9 months earlier when she decided to engage in sexual activity.

How a society treats the least and most helpless of its citizens shows how civilized, how mature it is.  This goes against all the rules of society.  But I fear it will be forced on us by those on the left.  First the "mother" choosing to kill her child, then the government forcing women to kill their children.  Especially those children who do not measure up to the government's idea of perfection.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Tawriya: New Islamic Doctrine Permits 'Creative Lying'

by Raymond Ibrahim
Stonegate Institute
February 28, 2012

Now meet tawriya, a doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances.

Perhaps you have heard of taqiyya, the Muslim doctrine that allows lying in certain circumstances -- primarily when Muslim minorities live under infidel authority. Now meet tawriya, a doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances—including to fellow Muslims and by swearing to Allah—provided the liar is creative enough to articulate his deceit in a way that is "technically" true.
Deceit and lying may be far more ingrained in the culture than previously thought.
The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary defines tawriya as, "hiding, concealment; dissemblance, dissimulation, hypocrisy; equivocation, ambiguity, double-entendre, allusion." Conjugates of the trilateral root of the word, w-r-y, appear in the Quran in the context of hiding or concealing something (e.g., 5:31, 7:26).
As a doctrine, "double-entendre" best describes tawriya's function. According to past and present Muslim scholars, several documented below, tawriya occurs when a speaker says something that means one thing to the listener, although the speaker means something else, and his words technically support this alternate meaning.
For example, if someone declares "I don't have a penny in my pocket," most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him—although he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies.
This ruse is considered legitimate according to Sharia law; it does not constitute "lying," which in Islam is otherwise forbidden, except in three cases: lying in war, lying to one's spouse, and lying in order to reconcile people. For these exceptions, Sharia permits Muslims to lie freely, without the strictures of tawriya, that is, without the need for creativity.

Read More: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2898/tawriya-creative-lying-islam

The Bailey Bill of 1909, and the Creation of the Federal Income Tax

'Beware what you ask for, you may get it' iggymom

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Progressivism was on the rise in the United States around the turn of the 20th Century.  Americans were concerned about the large national debt that remained with the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War, and the growing social inequality between the rich and the poor.  The idea that there should be a tax that “soaks the rich” began to take root among progressives of both major parties.  The Democrats took to progressivism more than the Republican Party, and the liberals of the Democrat Party were looking for a way to embarrass the conservative arm of the GOP so that they could gain some traction in the next election.

With social unrest rising among the population, a democrat proposed The Bailey Bill with the express intention of enabling the Republicans to reject it.  The theory was that after the Republicans rejected the bill, the democrats could then point a finger at the Republicans and claim for political purposes that the Republicans were in cahoots with the corrupt wealthy corporate types, and their rejection of the Bailey Bill, which would have imposed an income tax on the rich, was proof of such an alignment between the Republicans and the wealthy.

The conservative Republicans knew what the progressives of the Democrat Party were up to, and launched a counter move.  They proposed a constitutional amendment that would impose an income tax on the rich, and when the States refused to ratify the amendment, the Republicans would use that failure to ratify the amendment as proof that the people, through their State legislatures, were against the idea of a new income tax.  In turn, that would defeat the Bailey Bill, for how could Congress approve an income tax against the rich through the Bailey Bill after the people and States rejected a constitutional amendment that would have done the very same thing?

The proponents of the 16th Amendment promised that if it were to be ratified (and remember, it was fully expected not to be ratified) the income tax would only be imposed on the top 5% wage earners, it would be voluntary, and it would be temporary.

The progressives of the Republican Party, however, rallied behind the proposed amendment, and the Secretary of State announced the amendment was ratified on February 12, 1913.

Progressives, happy to see the 16th Amendment ratified, hoped to use it to tax the rich.  In fact, in the beginning, only 5% of the people were required to submit tax returns.  Many of the rich, however, avoided the tax with charitable deductions, and other creative strategies.

During World War II Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw the income tax as a way to vastly increase revenue, and initiated a policy of withholding from “all” wages and salaries, not just the highest incomes enjoyed by the rich.   Rather than the rich paying the tax at the end of the year, the tax was collected at the payroll window before it was even due to be paid by the taxpayer. This style of collection shifted the tax from its original design as a tax on the wealthy to a tax on the masses, mostly on the middle class.

So let this be a lesson to you. When the politicians say they only want to tax the rich, first of all it never works as they plan, and second of all the tax is always eventually extended to everyone.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

Because You Leak!

The Israelis want to scream at President Barack Hussein Obama and the members of his regime administration.  President Obama has demanded that the Israelis give him a 12-hour advanced notice of when they will attack Iran.  The Israelis know that if they did that President Obama would go public with the knowledge and inform the world.  So the Israelis have decided (And rightly so.) not to inform the United States of any advanced knowledge of an attack on Iran.

Israeli officials say they won't warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, one U.S. intelligence official familiar with the discussions told the Associated Press. The pronouncement, delivered in a series of private, top-level conversations, sets a tense tone ahead of meetings in the coming days at the White House and Capitol Hill.

Israeli officials said that if they eventually decide a strike is necessary, they would keep the Americans in the dark to decrease the likelihood that the U.S. would be held responsible for failing to stop Israel's potential attack. The U.S. has been working with the Israelis for months to persuade them that an attack would be only a temporary setback to Iran's nuclear program.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak delivered the message to a series of top-level U.S. visitors to the country, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the White House national security adviser and the director of national intelligence, and top U.S. lawmakers, all trying to close the trust gap between Israel and the U.S. over how to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Netanyahu delivered the same message to all the Americans who have traveled to Israel for talks, the U.S. official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive strategic negotiations.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment, and the Pentagon and Office of Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, as did the Israeli Embassy.

Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the International Atomic Energy Agency has raised alarms that its uranium enrichment program might be a precursor to building nuclear weapons. The US has said it does not know whether the government has decided to weaponize its nuclear material and put it on a missile or other delivery device.

The secret warning is likely to worry US officials and begin the high level meetings with Israel and the US far apart on how to handle Iran.

But the apparent decision to keep the U.S. in the dark also stems from Israel's frustration with the White House. After a visit by National Security Adviser Tom Donilon in particular, they became convinced the Americans would neither take military action, nor go along with unilateral action by Israel against Iran. The Israelis concluded they would have to conduct a strike unilaterally -- a point they are likely to hammer home in a series of meetings over the next two weeks in Washington, the official said.

Barak will meet with top administration and congressional officials during his visit. Netanyahu arrives in Washington for meetings with President Barack Obama next week.

The behind-the-scenes warning belies the publicly united front the two sides have attempted to craft with the shuttle diplomacy to each other's capitals.

"It's unprecedented outreach to Israel to make sure we are working together to develop the plan to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon," and to keep them from exporting terrorism, said Maryland Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

He traveled there with the intelligence committee chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., to meet Israel's prime minister and defense minister, along with other officials.

"We talked about the fact that sanctions are working and they are going to get a lot more aggressive," Ruppersberger added.

They also discussed talked about presenting a unified front to Iran, to counter the media reports that the two countries are at odds over how and when to attack Iran.

"We have to learn from North Korea. All those (peace) talks and stalling and they developed a nuclear weapon," he said. "We are going to send a message, enough is enough, the stalling is over. ... All options are on the table."

"I got the sense that Israel is incredibly serious about a strike on their nuclear weapons program," Rogers told CNN on Monday. "It's their calculus that the administration ... is not serious about a real military consequence to Iran moving forward.

"They believe they're going to have to make a decision on their own, given the current posture of the United States," he added.

U.S. intelligence and special operations officials have tried to keep a dialogue going with Israel, despite the high-level impasse, sharing with them options such as allowing Israel to use U.S. bases in the region from which to launch such a strike, as a way to make sure the Israelis give the Americans a heads-up, according to the U.S. official, and a former U.S. official with knowledge of the communications

Cooperation has improved on sharing of intelligence in the region, according to one current and one former U.S. official. Israel is providing key information on Syria for instance, now that the U.S. has closed its embassy and pulled out both its diplomats and intelligence officials stationed there, the U.S. official said.

Source

Every move President Obama has made in the Middle East has been the wrong one.  He misjudged the Arab Spring, his Muslim Outreach, his Iraq and Afghan Policies.  In fact to the Muslim world he is seen as a weak leader.

The Israelis cannot afford to rely on such a weak leader for their safety.  In fact the Israelis have already learned that Obama will leak any secret they have.  An nuclear Iran is too dangerous for the Middle East, too dangerous for Israel's survival.  They will attack.  And if Obama is lucky he might get a 12 second warning, but he will not be able to prevent an Israeli strike without using US air power against the IAF.  And that would be throwing not Israel under the bus, but his re-election under the bus.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

They Are Going To Kill Obama!

And Guess Who The They Is?

Louis Farrakhan told his Nation of Islam Cult that the Jews will kill Obama, destroy their cult, and want to take over the world.

In a fiery lecture to thousands of followers of the Nation of Islam on Sunday in Chicago, Minister Louis Farrakhan warned that racial hatred could lead to attempts to assassinate President Barack Obama.

Farrakhan spent much of his oration decrying what he cast as Satan's influence over racist forces in politics and society before asking a pointed rhetorical question: "Do you think they're wicked enough to be plotting our brother's assassination as we speak?"

Farrakhan delivered his speech to an enthusiastic crowd of adherents packed loosely into the United Center for the Nation of Islam's annual observance of Saviours' Day, which celebrates the birth of the faith's founder, W. Fard Muhammad. This year's events marked the 82nd year of the religion's existence in North America.

With his finger jabbing at the air above him and his voice frequently raising to an indignant shout, Farrakhan, 78, delivered his message to a crowd of men in dark suits with bow ties and women in shimmering white gowns and scarves.

He spoke for more than three hours on a broad array of topics, excoriating U.S. foreign policy, suggesting that the9/11attacks were a government-planned pretext for war in the Middle East, lamenting recent extreme weather and attacking mothers for serving their children food from McDonald's. He also returned repeatedly to a topic that has attracted intense controversy in the past: the influence of Jews in politics and media.

Farrakhan drew a distinction between noble Jews and followers of "the synagogue of Satan," and he pointed to a recent incident in which the publisher of a Jewish magazine suggested Israeli security forces could help preserve Israel by killing Obama. He attacked Israeli policies, while also directing criticism at perceived Jewish influence in the U.S.

"Jewish people were not the origin of Hollywood, but they took it over," he said, blaming the entertainment industry for degrading the country's morality.

While Farrakhan called out conservatives for questioning Obama's citizenship and even criticizing the figure of first lady Michelle Obama, he also attacked the president for his support of efforts to remove Middle Eastern leaders and warned him against any potential military action in Iran. The crowd roared as he called on them to be "conscientious objectors" to any strike against Iran.

He again condemned the killing of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. Farrakhan was friends with the slain dictator, and the Nation of Islam's headquarters was purchased 40 years ago with a $3 million loan from Gadhafi.

Farrakhan also suggested that Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. forces, instead of being detained for questioning, because the government might not have been able to prove all its accusations against him.

On domestic policy, Farrakhan said the national debt has reached unsustainable levels, and he challenged Obama's assertion in his recent State of the Union speech that the country is not in decline.

"America is on her deathbed. The vital signs of America are not good," he said.

As he spoke, Farrakhan was flanked by dozens of associates and dignitaries, including another controversial religious figure based in Chicago: the Rev. Michael Pfleger, who stood to receive praise from Farrakhan and applause from the crowd.

Near the close of his speech, Farrakhan spent several minutes comparing Obama's political situation to that of Abraham Lincoln, who was assassinated after winning a second term, and suggested an assassination plot against Obama might involve a "patsy," a person set up to take the blame for a broader conspiracy.

"I believe they want a Muslim to kill President Obama," he said.

Source

Louis Farrakhan sided for years with Gadhafi, Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and any other dictator that speaks out against the United States, Jews, Israel or all three.

How much longer will the clown Farrakhan be allowed to speak his words of hatred unchallenged?



By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

OH HELL NO! Joint Statement by the Delegations Assigned to Probe Bagram Incident

Now it the time for all good men and women get off their asses, turn off the TV and make your voices heard against this travisty! 25 February 2012 09:02

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate Following the insulting and shameful act of burning Quran in Bagram airbase that injured the religious sentiments of the Islamic world and particularly of the Afghan Muslim nation, two delegations comprising of representatives from government, the National Council of Ulemma and the National Assembly were assigned and dispatched to investigate the circumstances and causes that have led to the inhumane incident. The delegations, while deeply touched by the religious sentiments shown by the Afghan Muslim and Mujahid nation, inform our citizens of the following: 1. In view of the particular security situation in the country, we call on all our Muslim citizens of Afghanistan to exercise self-restraint and extra vigilance in dealing with the issue and avoid resorting to protests and demonstrations that may provide ground for the enemy to take advantage of the situation. 2. After the shameful incident by the US soldiers stationed in Bagram, senior NATO and American officials expressed their deep apologies to the Muslim nation of Afghanistan and assured that such incidents will not happen again. 3. NATO officials promised to meet Afghan nation’s demand of bringing to justice, through an open trial, those responsible for the incident and it was agreed that the perpetrators of the crime be brought to justice as soon as possible. 4. The assigned delegations demand from the government of Afghanistan to take over from the Americans the authority of the Bagram prison so no such incidents can recur and calls on the US government to fully and comprehensively cooperate to this end. 5. The delegations also want from the Afghan government to formally praise those brave Afghan army soldiers and all others who showed feelings against the disrespectful act by preventing more religious books and Quran copies from burning, so that the pure Muslim sentiments of our honored Mujahid nation can remain alive.

President Joe Biden?

Hat Tip to The Grouch At Right Truth

A what if with the outcome of Joe Biden becoming President.

The summer of 2012 was one of turmoil. The Republican primary remained hotly contested up until the convention. Mitt Romney eventually prevailed and named governor Chris Christie from New Jersey as his running mate.

On May 5, 2012, Israel conducted surgical strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. The immediate results of these strikes were unclear but as the United States stood idly by, the Arab outrage against Israel and the west increased exponentially and by June, gasoline prices in the US averaged 8 dollars per gallon. Whatever so called economic recovery the mainstream media had tried to invent was shattered. In spite of attempts to cover the facts, the unemployment rate charged up to around 11 percent and the stock market took a tumble below 8000 by the beginning of July.

In September and October the Romney campaign hammered Obama relentlessly over his desertion of our Israeli ally, his failure to build the Keystone pipeline, his failure to lift the moratorium on gulf drilling, and the continuing intrusion of the federal government by Obamacare. In spite of all this the polls showed the race between Obama and Romney to be a dead heat up until the very last minute.

On Tuesday November 6, 2012, the presidential election resulted in an electoral tie with both Romney and the President receiving 269 electoral votes. Obama actually won the popular vote by a scant 52,000 votes. The Republicans easily held control of the House of Representatives and in fact gained 4 seats. The Senate was shifted with 50 seats held by Republicans, 48 seats held by Democrats, and 2 seats held by independents. The two independents had historically caucused with the Democrats.

Most ignorant Democrat voters and many ignorant Republican voters were unaware that in the event of an electoral tie, the incoming House of Representatives would, according to the 12th amendment of the Constitution, choose the President while the Senate would select the Vice President.

The mainstream media went immediately to work informing the masses that Mitt Romney would no doubt be the 45th President of the United States. A tremendous outcry went up and rioting occurred in the streets of major cities. Accusations of racism and theft of the election were alive and well in the mainstream news. Al Sharpton and the "reverend" Jesse Jackson were happy as larks as they stirred the racial flames. Hundreds died as local police and fire departments were overwhelmed by angry, racially charged mobs. The National Guard was heavily deployed in many places around the country. In spite of this violence continued.

Gasoline remained at around 8 dollars a gallon and in December of 2012, Egypt and Syria launched all out attacks against Israel. The United States finally had to act and supported Israel in a shooting war against its Arab neighbors mainly with airstrikes from carrier based aircraft from the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

In the meantime, the stock market began to make a slow recovery and the unemployment rate began to drop in hopes that a new Romney presidency would create a more business friendly environment. This good news, however, was largely ignored as much of America burned and war raged in the middle east.

In January the new congress convened with the House of Representatives, as expected, choosing Mitt Romney as President. The Senate however was hopelessly deadlocked at 50/50, Biden vs. Christie. Biden, still the sitting Vice President, cast the deciding vote in favor of himself. The improbable result had the Republican Romney in the top position with Biden remaining in second place. Biden told the news media that he would do everything possible during his next term to vigorously continue the efforts and policies of Barack Obama.

On January 25, 2013, five days after his inauguration, Romney was assassinated by a bomb while he was giving a speech in New York, City. 75 people were killed in the attack allegedly conducted by Al'Qaeda operatives in relatiation for our actions in the middle east.

On the same day, Joe Biden was sworn in as 46th President of the United States.

The idea of President Biden is scarier than an Obama second term.  But The Grouch does give a very good What if to the idea.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Uganda: Muslim Converts to Christianity Under Attack | FrontPage Magazine

Uganda: Muslim Converts to Christianity Under Attack FrontPage Magazine

With only a 12% Muslim minority, and an 84% Christian majority, Uganda may not seem a hotspot of Islamic activity. Yet, in recent weeks and months, story after story of attacks on Muslim converts to Christianity have emerged, with troubling implications beyond the intrinsic level. Consider the following anecdotes:

Tortured Daughter
A Muslim father, in accordance with Sharia law, imprisoned and starved his teenage daughter, Susan Ithungu, because she converted to Christianity. He had warned her and her brother “not to attend church or listen to the gospel message. He even threatened us with a sharp knife that he was ready to kill us in broad daylight in case we converted to Christianity.” When she refused to recant, “he locked her up in a room of the semi-permanent house for six months without seeing sunlight. The younger brother was warned not to tell anyone that Susan was locked up in a room and was not given any food.” Still young and un-indoctrinated, Susan’s brother smuggled scraps of food to his sister, though “most days she could only feed on mud”; he also dug a hole under the door, pouring water through it, which she was forced to lap “using her tongue.”
When she was finally rescued, she “was bony, very weak, and not able to talk or walk. Her hair had turned yellow, she had long fingernails and sunken eyes, and she looked very slim, less than 20 kilograms [44 pounds],” requiring over a year of hospitalization. In an update, she has “forgiven her father,” and is thankful to all the strangers who have supported her. Meanwhile, “none of my family members has come to see me…. My own people have abandoned me.”

Read More: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/27/uganda-muslim-converts-to-christianity-under-attack/

Fire Suppresion is fun.

ACLU Defends Fraud at Voter ID Debate

Heritage vs. ACLU at Voter ID Debate

Voter fraud has a history of plaguing elections, inspiring a growing number of states to enact voter identification laws in recent years. The issue was the focus of a debate Thursday at the National Press Club between Heritage senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky and Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office.
Proponents of voter ID laws believe they reduce fraud and improve the integrity of elections. Opponents argue these laws decrease voter turnout and disenfranchise minority voters.
“One of the key principles of any fair election is making sure that the person who casts the vote is legally eligible to do so, and the fairest way to do that is by making sure that individuals authenticate their citizenship when they register to vote, authenticate their identity when they appear at the polling places,” said von Spakovsky. “Those kinds of requirements also increase public confidence in our election process.”
Read More: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/24/heritage-vs-aclu-at-voter-id-debate/

New State Voter Identification Laws Feb. 23, 2012 CSPAN

Civil rights experts talked about the current status and impact of new state voter identification laws. Hans Von Spakovsky said the laws do not suppress voter turnout and help address the problem of voter fraud, while Laura Murphy said the laws amount to a poll tax that disproportionately impacts minority groups and the poor. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/NewStat

McCain Adviser Admits Giving Palin Worst Political Advice In History

It makes one wonnder about the "handlers" of the current candidates and why they shine one week and don't the next...
McCain campaign adviser Steve Schmidt seems proud of the fact that he advised Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin to stay silent during the 2008 campaign while the media used rumors and lies to define her.
Video: http://www.mrctv.org/videos/mccain-adviser-admits-giving-palin-worst-political-advice-history

Could Chemical Weapons Get The U.S. Involved in Syria?

by a12iggymom

By Spencer Ackerman

Email Author

February 24, 2012

You’ve heard this before. Worries about the proliferation of dangerous weapons and the erratic behavior of a dictator prompt the U.S. to consider putting boots on the ground. Iraq?
Try one country over.Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has tried for the past year to raze his opposition to the ground, Gadhafi style, a bloody process that’s accelerated in the past few weeks. But the U.S. isn’t interested in intervening to stop the slaughter. It’s worried about something Assad might have and Saddam Hussein ultimately didn’t: chemical weapons.

A U.S. Army chemical weapons crew takes samples from an M55 rocket. Photo: U.S. Army

You’ve heard this before. Worries about the proliferation of dangerous weapons and the erratic behavior of a dictator prompt the U.S. to consider putting boots on the ground. Iraq? Try one country over.
Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has tried for the past year to raze his opposition to the ground, Gadhafi style, a bloody process that’s accelerated in the past few weeks. But the U.S. isn’t interested in intervening to stop the slaughter. It’s worried about something Assad might have and Saddam Hussein ultimately didn’t: chemical weapons.
The weaker Assad becomes, the more worried the U.S. becomes about his apparent stockpiles of mustard gas and nerve agents. The fear is that unknown forces, and maybe terrorist groups, will overrun the facilities where Assad keeps his chemical weapons while Assad loyalists are busy murdering demonstrators. Picture the looting and scattering of Moammar Gadhafi’s rockets or Saddam’s ordnance, only this time with stuff that attacks your lungs and digestive tract. Quietly, U.S. satellites and spy gear have started watching the sites where the U.S. thinks those weapons are.
But the U.S. might soon be doing more than watching. Danger Room pal Josh Rogin reports for Foreign Policy that American diplomats are telling Syria’s neighbors that the U.S. “stands ready… to provide border-related security cooperation” to stop the weapons of mass destruction from spilling out into the black market.

“It’s an exponentially more dangerous program than Libya,” an anonymous official told Rogin. “We are talking about legitimate WMDs here — this isn’t Iraq. The administration is really concerned about loose WMDs. It’s one of the few things you could put on the agenda and do something about without planning the fall of the regime.”
At the Pentagon on Thursday, spokesman George Little said that the U.S. military “remain[s] concerned” about Syria’s deadliest weapons, but considers them secure for now. “We believe the materials are safeguarded at this stage,” Little said.
Little batted down a report that said it would require 75,000 troops to secure the Syrian chemical weapons, and the White House’s spokesman, Jay Carney, suggested that U.S. intervention wasn’t in the cards. “In terms of a military action to secure a part of the country, that is not currently a policy we are pursuing,” Carney said.
Without confirming any intention to get involved, Little acknowledged that the U.S. military has explored the question of what to do if Syria’s weapons stocks get looted. “This department is a professional planning organization that plans for contingencies around the world every day of the week,” he said.
Some members of Congress who pushed for the Libya war, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), want President Obama to arm the Syrian rebels. That doesn’t look likely; an invasion even less so. But using crack troops to quietly and swiftly snatch chemical weapons before they’re looted, or pursue those who loot them — the U.S. has an entire elite military organization that does that.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/02/syria-chemical-weapons/?

Hell Has Frozen Over!

 

It was bound to happen eventually, even with the warm weather in the United States, but Hell has frozen over.  In fact, the whole world is in shock over it.  What could happen to bring about a freeze in such a hot spot?  Why the United Nations condemned Iran for attacks on Israeli diplomats.

Yes condemned Iran not Israel.

The United Nations Security Council condemned "in the strongest terms" the terrorist attack against Israeli diplomats in New Delhi, India and the attempted attack in Georgia's capital Tbilisi.

The UN resolution stated that terrorism poses "one of the most serious threats to peace and security," and said that terrorist acts are "criminal and unjustifiable."

Israel Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor welcomed the Security Council resolution, saying it was the first time the UNSC condemned a terror attack against Israelis since 2005.

Prosor declared that the UN's "breaking the silence echoes around the world." He said the international body's resolution would bring solace to the wounded from the attack in New Delhi.

An Israeli diplomat's wife, Tal Yehoshua-Koren, was wounded along with her Indian driver, Manoj Sharma, in New Delhi near the Israeli embassy when a sticky bomb was planted on their vehicle, exploding and sending shrapnel flying. At the same time, in Tbilisi, an embassy employee noticed a bomb on his vehicle while he was driving and informed the local authorties, which sent sappers to defuse the explosive device. No one was injured in that attack.

The UN condemnation came after Prosor sent a letter to both the Security Council and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, requesting that a strong and clear message be transmitted to Iran, who he said, is directly responsible for the actions. Prosor also mentioned a botched bombing in Thailand that occurred a day after the two attacks in India and Georgia, which Thai defense officials said was meant to target Israeli officials.

Iran has denied any involvement in each case, with some officials in Tehran insisting that Israel attacked its own diplomatic personnel in order to engage in "psychological warfare" with Iran.

Iran announced earlier this week it would participate with Thailand to investigate the explosion in Bangkok. Tehran has not offered to comply with the investigations in India or Georgia.

Source

It has been 7 years since the United Nations didn't condemn Israel for attacks upon Israelis (and anyone else).  In fact Lucifer himself was seen fainting when the vote on this was announced.  He is renewing his effort to destroy Israel as part of his program of world domination.

Meanwhile the world has scrambled to write notices of condemnation not of Israel, but of Iran.  And all this while they are scratching their hands.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Political Pistachio: Move Over Greece, Here Comes The USA

Political Pistachio: Move Over Greece, Here Comes The USA:

How bad is the US debt crisis compared to Greece and the other European countries tethering on disaster? Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), leading Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, provided his thoughts in a sobering chart he provided recently:

By Keven Price

Recently I was a guest on the nationally syndicated radio show, News and Views and I was asked to comment about this chart and my thoughts on it.  What came immediately to mind were the comments by President Obama that the "United States is not like Greece." He is right about that, there is no country poised to bail us out when we get in to a default situation. Read More: http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2012/02/move-over-greece-here-comes-usa.html

Video: Canadians Don't Like Taliban Ambushes

Islamic Terrorists from Boko Haram Slit Throat of 79 Yr Old Grandmother As Warning

That's Boko Haram for you, the islamic terror group in Nigeria slit the throat of a 79 year old woman and left a note on her chest as a warning - the note read: "We will get you soon"

Now, wouldn't Mohammed be so damn proud of a bunch of his "mighty" warriors grabbing a 79 year old woman, throwing her to the ground, grabbing her head and slitting her throat from ear to ear? Oh yeah, I'm sure Mo would be pleased.

Savages.

The story is from The Washington Post.

‘We will get you soon:’ Slaying of Christian in northern Nigeria increases religious tensions


MAIDUGURI, Nigeria — Police discovered the body of a 79-year-old Christian woman killed in northeast Nigeria, with a note in Arabic left on her chest reading: “We will get you soon,” a witness said Thursday.

The slaying raises religious tensions in Nigeria as a radical Islamist sect increasingly targets Christians in its bloody attacks. While police said they knew of no immediate suspects in the killing, witnesses blamed the attack on the sect known as Boko Haram, which has been blamed for killing at least 305 people this year alone, according to an Associated Press count.

The dead woman was identified as Shetu Haruna Malgwi, a Christian living in the city of Maiduguri in Nigeria’s Muslim north. Assailants apparently attacked Malgwi on Wednesday, a day after she returned home from receiving an eye treatment in the city of Kaduna, Borno state police spokesman Samuel Tizhe said.

Her killers slit the woman’s throat, then wrote a note with red pen they left on her chest, witness Audu Ibrahim said. Ibrahim said the woman’s family believes the message is for her son, who is a pastor of a local church where the 79-year-old sang in the choir.

Authorities found a Bible placed under the woman’s feet, Ibrahim said. Police continue to investigate the killing and no arrests have been made, Tizhe said.

Boko Haram, whose name means “Western education is sacrilege” in the local Hausa language, is carrying out increasingly sophisticated and bloody attacks in its campaign to implement strict Shariah law and avenge Muslim killings in Nigeria, a multiethnic nation of more than 160 million people.

Maiduguri is the sect’s spiritual home, though its members have carried out attacks across the north. This year, a spokesman for the sect warned it would begin specifically targeting Christians living in the north. That has further widened divisions between Christians and Muslims in the country.

Meanwhile, police said four police officers were killed in two separate attacks in Nigeria on Thursday.

Video: Question of the Day - Why Would Someone Walk On a Sidewalk Next To a Burning Car?

When Obama Decided To Go To War On "Islamophobia"

Since day one of President Barack Hussein Obama's presidency, this man has shown an inclination towards Islam. The incidents of his siding with islamists versus infidels is well documented. And as time has gone by, he has become more bold in his defense of islamic jihad. This is a man who never shies away from pointing out the Muslim worshippers in America - even though they are one of the smallest minorities. Let's face the facts - Barack Hussein Obama was raised a Muslim for a good chunk of his informative childhood years and his fond memories continue to shape his mindset.

So now, from this article at Family Security Matters, we see how the Obama administration now is plowing ahead blindly into the purging of all possible connections to "islamophobia" by law enforcement in American society.

To put this all bluntly, we have islamic terror groups in America who operate as wolves in benign sheep's clothing, and these implementations by the Obama administration reflect the success that these groups, like CAIR, have attained. Just three years or so after the FBI and other law enforcement groups were investigating the very terroristic activities of many of these "groups", we now have the FBI backing completely off of them and ordered to "don't touch." Why? Three words. Barack. Hussein. Obama.

Obama to Law Enforcement: Stop Linking Muslims to Terrorism


In yet another curtsy to the politically correct orthodoxy, President Barack Obama's White House plans to tinker with federal police curriculums for counterterrorism training classes. The first bit of "revamping" is the removal of all material that groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, find offensive or containing a "negative" image of Muslims.
It’s a government-wide call to end Islamophobia, according to a blog by a Washington, DC-based watchdog group that investigates, exposes and prosecutes government corruption.
A few months after the Obama White House ordered an investigation of government counterterrorism training, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has destroyed instructional material that characterizes Muslims as prone to violence or terrorism, according to the Judicial Watch blog.
So far 700 pages of documents from about 300 presentations given to agents since the 2001 terrorist attacks have been purged, according to a new report published this week. The White House order came after the same publication reported in late November that the FBI, Department of Justice (DOJ) and Pentagon taught employees that mainstream Muslims embrace violence and compared the Islamic religion to the death star.
And the purge of training material regarding Islamic terrorism from law enforcement training is only the beginning. Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress that anti-Muslim instructional materials hurt the country’s fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. As a result of this mentality, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were asked to collect counterterrorism training materials at all military academies and academic centers such as the National Defense Intelligence College and the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center.
"The goal, evidently, is to banish any material that could be viewed as offensive to Muslims," said the Jihadist Watch blog.
To fulfill this politically-correct mission, the FBI enlisted the Army Combating Terrorism Center at West Point to purge material that conflates terrorism with mainstream Islam, according to inside information cited in the Judicial Watch report. The cleansing also includes a White House review on any information related to “cultural awareness” training for troops that were preparing to deploy to the Middle East.
This appears to be part of a wider Muslim outreach effort on the part of the Obama Administration and the president’s allies in Congress. Last spring, for instance, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee quietly scheduled a special hearing to better protect Muslim civil rights in America. Organized by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin -- arguably one of the most sympathetic lawmakers to Islamic causes -- the event came in “response to the spike in anti-Muslim bigotry” and marked the first ever congressional hearing on Muslim civil rights.
It was Durbin who on the floor of the Senate in 2004 called U.S. soldiers Nazis, and detention centers such as Guantanamo Bay "gulags." He later apologized, but his constituents were happy to hear him denigrating U.S. troops since his district has a very large Muslim population, according to news reports.
According to the Examiner, other Muslim outreach efforts under Obama included: Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano meeting to discuss national security matters with a group of extremist Muslim organizations including members of the Muslim Brotherhood; the nation’s space agency (NASA) being ordered to focus on Muslim diplomacy; and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signing a special order to allow the re-entry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties long banned them from the U.S.

Video: You Would NOT Want To Be Fighting These Guys

Video: The Few , The Proud, The Gifted

Obama Apologizes To Afghans For Qur'an Burning, Afghans Don't Apologize For 3,000 Dead Americans on 9/11

“We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, including holding accountable those responsible,” Obama said in the letter.

I've had it with this President of ours and most of you already knew that but today, Barack HUSSEIN Obama has me over the edge. Obama today was quick to fire off a letter of apology to the Afghan people for the Qur'an burning by U.S. troops - I want to know where the sam hell our apology is from Afghanistan for the thousands of dead Americans killed on 9/11 when those al Qaeda attackers came from the plot hatched in Afghanistan? Where the fuck is the apology by the Afghans for the hundreds of U.S. troops killed on Afghan soil trying to keep them from being butchered by the Taliban? Where is the damn apology from the Afghans for handing over intelligence to the Pakistanis that has caused the death of Americans in Afghanistan?

Hey Barack, did you ever think to ask the ENEMY for a goddamn apology? You worthless Muslim sympathizing yellow bellied pawn of the Caliphate.

What's next? Is Obama going to apologize to the Iranians for economic hardships they've had since they lied to the world about building nuclear weapons? Barry, how about you apologize to the British for those damn Americans who revolted in 1776.

The story of the latest on the apology tour comes from Breitbart.

(Hat tip for photo: The Daily Gator)

Obama sends letter of apology to Afghan president


KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The Afghan president's office says it has received a letter from President Barack Obama formally apologizing for the burning of Qurans at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan.

The statement from President Hamid Karzai's office says the U.S. ambassador delivered the letter on Thursday.

In the letter, which is quoted in the statement, Obama expresses his "deep regret for the reported incident" and offers his "sincere apologies."

According to the statement, Obama wrote: "The error was inadvertent; I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible."

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP)—An Afghan official says two protesters have died in an exchange of gunfire during a riot outside an American base in eastern Afghanistan that also wounded two NATO troops.

The deaths raise to five the number of Afghans killed around the country during Thursday's protests over this week's Quran burnings at a U.S. base.

Governor Haji Mohammad Hassan says NATO and Afghan troops were firing in the air to disperse hundreds of protesters gathered in front of the base in Khogyani district in eastern Nangahar province.

Hassan says during the rioting, one man in an Afghan army uniform shot at NATO troops and seriously wounded two of them.

Earlier, Afghan police shot and killed three protesters during two demonstrations in the north and south of the country.