Al Qaeda: Tip of the Brotherhood's Spear

I strongly suspect that al Qaeda is the Muslim Brotherhood's "tip of the spear" in the Middle East and North Africa.  It is noteworthy that every time the Muslim Brotherhood is active in taking over a nation, al Qaeda happens to be involved.

Here are some considerations about the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda:

(1) Plausible Deniability.  Even though al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood share similar ideologies (through Egyptian Islamic theorist Sayyid Qutb), the Brotherhood does not currently acknowledge affiliation with al Qaeda.  This gives the Brotherhood plausible deniability should they utilize al Qaeda as its military arm to achieve its goals through violent jihad.

(2) Jihad is Obligatory.  According to "Reliance of the Traveller," a book on Sharia Law, it is obligatory (mandatory) for Muslims to either participate in the violent form of jihad, or provide assistance to those executing jihad.  The formation of "al Qaeda" groups gives Muslims an outlet to fulfill this obligation.

(3) Military Arm.  The organizational name of "Al Qaeda" presents a recognizable image that will readily attract jihadis in pursuit of the goals of Islam.  It is therefore convenient to establish a branch of al Qaeda anywhere the Muslim Brotherhood wants to undertake military action.

(4) Enemy of the United States.  Since the United States is at war with al Qaeda, if al Qaeda appears in a nation that is in revolution, the United States will feel obligated to prevent the al Qaeda forces from taking over the government, capturing chemical weapons, etc.  The United States must therefore get involved in the conflict and back the rebels who don't call themselves "al Qaeda."  This "other" rebel group would also be backed by the Muslim Brotherhood.  In this manner the Muslim Brotherhood receives support from the American taxpayer in the achievement of their goals.

These are my thoughts and are by no means certainties.  However, I do believe they deserve investigation, as I believe there is a plausible linkage between the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.

--Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Video: Syrian Rebels Executing Government Loyalists

The following video is graphic in nature, and purportedly shows rebels in Syria executing Syrian government loyalist prisoners (if true, this is a violation of the law of war, or what is more commonly known as a war crime).  These rebels are the people we are (not so) covertly supporting, and the more of these jihadists we support in places like Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria, the sooner they will threaten our allies and be on our shores (some are already here--the Muslim Brotherhood).  As I have said many times now, we should not be involved in Syria, period.  It will be just like supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan...once a group of jihadists defeat their near enemy, they will come after us.
--Against All Enemies

Link to video: http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=11553161317e



Against All Enemies Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Obama plays both sides of the Benghazi issue, and loses

Commentary by James Shott

The terrorists in Benghazi, Libya who attacked our consulate last month on the anniversary of the September 11^th terrorist attacks and killed four American Foreign Service personnel have highlighted in tragic detail how deeply naïve President Barack Obama’s idea of foreign policy is.

His manic effort to deny the existence of Muslim terrorism to avoid offending Muslims confounds those of us grounded in reality. He put an end to the “war on terror,” and in its place we now have “Overseas Contingency Operations.” When a Muslim U.S. Army doctor screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he mowed down 13 of his fellow soldiers, Mr. Obama’s administration prefers to call it “workplace violence.”  

With that background it is no wonder that Mr. Obama and his disciples inside and outside of the administration twisted themselves into illogical knots to avoid admitting what was obvious to most people: that it was a planned terrorist attack. 

However, Mr. Obama tried desperately to claim the opposite during the second presidential debate, declaring that he identified the attack as a terrorist act the next day in a Rose Garden statement, and moderator Candy Crowley inappropriately backed him up on it. But the facts do not support Ms. Crowley or Mr. Obama.  

The President made a five and one-half minute statement consisting of 801 words. Several times he used descriptive language, such as:

• “… four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.”
• “The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.”
• “ … we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people”
• “The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.”

Notice that he did not say “terror,” “terrorism,” “terrorist” or “terrorist attack,” and he did not utter any such word in the first three-fourths of the statement.  

About three and one-half minutes into the statement Mr. Obama referenced the 9-11-2001 attacks: “Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.” Still, there was no reference to terrorism.  

And then, four minutes and 15 seconds into the five and one-half-minute statement, and 618 words into the 801 words of the text, he spoke the words “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation …” That oblique reference – plural, not singular – was the only time the concept of terrorism entered into Mr. Obama’s text. Right after that he said: “We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.” “Terrible,” but not “terrorist.”

If he truly wanted the nation to understand that he thought terrorists killed those four Americans, he deftly disguised the message.  

As if to prove the assertion that he didn’t “really” call the attack an act of terror, for the next two weeks members of the administration – including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Press Secretary Jay Carney and President Obama himself (who mentioned it again and again at a speech to the United Nations on September 25^th) – repeatedly blamed the attack on a violent protest in reaction to an anti-Islam video produced by an American. Yes, an American; that “shadowy character” who created a video about Islam was the cause of the Benghazi attack.

The administration offered the video as the only cause of the violence for days on end, despite the common sense reaction that people don’t show up with RPGs and mortars at a spontaneous protest, even in places occupied by radical Muslims.  

Was there a protest prior to the terrorist attack, or wasn’t there? It really doesn’t matter. What matters is that the security provided to our people in Libya was dismally inadequate. There were eight attacks in Libya in a 6-month period, one on a British convoy and another on the Red Cross facility, causing both the Brits and the Red Cross to leave Libya because of the growing level of violence. And in June, there was an attack on the American Embassy in Tripoli.  

U.S. personnel in Libya knew danger was mounting and practically begged for increased security measures. But Mr. Obama is fond of boasting that “Al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead,” and mounting violence in Libya really doesn’t fit into that narrative. Al Qaeda is still alive and well, and Barack Obama’s dream of a “New Dawn in the Middle East” has proved to be a nightmare. Putting the “Dream” ahead of protecting Americans at home and abroad, the administration declined those requests for help, and now four brave Americans are dead.  

Extremists in the Middle East may make it impossible for that long-troubled region to ever become a peaceful place, and perhaps no president can change that. But a position of strength on the part of the United States best serves the interests of peace and stability. We don’t have that in President Obama’s America, where foreign policy focuses on offering apology and appeasement. Leading from behind just doesn’t cut it.  

Cross-posted from Observations

BENGHAZI-GATE: The Timeline

By Findalis
Monkey in the Middle

Hat Tip to Poppy (G-d Bless You)
Stolen from Bare Naked Islam

This is a time-line which explains the trail of lies from the Obama regime:

April 6: IED thrown over the fence of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

April 11: Gun battle erupts between armed groups two-and-a-half miles from the U.S. Consulate, including rocket-propelled grenades.

April 27: Two South African contractors are kidnapped by armed men, released unharmed.

May 1: Deputy Commander of U.S. Embassy Tripoli’s Local Guard Force is carjacked, beaten, and detained by armed youth.

May 1: British Embassy in Tripoli is attacked by a violent mob and set on fire. Other NATO embassies attacked as well.

May 3: The State Department declines a request from personnel concerned about security at the U.S. Embassy in Libya for a DC-3 plane to take them around the country.

May 22: Two rocket-propelled grenades are fired at the Benghazi office of the International Committee of the Red Cross, less than 1 mile from the U.S. Consulate.

June 6: A large IED destroys part of the security perimeter of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Creates hole “big enough for 40 men to go through.”

June 10: A car carrying the British ambassador is attacked in Tripoli. Two bodyguards injured.

Late June: The building of the International Red Cross attacked again and closed down, leaving the U.S. flag as the only international one still flying in Benghazi, an obvious target.

August 6: Armed assailants carjack a vehicle with diplomatic plates operated by U.S. personnel.

September 8: A local security officer in Benghazi warns American officials about deteriorating security.

September 11: Protesters attack the U.S. Cairo embassy. U.S. Embassy releases statement and tweets sympathizing with Muslim protesters/attackers.

September 11: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is attacked, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans are killed.

September 12: Secretary Clinton and President Obama issue statements condemning both the video and the attacks.

September 12: U.S. intelligence agencies have enough evidence to conclude a terrorist attack was involved.

September 13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns video and violence at a news conference.

September 14: Carney denies Administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

September 14: The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. President Obama again blames the YouTube video.

September 16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively.

September 16: Libyan President Mohamed Magarief says, “no doubt that this [attack] was preplanned, predetermined.”

September 17: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refuses to call attacks an act of terror.

September 19: CNN reports having found Ambassador Stevens’s diary, which indicates concern about security threats in Benghazi.

September 19: Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olsen tells Congress the attack in Libya was “terrorism.”

September 20: Carney tries to back up Olsen, says it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

September 20: Obama refuses to call attack terrorism, citing insufficient information.

September 21: Secretary of State Clinton, at meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister, says, “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

September 25: On ABC’s “The View,” Obama says, “we don’t have all of the information yet so we are still gathering.”

September 25: To the U.N. assembly, Obama blames “A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”

September 26: Libya’s Magarief on the “Today” show says, “It was a preplanned act of terrorism directed against American citizens.”

September 26: Published reports show U.S. Intel agencies and the Obama Administration knew within 24 hours that al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist were involved.

September 27: Innocence of Muslims filmmaker Mark Basseley Youseff (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) is arrested and denied bail on the charges of “probation violation.”

September 28: Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr., issues a statement backing the Obama Administration’s changing story about the Libyan attack. Says facts are evolving.

October 2: Carney declines to comment on reported requests from diplomats in Libya for additional security, citing the State Department’s internal investigation

Turkey Authorizes Military Strikes Into Syria

After a mortar attack that killed five Turkish civilians, the Turkish government has authorized the use of force against Syria (which is not necessarily the same as declaring war).  Turkey's membership in NATO creates a potential challenge for the United States as hostilities between the two nations may drag us into the conflict, which we should avoid.

Syria is positioned as yet another nation to fall to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Now that the Brotherhood controls most of North Africa, they are shifting their focus eastward.  Back in the early 1980s, Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez, crushed a revolt by the Muslim Brotherhood, the most notable of which was the siege of the town of Hama in 1982.  Now the Brotherhood wants to kick out the ruling Shia Alawite clan and replace it with a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled government.

Supporting this theory is the appearance of al Qaeda fighting against the al-Assad regime.  I find it curious that everywhere the Muslim Brotherhood takes over, al Qaeda shows up first.  This is why I believe that al Qaeda is really the tip of the spear for the Muslim Brotherhood, and thus why we see al Qaeda in Syria now.

If we support the overthrow of the al-Assad regime, we are doing the Brotherhood's dirty work for them.  Yes, al-Assad is bad.  Yes, he is associated with Iran.  But I believe that facilitating the expansion of Muslim Brotherhood power in the Middle East is ultimately far worse.  The Brotherhood seeks the destruction of the West (which coincides with the objectives al Qaeda), so the US and its Allies facilitating the Brotherhood's control of another nation-state is by its very nature suicidal.  We've already done this in Libya and Egypt--it must stop.

Regarding our current state as a nation, we are not standing on solid ground.  We are being crushed by an enormous national debt that is increasing exponentially.  Inflation is increasing, with no end in sight due to the Federal Reserve implementing "Quantitative Easing 3."  Our military is about to take a huge cut in their budget that will be devastating in its consequences.  The domestic conflict between constitutionalism and socialism create the conditions for internal strife and will be exacerbated by deteriorating economic conditions.  Any war we undertake at this moment in time must be waged only if the security of our nation is truly threatened.  Intervention in Syria certainly does not meet that criteria--we should not sacrifice the lives of our citizens or our wealth (do we have any left?) to advance the goals of our declared enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Iran is a different case, but linked to Syria for obvious reasons.  I fear that our forward deployment of two, and reportedly soon to be three, Carrier Strike Groups to the Persian Gulf region places us in a very vulnerable position.  Similarly, the deployment of two carrier battle groups to Japan may also put us at risk (five carriers is about half our fleet of eleven).  Should our carriers in the Middle East and Pacific be attacked with some success and our economy further destabilized, America will be hard pressed to recover.  America and its interests will become vulnerable.

But vulnerable to whom, you ask?  Well, Russia and China.  As we face a precipitous reduction of our military spending, they are increasing theirs.  China is becoming more and more aggressive in the Pacific.  These two nations have everything to gain from America's demise.  Should they be able to neuter our ability to project power amidst an economic collapse, China and Russia have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fill the vacuum that is created.  We must be on guard.

(AAE Note: We have seen conflicting reports as to whether the USS Stennis battle group is in the Middle East or Pacific.  Could be deliberate misinformation or deception.)

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Media Have Become an "Enemy of the People"

Pat Caddell, a former Democratic pollster, discusses how the media has now become an enemy of the people of the United States of America.  He specifically speaks to the media's handling of the attack on our ambassador in Libya, and how the media controls what you are allowed to know, and what you are not allowed to know, as the American people.

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/brDZJA8j-8c

--Against All Enemies

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Arab Spring Update, 18 July 2012

What follows are all open source reports, so some may be fact, some may be fiction, and some may be downright deception.  Nevertheless, we are witnessing many interesting developments in the Middle East, especially considering that the US Presidential election is coming up in November.  Looking back to the 20th Century, war possibly assisted the advancement of progressive agendas for Presidents like Woodrow Wilson (WWI), Franklin Delano Roosevelt (WWII), and Lyndon Baines Johnson (Vietnam).

Iran:

• United Arab Emirates inaugurated their new 236-mile oil pipeline that bypasses Straits of Hormuz with a capacity of 1.5 million barrels per day.  (Associated Press)  This will help to lessen the impact of any efforts by Iran to shut down the Straits.
• The "floating base" USS Ponce and mine clearing robots (mini-subs) have been moved to the Persian Gulf to prevent Iranians from closing the Straits of Hormuz. (New York Times)
• A 20-nation mine clearing exercise is scheduled in the Persian Gulf for September 16-27 in response to Iranian threats to shut down the Straits of Hormuz.  (NewsMax)
• A third US carrier group (USS John C. Stennis) will be sent to the Persian Gulf months early in order to keep two carrier groups on station.  (Associated Press)
• The US is building a radar site in Qatar that will reportedly complete a defense system designed to protect US and Allied interests in the Middle East from Iranian aggression.  (Wall Street Journal)
• Some speculate that an attack on Iran will happen in October. (speculation from DEBKAFile)

Syria:

• Syria's former ambassador to Iraq claims that Bashar Assad will not hesitate to employ chemical weapons to put down the uprising in Syria. (UPI)
• Bomber kills Assad's brother-in-law, Syrian defense minister, and senior military general.  (Reuters)
• Reports of heavy Saudi Arabian troop movement toward Jordanian/Iraqi borders.  (DEBKAFile; cannot verify with another source)
• Russians moving 11 ships to the Mediterranean. (New York Times)

Libya: Initial Parliamentary election results place the liberal (non-Islamist) alliance of Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril's National Forces in the lead with 39 seats.  The Muslim Brotherhood's Justice and Construction party gained 17 seats.  The other 24 seats were won by other factions.  We have yet to see the results of the liberal and Islamist efforts to build coalitions.  (Haaretz)  This could actually be good news, but we need to see the rhetoric and platform for the National Forces Alliance to truly understand the implications of this election for the security of the West, Israel, and the future of the Caliphate.

Egypt: Tantawi and the ruling generals disbanded the Islamist-dominated Parliament, which the Supreme Constitutional Court upheld.  However, the Muslim Brotherhood President Mursi told the Parliament to reconvene, which they did.  Secretary Hillary Clinton visited Egypt afterwards to voice her support for full civilian rule, the military assuming a pure military role, to encourage the Egyptian government to support women and minority rights, and respect the peace treaty with Israel. (BBC, LA Times)

Tunisia: The government has declared that the hard-line Islamist group, Hizb al-Tahrir, can become a legitimate political party in Tunisia.  Hizb al-Tahrir calls for the restoration of the Caliphate, and attempted to hold a conference in Rolling Meadows, Illinois, to further their cause (see the AAE post on the conference).  In May, the Tunisian government legitimized Islah Front , a hard-line Salafi Islamist group, as a political party.  (EuroNews/Reuters)

Mali: After the coup in March and the attempt by Tuareg rebels in the north to secede from Mali, Islamists linked to al Qaeda have since hijacked the secession effort in the north.  (FoxNews)  So how is it al Qaeda shows up everywhere that Sunni Muslims are fighting either Shia or those outside of Islam?  I contend that al Qaeda is acting as the tip of the jihadist spear for the Muslim Brotherhood, a relationship that has since been strengthened by the death of Osama bin Laden.

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Arab Spring Update, 18 June 2012

Syria.  Russia is currently loading two amphibious ships in Sebastopol to send Marines to reinforce its naval base in Tartus, Syria.  (Source article.)  "The United Nations' human rights chief has accused the Syrian government of committing crimes against humanity by attacking towns with heavy weapons."  (Source article.)  On 25 May, over 100 civilians including women and children were murdered in Houla.  (Source article.)  Some blame the government for the massacre, others claim it was a "false flag" operation to bring more world pressure on the Syrian government.  The United Nations has suspended their peacekeeping mission to monitor a 12 June ceasefire.  (Source article.)  In summary, I am seeing a steadily increasing desire by the West, Turkey and the United Nations to intervene in Syria and oust Assad.  This would place the Sunnis and most likely the Muslim Brotherhood in charge.  Russia and Iran appear to oppose any intervention in Syria by outside forces.  As I have stated before, we need to avoid this conflict altogether.  Nothing good can come out of intervention in Syria.

Libya.  On June 11th, a bomb exploded outside the US Mission in Benghazi.  The British Ambassador's convoy was attacked by RPGs on June 12th in the same city.   (Source article.)

Jordan.  Thousands of Jordanians protested the rise in electricity prices (around 2 June), and rumors have it that the rising prices of public services will trigger an Arab Spring-like uprising.  (Source article.)  This comes after the Jordanian government outlawed political parties that are organized on the basis of religion, potentially putting the current government add odds with the Muslim Brotherhood.  The protests could be the first sign of the Muslim Brotherhood beginning to put pressure on the Jordanian government.  This also comes on the heels of the multi-national "Eager Lion 2012" exercise held in Jordan.  (Arab Spring Updates: 15 May and 17 April)

Egypt.  Last week the ruling military government dissolved the Islamist-dominated parliament.  This week the Muslim Brotherhood claimed victory in the Presidential Election (their candidate is Mohammed Morsy).  Their opponent, former prime minister Ahmed Shafik, claims that he is ahead in the votes.  The military continues to hold onto power.  Frankly, I am surprised that the Muslim Brotherhood has not yet attempted to instigate a full revolution to oust the military government.  They could be working within the political system until such a time when they have determined that they cannot obtain power through legitimate means and must resort to force instead.  (Source article.)

Javier Soriano/Agence France-Presse -- Getty Images

Saudi Arabia.  The successor to King Abdullah's throne, Crown Prince Nayef bin Albdulaziz al-Saud, died on 16 June and Defense Minister Prince Salman bin Abdul-Aziz has been selected as the new heir.  (Source article.)  Related to the ruling Saud family, remember that some in Iran believe that King Abdullah must die before the Mahdi will return.  ("Iran Warns of Coming Great Event")

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

The United Nations and the One World Government

When the world is viewed through the lens of traditional nation-state behavior, very little seems to make sense these days.  For example, why is the world so enraptured with "global warming" and "climate change," two problems based on specious evidence?  Why is Islam, the most intolerant and violent ideology on the planet, being actively assisted by the world community to acquire more power?  Why is Christianity under direct and ever-increasing assault in America?  Why are the forces of the United States and its Allies being employed in ways that are not in their best national interest?

I have come to the conclusion that what we are seeing is a deliberate attempt to bring humanity under the control of a One World Government.  Its creation would be a fitting historical bookend to Nimrod's construction of the Tower of Babel during another time when humans rebelled against God, rejected His Word, and sought to do things their way.  Today, we increasingly see a rejection of God's Word for an increasing reliance on ourselves to achieve our own salvation.  This will only end in destruction, and could possibly be leading to the End of Times as relayed to us in the Book of Revelations.

The Tower of Babel
(Please reference Genesis 9:1-17 and 11:1-9)

In the days after the Flood, the Lord instructed Noah and his descendants to "Be fruitful and multiply.  Fill the earth."  (Genesis 9:1)  The Lord also established a covenant with humans promising that he would never again destroy mankind with a flood, placing his signature in the sky as a rainbow to forever remind us of this covenant.  

However, humans under the reign of Nimrod in the area of Babylon refused to scatter and fill the earth, instead seeking to remain where they were and build a tower so that they would make themselves "famous" and prevent their scattering--all in direct opposition to the will of God.  Jewish tradition as relayed by Josephus also describes that through his “leadership” Nimrod turned the people away from God by creating in them the fear of a non-existent problem--that God would flood the world again, even though God made a covenant with humans that he would not.  Therefore, the people had to trust in Nimrod and the construction of a tall, water-tight tower to protect them from God's wrath.  By creating this fear and turning the people from God, he was able to create what was perhaps the very first tyrannical government after the Flood.

Similarly today, we see fear of a non-existent problem being stirred up in humans--the fear of a global catastrophe brought on by "climate change.”  Because humans the world over stand accused of creating the climate change that will bring disaster to our entire planet, this situation will require a world-wide government to control the behavior of all humans in order to stave off our impending doom.  And thus we see the return of the “Tower of Babel” in another device used to frighten humanity into voluntarily accepting its submission to human tyranny in the form of a One World Government.

Mechanism for Control

So at this point let us assume that the establishment of a One World Government is already underway.  For a government, especially a tyrannical one, to function properly, it needs a mechanism to control its subjects that is appropriate to the scope of its duties and the size of the population it seeks to dominate.  As evidenced within “Agenda 21” planning, the One World Government seeks nothing less than total control of humanity.  However, the human population is enormous and growing, so one must subdivide the population into more manageable groupings and work to reverse the growth trend and actively seek its decline. 

Regional Groups

To attempt to control every independent nation of the world from a central point would be extremely difficult, for the span of control would be too great.  It would be much easier to rule a structure that consisted of a hierarchy of national groupings.  If you examine “Agenda 21” planning, they seek to force their ideas on individual nations through the use of intermediate, unelected regional organizations.  

We see evidence of this regionalization in the existence of organizations like NATO, the African Union, the European Union (EU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the theoretical (for now) North American Union.  If you consolidate the maps of all these regional organizations, the resultant map would cover almost the entire world, laying down a layer of intermediate control for the One World Government.

World Military Force

For a One World Government to enforce compliance with its polices and wield power, it must be able to employ military force.  When we examine the United Nations, it does not have a military force of its own, but must rely on member states to take military action on their behalf.  So if the UN is indeed in the process of increasingly consolidating power over the world unto itself, it will be seeking to have more control over the use of military force.

As centralized control increases, the use of unilateral military action to protect the critical interests of only one nation will be condemned.  Instead, action must be taken as a collective to force nations to submit to the will of the One World Government.  For instance, the actions of NATO in Afghanistan, Libya and potentially Syria, and African Union actions on their continent could each be argued as being conducted on behalf of the world body.

When you look at these operations, they are not always in the critical national interests of the states taking military action.  The actions in Libya and potentially Syria are being done with the purpose of deposing Arab autocrats and smoothing the way for the control of the Muslim Brotherhood and the eventual establishment of a Caliphate (to be further discussed in the next section).  So when you see military actions that do not clearly support national security, then perhaps that military force is being employed for the benefit of the United Nations for the maintenance of order within, and the expansion of, their system of global governance.

Islamic Ideology

The Islamic ideology is a curious element within the design of a One World Government, for it actually has the potential to greatly enhance that system.  This enhancement can be done in two ways: (1) the One World Government completely adopts the ideology as a control mechanism, or (2) uses the intolerance and inherent violence of the ideology to instill fear in the rest of the world who needs to rely on the One World Government to maintain order and provide protection.

I will begin with the characteristics of Islam that may lead the One World Government to choose it as the global ideology of control.  First, Islam is designed to be a perfect mechanism for the tyrannical control of humans.  Second, it has its own language (Arabic) intimately tied to it so that can potentially be used as a single world language.  Third, the followers of Islam are instructed to die for their ideology, which provides a ready source of “soldiers” and a useful tool to maintain control over the populations of the world.  Fourth, Islam teaches its followers to slay, convert, or subdue all non-Muslims over the whole planet, which reinforces point three.  Fifth, the followers of Islam are required to submit totally to the ideology.  What more would a One World Government need in an ideology to establish complete dominance?

The threat posed by the violence and intolerance of Islam gives the One World Government a second option to propagate fear amongst the world populations.  The World Government would then be called upon to impose peace and order on the world to prevent open warfare.  The only problem with this option is that the World Government would have to choose between defeating the ideology or forcing the rest of the world to tolerate it.   Based on this, I believe the World Government will adopt Islam as the ideology of world control.

America Must Submit (Or Be Destroyed)

America is the largest impediment to the creation of the One World Government.  First, it is currently the global superpower and enjoys its power.  Second, its citizenry are blessed with a number of freedoms that they will not freely surrender. Unfortunately, these freedoms are in opposition to the very nature of a world-wide control structure that would purposely not answer to the people of any nation.  Therefore, America must be forced to submit to the One World Government or face destruction.

Our belief in the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness given to us by our Creator retard any attempt to establish a One World Government.  Our freedoms of speech and religion, and our right to bear arms, must be eliminated to properly impose a One World Government on the American people.  Our belief in hard work, being rewarded for that work, and then being able to enjoy the fruits of our labor does not fit a one world construct.  Our belief in and trust of the God of the Bible immediately creates a natural distrust and disapproval of even the idea of a One World Government (as you are witnessing here in these words).  Thus you see the deliberate attacks on Christianity to destroy these beliefs.  At the end of the day, if we do not surrender our freedoms voluntarily, the world must destroy us.

The enormous national debt, which appears to be growing exponentially, is a ticking time bomb that, when it explodes, could pull the rug out from under the strength of America.  Agenda 21 is attempting to force America to put the brakes on its free-market capitalism by voluntarily limiting its use of natural resources and  submitting to a One World Government-imposed set of irrational restrictions to combat a non-existent problem (climate change).  Islam is another weapon which can be employed to conduct attacks within America (up to and including nuclear attacks) and facilitate internal collapse.

Israel Must Be Destroyed

By its very nature, the establishment of a One World Government is human rebellion against the God of the Bible.   As the Chosen People of the Living God, Israel must be destroyed because their very existence is an insult to the human One World Government and its faith in human brilliance instead of God’s.  Today we are witnessing the forces that will be used in an attempt to destroy Israel being marshaled.  Once again, Islam provides the One World Government with a useful tool since the Islamic ideology demands the elimination of the Jewish people.  Therefore, Islam will be the primary mechanism used to effect the destruction of Israel.

Conclusion: Resist Tyranny

In my opinion, it is very likely that we are seeing the end of history approaching.  The establishment of a One World Government under the control of humans, and its inevitable failure, will be the final proof that we as humans do not know better than God, and that He is the One in charge of history.
Perhaps I am giving these folks and the idea of the creation of a One World Government too much credit, but I would rather assume the worst case than hope that the problem goes away on its own. 
With that being said, we must resist the establishment of a government that at its very core rejects God and His will.  We must resist a government that denies us our right to determine our own course, our right to have our own elected officials who are answerable to the people and no one else, and the right to enjoy our freedoms.  The One World Government seeks to rob us of these.  The One World Government is our enemy.

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department. 

Syria: The "Atrocities" Excuse to Violate National Sovereignty

The escalating "atrocities" in Syria could end up triggering a military intervention, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Fox News on Monday -- following the massacre that left more than 100 dead.  (FoxNews article)

International efforts to pressure Syria intensified on Monday, as the United Nations special envoy Kofi Annan began negotiations in the capital, Damascus, and the chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff warned that continued atrocities could make military intervention more likely.  (New York Times article)

Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States....America's reputation suffers, and our ability to bring about change is constrained, when we are perceived as idle in the face of mass atrocities and genocide.  (PSD-10 Mass Atrocities)

Employing our military in support of the UN's Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) Doctrine is not in our national interest and is not the proper use of our military.  In no way do the killings (or "atrocities") in Syria have anything to do with the United States of America.  Certainly we do not like Assad for his support of Hezbollah and Iran, but he has not directly threatened or attacked our nation.  We cannot use "atrocities" as an excuse to depose him or any other ruler that we do not like.  In short, accusations of "atrocities" are a method to legitimate the violation of another nation's sovereignty in order to overthrow a government that does not support the goals of the US and/or the UN.

Should we choose to conduct military operations (war) in Syria, either as a result of a UN Resolution or Article V of the NATO (Washington) Treaty, other nations will not view it as a legitimate use of force.  Russia will most likely be one of them, and may seek to catastrophically reduce our powers as they will perceive the US as being an unconstrained threat to their national interests abroad.  China could be another.  Iran will certainly look to retaliate should they lose their key ally on the Mediterranean.  Military intervention in Syria could set off a catastrophic chain of events.

Deposing Assad would also result in another domino falling to the Muslim Brotherhood and another step toward the creation of a Sunni Caliphate.  Neither side in Syria are friends of ours, and it is in our best interest to let them continue fighting each other.

This Memorial Day, we as Americans must ensure that our service members give their lives in defense of the Constitution and the people of the United States, and not in the pursuit of some specious crusade against a people who do not pose a direct threat to us.  Their job is not to bring order to the world on behalf of the United Nations and its attainment of a disturbed vision of worldwide control.  Not a single American need die in a war against Syria for committing "atrocities" against its own people.

Here is a partial timeline that lays out how the Executive Branch of the United States Government has been actively adopting and institutionalizing the United Nation's "Responsibility to Protect" as our own foreign policy:

• May 27, 2012         "Massacre" of civilians in Houla provides the UN with an excuse to legitimate military intervention under the "RtoP Doctrine" (The Australian article)
• April 23, 2012       President Obama pledges to develop a comprehensive strategy to prevent and respond to mass atrocities (exploiting the Holocaust to justify the use of force against any nation accused of committing "atrocities"; source)
• August 4, 2011      Presidential Study Directive 10 (PSD-10) on Mass Atrocities Issued
• Early 2011             NATO employs lethal force to "protect" Libyan civilians
• January 30, 2009   Ban Ki-moon issued a report on "Implementing the Responsibility to Protect" (more info)
• September 15, 2005   UN Introduces the "Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" (items 138-140) in the UN General Assembly (document link)

Where is the United States Congress in all of this?  The Executive Branch is clearly telegraphing its intention to use military force in Syria.  Congress needs to say "no."

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Gaddafi is Dead. Now What?

Gaddafi is Dead.  Now What?

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

First allow me to establish that I am glad the world is rid of Gaddafi.  He was a tyrant and a terrorist.  “Sic Semper Tyrannis!”

It cost Americans a little over a billion dollars to send Mr. Gaddafi to his eternal reward where, no doubt, he is stoking the furnaces as we write.

But this is not the end. In fact, it is the “beginning of the beginning.”

I have never been totally satisfied that a democratic form of government will actually work in an Islamic country such as Libya, or Iraq or even Afghanistan, for that matter.  They are tribal nations. Even their religion has at least two separate factions, Sunni and Shiite.  Unlike Baptists and Methodists – they don’t seem to be particularly fond of each other.

There are a number of folks complaining that the US is taking entirely too much credit for ridding the world of Gaddafi. Frankly, when one considers that Obama decided to “lead from the rear” on this operation it does leave a distinct unpleasant taste in my mouth.

However, we did learn it was a US Predator drone that attacked the Gaddafi convoy accompanied by a French warplane. And even though it was a NATO Operation, it IS interesting to note that US taxpayers foot the bill for some eighty percent of NATO’s budget. And, believe me when I declare that I am not trying to excuse Obama’s crowing about the US involvement in the Libyan operation to lend assistance to the Libyan rebels in their now successful, overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.

The British and the French, I believe, should be getting a huge amount of praise and credit for their tireless efforts to bring about Gaddafi’s overthrow and eventual death.  My observation is that they are getting short shrift in the American media for their exemplary military effort, which, no doubt, saved the lives of many Libyan civilians as well as Libyan rebel fighters.

I tend to agree with a number of US Congressman and Senators that the Libyan operation could have been over much sooner had Obama released the full force of American military might on Gaddafi’s forces, thereby saving many more lives of innocent Libyans and bringing the conflict to a satisfactory conclusion much sooner with less casualties and deaths.

So now, as the dust begins to settle, we are beginning to see that we have a nation, essentially destroyed, and having never experienced Democracy clearly have no idea what to do in the weeks and months ahead.

Will the new Libya finally settle for the suffocation that will result if they choose to become an Islamic state, or, will they take the plunge and make an honest attempt at the establishment of a truly democratic government of some form for their new fledgling nation?  The latter will be the most difficult, no doubt. 

Libya has 140 tribes.  And every one of them will be seeking a share of influence in the new government.  How, exactly can that ever happen?

Libya has absolutely no experience with democracy.  They are used to kings and dictators and strongmen.  A transition to some form of democratic government will be a wild and wooly experience. It is going to cost the US a lot more money if we take it upon ourselves to go nation building again.  Frankly, Americans have had their fill of nation building in Islamic countries where the governments appear to corrupting the new government faster than the US can build it.

Many Americans feel certain that both Iraq and Afghanistan will quickly abandon democracy and revert back to some sort of dictatorship with another strongman in charge in order to pacify all the tribes.  Chances are very strong that Libya will do exactly that.

If that happens Europe will again be at the mercy of the Libyan government for the light sweet crude oil they prefer and that Libya has in abundance.

Now that practically every Libyan is armed, suppose they decide they actually liked their little war and make an effort to continue it within Libya or a neighboring country?  

How do we get their guns back?  We never will get all of them and I’d be surprised if we go anywhere near 50% of them back under lock and key in our armories.

These are extremely dangerous times in Libya.  It’s going to take a heck of a lot of American money to prop up some sort of democratic government   …   if ever.  America will have one chance to get it right.

J. D. Longstreet

Obama Answers to the UN -- NOT Congress

Obama Answers to the UN -- NOT Congress
Obama Puts Congress In Its Place
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


Did you notice that Obama asked permission of the United Nations to go to war against Libya – but he did not ask the US Congress, which has the constitutional power to declare war? Why?

We have been warning from the start of the Obama Regime that he was out to make the Congress superfluous. In other words – Congress doesn’t matter to Obama. That means the American citizen does not matter to Obama.

In Obama’s world, HE is OBAMA. He can, and does, rule by executive order – and -- through his Czars and the members of his Cabinet. What the heck does he need Congress for, anyway? Why, he just makes the laws up as he goes and calls them “rules and regulations.”

This time, however, Obama really rubbed Congress’ collective nose in it. By approaching a would-be world governing body, hat in hand, to ask permission for the greatest military power the world has ever seen, to swat another Middle Eastern fly, was not only humiliating to the American people, it also put the Congress in it’s place which is a notch BELOW the United Nations.

I have to ask: How much longer will the limp-wristed US Congress put up with Obama’s Napoleonic delusions before they impeach him? Watch this space for further developments!

Now, let’s look at the Libyan fiasco: As a US military veteran, I am totally against having US troops taking orders from a commander who is not a member of the US military. It opens the door to the possibility of all sorts of problems -- some that COULD, conceivably, lead to war crimes charges levied against US soldiers. That is just one of my concerns. It may be the most grave of all.

A question I have about the no-fly zone operation in Libya is: What, exactly, will US forces be doing there? I mean, of course, after we kick-in Gaddafi’s front door. Nobody seems to know – or, if they do, they are not telling us.

Ok. So here’s what we know – or THINK we know: We know the current commander is an American. We are told that may very well change, and soon. We know US bombers flew in from Missouri and took out an airfield or two. We know US naval assets fired a huge number of Tomahawk missiles at Libya’s SAM sites, radar sites and command and control node(s).

But we are being told that the US will not make an attempt to remove Gaddafi, dead or alive. Then, I have to ask, why get involved, at all, in what will surely be one very large odiferous MESS in Libya -- and very soon.

Even an old swamp rat, like yours truly, knows that if Gaddafi is not taken out, he is going to lash back months or years from now and needless deaths will occur due to his sponsorship of terrorism aimed at those countries taking part in this sound and light show in Libya today.

To be frank, dear reader, this operation seems destined to be another liberal-socialist-democratic-president-led screw-up … ALREADY!

Look. We have stated time and again… liberal-socialist democrats do not understand the military. They do not understand the implementation of military power. They cringe when told it is the job of the military to destroy other countries and other societies and to kill the enemy’s soldiers -- and when necessary -- the enemies civilian population in order to deprive them of the means to wage war and the WILL to wage war. Simply put – the US military’s mission is to kill people and break things.

Our liberal friends on the left find this unacceptable. Instead they actually believe they can talk the enemy into surrender and convince them to embrace our demands and quietly and gently acquiesce to our will.

Of course, that is total Bovine Scatology … but a good socialist-liberal democrat believes that. They will not, I repeat, they will not accept that you cannot negotiate with a country, or a stateless bunch of terrorists, when they don’t want to talk with you and have absolutely no intention of negotiating with you.

In their arrogance, the left’s extremely high self-esteem blinds them to the truth. The truth is -- the people they are trying to negotiate with find them fools and lackeys and gutless wonders, full of hot air and devoid of any honor at all. (We might mention that view is held by rather a large number of conservative Americans as well.)

Did you notice how the Commander-in-chief of American forces committed American troops to harm’s way in Libya and then jetted off on a tour of Central and South America? That speaks volumes of his interest in the mission and his concern for the welfare of his troops.

Already, America is involved in two wars in the Middle East. The war in Iraq is remarkable in that we captured the evil ruler of that country. He was tried and hanged.

After all the US dollars and blood spent there I see nothing to make me believe that Iraq will not revert, right back, to its former “strongman dictatorship” form of government as soon as the US military leaves.

Afghanistan is a tragic comedy. We are wasting blood and money on a lost cause. The tribal leaders there will suck up our cash as long as we are stupid enough to continue making an effort at so-called “nation building” in that moonscape of a country where robbing the enemy blind is down to a fine art. That country will change IF, and WHEN, the Afghanis WANT TO CHANGE -- and not one second before. It makes not one whit of difference how long we stay or when we go.

Care to guess what the Afghanis will do as soon as the last US deuce-and-a-half rumbles away over the horizon? You don’t have to guess. You know.

And now, simultaneously, we are in our third war in the Middle East. (I can remember when the big question was if the US military could successfully fight only two wars? Remember?)

America is in deep trouble. Obama (and his leftist, socialist, communist, domestic terrorist henchmen) is an albatross around America’s neck. If we are to survive as a viable country, we have to rid ourselves of this dead weight dragging us down into the depths of mediocrity at the polls in November 2012. It is a matter of survival.

J. D. Longstreet

Obama Commits America to a THIRD War in the Middle East

Obama Commits America to a THIRD War in the Middle East
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


Are there no grown-ups in the Obama White House?

In my lifetime, I have never seen a sloppier, more disjointed, seemingly CLUELESS bunch of amateurs roaming the halls of the West Wing in foggy bewilderment.

Even the Nixon White House, under siege, was far more professional. Their worldwide situational awareness remained at remarkably high levels even while the office of the President was crumbling. They were professionals. They were grown-ups doing grown-up work. And they never forgot it for one moment.

Obama, on the other hand, seems … unplugged. Let me see if I can explain.

If you have ever been in an automobile when it runs out of gas, you know how the engine will sputter, then roar to life, and the car will lunge forward for a bit, then sputter again, lunge again, and finally, when all the gasoline in the fuel lines is exhausted, stop entirely and roll to a pitiful and frustrating stop. That, it seems to me, is an apt description of the Obama White House.

It appears that Obama had one thing he wanted to do as President and that was to pass socialized medicine into law. He succeeded in doing that and now has no inkling what to do with the remainder of his time in office.

If you saw the old movie “The Candidate,” you may remember that chilling line at the end of the movie, delivered by the actor playing the candidate. Upon winning the election he asks: “What now?” THAT is the image the Obama White House portrays, not just to Americans, but also to the rest of the world.

The incapable and hapless Obama White House through their waffling, and what I suspect is pure lack of understanding of world politics, has allowed the events in Libya to overtake them.

Even an old arm chair general like myself and thousands of other military veterans all over the world know that in circumstances like those in Libya over the past 31 days, demand that action (if action is to be taken) must be taken sooner rather than later. A successful army strikes the enemy quickly with all the resources at its command and renders as much destruction as they are capable of in the first blow. It shortens the conflict and inevitably saves lives … on both sides.

Thirty-one days have elapsed since the lid blew off in Libya. Obama and his clutch of “yes men,” have all but hidden behind the potted plants in the West Wing to avoid having to make a decision on assisting the “revolutionists,” as the rebels now refer to themselves. They can hide no longer. They can defer making the decision no longer.

Even after events forced Obama to acquiesce to a no-fly zone over Libya, he simply could not do it alone. He needed cover; some would say Obama felt he desperately needed that proverbial “fig leaf.”

So, the President of the United States asks permission of the United Nations Security Council, on which sits China and Russia, to iniate and enforce a no-fly zone, which, by the way, is an act of war, over Libya. The fact that a US President asks permission of the UN for ANYTHING ought to shame every re-blooded American to cry out for the impeachment of the worst President in US history!

Kow-towing to the UN is bad enough, but now that the Security Council has approved it in a ten to nothing vote, our pitiful excuse for a president has committed the US to ANOTHER WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST AGAINST ANOTHER MUSLIM COUNTRY.

When the cruise missiles begin zooming in, just over the rooftops of Libya, and obliterating Gaddafi’s radar installations and command and control centers, the US will officially be committed to -- count them -- THREE wars in the Middle East.

Getting into a war is easy. Getting out is a “whole nuther matter.”

Had Obama not dithered, a quick raid early on in the Libyan revolution could have blunted Gaddafi’s drive to “cleanse” the country of Libya of those who disagree with his crazed mental machinations. Not anymore. Before you read this there is good reason to believe that American troops will be engaged with Col. Gaddafi’s troops in combat.

I cannot escape the belief that this is a terrible mistake and will cost American blood and treasure -- neither of which we have to waste on rescuing rebels we know little about. We have no idea what kind of government they intend to set up in Libya, or in that part of Libya they might eventually control after Gaddafi’s ouster.

The latest polls (at this writing) show, definitively, the American people are not siding with Obama on his late conversion to militarism. We are extremely tired of our crack military being used as an extension of the Peace Corp in nation building of ungrateful countries that will continue to suck up to America until the last American soldier’s foot leaves their soil and then, immediately, revert back to hating us -- with renewed vigor.

And YES – THIS IS ABOUT OIL! Americans are living on an ocean of oil, far greater than that of Saudi Arabia, and yet our less than brilliant government refuses to allow us to retrieve it -- forcing us to be dependent on oil from the Middle East and defending that supply of oil with the blood of US servicemen and servicewomen. Honestly, how much sense does THAT make?

The Libyan War is CLEARLY a war for oil. About that, there can be no question.

American does not need, nor does it want, a third war in the Middle East.

After thirty-one days without a decision on Libya, the liberal-socialist President of the left made one. And it was the WRONG one!

Make no mistake about it. Establishing a no-fly zone over any portion of Libya, is an act of war. To be successful, Gaddafi’s troops must be stopped. His tanks must be bombed. His artillery must be bombed. His airfields must be bombed, etc. You can bet there will be American soldiers on the ground in Libya within days, if not hours.

If this does not convince Americans that Obama is out of his league and totally unprepared to be President, let alone Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force in history, then, I honestly don’t know what will.

America was in deep trouble yesterday. Today – we are in much, much, deeper trouble.

J. D. Longstreet

R.E.S.P.E.C.T Obama Gets None!

R.E.S.P.E.C.T Obama Gets None!
America Is Embarrassed Around The Globe!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


The world no longer fears America. Obama has seen to that. We are, rightfully, seen as the paper tiger we were so often accused of acting like under former democratic presidents.

Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR. He had this to say in a piece that appeared UK based “The Telegraph” on February 28th, 2011. Mr. Gardiner said:

“Just a few years ago the United States was genuinely feared on the world stage, and dictatorial regimes, strategic adversaries and state sponsors of terror trod carefully in the face of the world’s most powerful nation. Now Washington appears weak, rudderless and frequently confused in its approach. From Tehran to Tripoli, the Obama administration has been pathetically slow to lead, and afraid to condemn acts of state-sponsored repression and violence. When protesters took to the streets to demonstrate against the Islamist dictatorship in Iran in 2009, the brutal repression that greeted them was hardly a blip on Barack Obama’s teleprompter screen, barely meriting a response from a largely silent presidency.” (SOURCE)

I could not agree more with Mr. Gardiner. It has been painful to watch the stumbling and bumbling of the Obama Regime to get as far away from the Arab Melee in the Middle East while, at the same time, “appearing” to be on top of the situation at all times.

It was so obviously contrived that only a lock step “Obamanite” could actually BELIEVE anything coming out of the Oval Office, the West Wing offices of the Obama Minions, or the pitiful Department of State. Secretary of State Clinton appeared strained, saddened, and not a little embarrassed, to be the face of the Obama Foreign Policy.

What a MESS!

America wanted change in November of 2008. By Golly – we GOT change!

As Mr. Gardiner points out in his piece in The Telegraph: “In contrast to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, President Obama fails to see the United States as an exceptional nation, with a unique role in leading the free world and standing up to tyranny. In his speeches abroad he has frequently found fault with his own country, rather than projecting confidence in American greatness. From Cairo to Strasbourg he has adopted an apologetic tone rather than demonstrating faith in America as a shining city upon a hill, a beacon of freedom and liberty. A leader who lacks pride in his own nation’s historic role as a great liberator simply cannot project strength abroad.” (SOURCE)

If I were in church and my pastor said those words, I would have to fight the urge to leap to my feet and shout: “AMEN!” Mr. Gardiner NAILED IT!

Obama has worked tirelessly to get as far behind the curve on the Arab rebellion in the Middle East, as he possibly can. As a result he looks weak, listless, frightened, indecisive, pathetic, and – dare I say it – cowardly.

He has waited until the outcome of each of the uprisings was a given, before he stepped up to the plate … every single time. I have to believe that was by design.

Now, the egghead intellectual elites will tell us he was “deliberating.” Making sure the US would come down on the right side of the issue for the sake of history, etc, etc … ad infinitum.

Simply put: That is pure horse hockey!

Look. The US should never, never, never, elect an intellectual (of any political party) to the office of President. Intellectuals do not make good leaders. They make fairly good thinkers, but that is about all they make.

A LEADER makes decisions, on his feet, on the fly, based on the best information and intelligence he has at the time … and he ACTS … NOW!

Obama is incapable of doing that. We saw evidence of that when he simply was not able to give the order to shoot the Indian Ocean pirates many months ago and the commander on the scene, a military man, finally gave the order. It HAD to be done and it had to be done THEN … and Obama could not do it.

Obama is certainly not a leader. Give him a script, a lectern, and a teleprompter, and he gives a performance (with his oration) that would make the great ancient Roman orators green with envy. But, placed in a political position where he must take responsibility for his words, his actions, and WHOA! He can’t do it. It is simply not in him.

Heck, when the FRENCH are tougher than the US on Libya, hey, you have to flinch, red-faced!

Mr. Gardiner nails it again with this: “The Obama administration’s timid approach to foreign policy is the last thing the world needs at a time of mounting turmoil in the Middle East, including the growing threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, and Islamist militancy on the rise from Egypt to Yemen. US leadership is now needed more than ever, but has embarrassingly gone AWOL on the world stage.” (SOURCE)

That sums it up. Except to say … America will pay for this dilly-dallying by the Obama Regime. We will pay in ways we cannot imagine today.

Finally: I plead with the GOP … give us a conservative candidate for President with an actual possibility of winning in November of 2012. If we do not take back the office of President, America may not last until 2016! Yeah, it IS just that serious.

J. D. Longstreet