Radical Islamic Terrorists and Immigration

by Marinka Peschmann

At a press conference last Wednesday with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, President Barack Obama said his administration was taking a “very close look” at Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law, “for any implications, especially for civil rights.”

So while the Obama Administration looks at civil rights implications, the big question to ask is will they also look at the implications of the radical Islamic terrorists in America—including those who have taken advantage of the broken U.S. immigration system?

What? Radical Islamic terrorists are in America?

According to a previously disclosed 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment, the answer is a resounding yes, and among them are members of; Al-Qa’ida, Al-Shabaab, HAMAS, Hizballah, Jama’at al-Tabligh, Jama’at ul Fuqra, Lashkar-e Tayyiba, the Muslim Brotherhood, Sunni Extremists, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Islamic Jihad Union, and the Taliban.

This information you will not learn from the Obama Administration’s Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who considers acts of terror to be man-made disasters. The same Secretary Napolitano, who quickly condemned the Arizona immigration law (intended to do the job the Federal government failed to do), even though she had not read it.

Nor would you know that Islamic radical terrorists have taken advantage of America’s immigration crisis by listening to Attorney General Eric Holder either. Instead, for instance, he obfuscated then refused to identify radical Islam as the motive behind the failed Times Square terrorist attack earlier this month, after Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen (via marriage) from Pakistan, who returned to the States after five months of terror training in Waziristan, was arrested. Holder is considering suing Arizona over their immigration law even though, as he admitted last week, he had not read it either.

For unknown reasons the Obama Administration has deliberately refused to publicly address the clear and present danger of radical Islamic terrorists and the immigration crisis. As previously reported here, Terrorists have applied for Green Cards, and as the 215-page 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment confirms, “The international terrorism threat to Virginia and the nation as a whole stems from several radical Islamic militant groups….”

Moreover, as the threat assessment documents, there is a connection with radical Islamic terrorists and immigration:

Marriage fraud is a common method of facilitating the extended stays of foreign
terrorists in the U.S….Known cases of sham marriages exist involving al-Qa’ida, Hizballah, and individuals with radical ties. Fraudulent marriages have enabled individuals affiliated with al-Qa’ida, Hizballah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad to remain in the U.S. One regional example is the Charlotte Hizballah cell, where a key figure “helped secure three fraudulent visas and three sham marriages for the purpose of ‘legally’ bringing in the United States his brother, his brother-in-law, and sister so that they might become legal permanent residents…

… one Virginia-linked case occurred in which a Norfolk police officer testified against an Ohio-based Jordanian man who had tried to recruit him online for a terrorist cause. Subsequent federal investigation showed this subject likely entered the U.S. through a fraudulent marriage to a Kansas City woman in 2001; the marriage was annulled five months later…

… Many individuals enter the U.S. on student visas and never enroll in school… [or] individuals may enroll and seem to be legitimate students but may still be working as operatives. The three categories of nonimmigrant student visas monitored and tracked by DHS are F visas for academic study, M visas for vocational study, and J visas for cultural exchange. Such visas can be exploited by terrorists not only as a method to legally penetrate the borders, but also present a legitimate opportunity to study technical fields which may be of use in future attacks.

One of the FBI’s most wanted subjects, Aafia Siddiqui, who has ties to al-Qa’ida, entered the U.S. on a student visa and lived in the country for over a decade while studying and teaching at Brandeis and MIT… she was found with handwritten notes referring to a ‘mass casualty attack’ at various prominent locations in the U.S., such as the Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty, Wall Street, and the Brooklyn Bridge… Separate FBI reporting advised that an individual in the U.S. had sponsored several individuals from Egypt to enter to the U.S. on F-1 student visas. This individual had an identified contact at Strayer University who prepared and filed the visa paperwork through the University… The sponsor and the university contact allegedly hold radical Muslim beliefs…

Borrowing from Secretary Napolitano, the immigration crisis is a federal government-made disaster that occurred under both Republican and Democratic leadership. The consequences of the unsecured borders and the broken, backlogged United States Citizenship & Immigration Services do not exclusively adversely and dangerously affect Arizona– but the nation. It’s time for the Obama Administration to stop deflecting reality and tell the truth about the threats facing America.

Cross-posted at marinkapeschmann.com

Obama Call for ‘International Order’ Raises Questions About U.S. Sovereignty

President Obama is facing criticism for his declaration over the weekend that he would seek a new “international order,” with some questioning how much U.S. sovereignty the administration is willing to cede in exchange for more global cooperation.

Obama, delivering the commencement speech Saturday at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, said that “stronger international standards and institutions” and stronger alliances can “resolve” challenges ranging from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to climate change to economic decline.

“Our adversaries would like to see America sap its strength by overextending our power,” Obama said. “So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation.”

The president added that efforts by America’s armed forces need to be “complemented” with greater diplomatic engagement “from grand capitals to dangerous outposts,” more humanitarian assistance to needy nations, better communications among intelligence agencies, first responders to act after earthquakes, storms and disease and “law enforcement that can strengthen judicial systems abroad, and protect us at home.”

“America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of cooperation; we have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice — so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities, and face consequences when they don’t,” he told the graduating class at the military academy.

“This engagement is not an end in itself. The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times — countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds,” he said.

The address seemed to mark a greater departure from the so-called “Bush Doctrine” than past Obama speeches like the president’s address to Muslim nations last summer in Cairo. The Bush administration’s approach to foreign affairs, dubbed the “Bush Doctrine,” generally included a policy of unilateralism and the right to preemptive strike, among other tenets.

The address also drew a split reaction. Conservatives claimed Obama was putting undue faith in global institutions while progressives said he was rightly turning away from Bush-era policy.

“He recognizes that you can’t solve the economic, the military or the environmental problems by yourself, even if you wanted to,” said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “You simply can’t do it without working with other nations, so I think it’s important to start doing that.”

KT McFarland, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Ronald Reagan and a Fox News contributor, said the president is moving further from the view of “American exceptionalism.”

“It’s a very international sense that America is just one of many, that we are not going to be a superpower in leading the world and I think it’s a very dangerous mindset and trend,” she said.

Obama did not say Saturday which specific global institutions he wants to build. Obama has made enhanced international cooperation a priority dating back to the campaign and so far has carried out that goal by seeking global agreements for nuclear weapons reduction, an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhanced support from the United Nations in dealing with rogue regimes.

But his West Point speech struck some as a stretch — particularly since efforts at the United Nations so far have done little to halt nuclear development in Iran and North Korea.

James Carafano, an Army veteran and director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, said the plodding and uphill battle to win sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program demonstrates the problems with over-relying on global institutions.

“It’s just simply not grounded in reality,” he said. “It’s strategic nonsense.”

The commencement address follows Obama’s speech at the close of a nuclear security summit in Washington last month in which he said the United States is a superpower “whether we like it or not.”

That remark touched off debate over whether the administration feels burdened by the superlative status.

Carafano said the superpower remark was no “Freudian slip” and that the West Point speech amounted to more than just rhetoric — he said the administration has already started undermining U.S. sovereignty with its arms reduction treaty with Russia.

“He thinks diminished American power and independence in the world actually is a force for good,” Carafano said.

Obama, in his speech, acknowledged that the “order” he was proposing was no cure-all.

“We are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system,” he said. But, he added, “what we can do, what we must do, is work and reach and fight for the world that we seek — all of us, those in uniform and those who are not.”

From Fox News

A New Black Leaderhip…

Sen. James Meeks (left)

by Star Parker

The race issue refuses to disappear from American politics because problems tied to race persist.

Just as children are often the best witnesses to the shortcomings of parents, so the ill treated are often testimony to a nation’s shortcomings.

The civil rights movement showed that in a nation which is free, civil, and moral, a few can create a non-violent revolution and change the world when their claims are just and moral, and when they are willing to fight and persist.

Just as that movement, starting with a few black leaders in the 1960’s, showed that our nation was sick and needed to be healed, the same thing is happening today.

A superb example is the remarkable leadership of Rev. James Meeks in Chicago.

Pastor Meeks, the spiritual leader of one of Chicago’s largest black churches, is also a Democrat senator in the state legislature. Working with both Democrats and Republicans, and with the help of a free market think tank in Illinois, Meeks put together legislation to provide vouchers for kids in Chicago’s worst public schools to escape and attend a private school.

Increasingly, school choice initiatives around the country are being championed at the grass roots by local black leaders, often Democrats, for whom the truth is too straightforward to deny.

In the case of Chicago, home town of our current Secretary of Education Duncan, the picture is bleak. Thirteen percent of 8th graders in Chicago public schools are proficient in math and 17 percent proficient in reading. The high school graduation rate is barely over 50% and 6% of kids in Chicago’s public schools go on to get college degrees.

Pastor Meeks’ remarks to the Wall Street Journal were on target:

“To me education is a moral issue…..it’s a moral tragedy to see three generations of Chicago children go without an education.”

But this is also a disproportionately black problem. These kids in Chicago are largely black. And, similarly, around the country, it’s black kids in failing schools and black kids that go generation after generation without gaining the essential knowledge and skills for prospering.

Pastor Meeks is right. This is a moral problem. So, like in the 1960’s, the nation is sick and problems in black America are symptoms of the disease.

The disease today is moral relativism.

It’s too bad that today we need research to confirm what tradition always told us. The evidence is overwhelming that nothing influences a child’s performance in school like family life.

Today, much of black family life is in shambles, a direct result of the welfare state which emerged the same time as the Civil Rights Act. Meanwhile, since the 1960s, any last vestige of teaching traditional values, of acknowledgement of traditional religious truths, has been purged from our public school system.

Blacks are left with an untenable reality. Kids from largely single parent homes attend public schools where they are not permitted to learn right from wrong. Can anyone believe that this formula for failure can be fixed, regardless of how much more public money is pumped into these schools?

Meeks’ bill got through the Illinois state senate but then hung up in the House where, with a handful more Republican votes, it would have passed. Republicans let down Pastor Meeks and black children.

But black political abandonment is bi-partisan. The DC school voucher program was killed by Democrats (ironically, Illinois Senator Durbin carried the water here).

Dr. King understood that blacks had to solve their own problems. The same holds true today.

New black church leadership must lead their own communities out of the wilderness, away from the illusions of government, to freedom. Their efforts might provide an example to a whole, increasingly confused and lost nation as well.

Why are Holder and Napolitano Such Cowards?

The Kansas City Star

Attorney General Eric Holder was having a bad day. He was sitting at one of those tables before a congressional panel, looking up at his inquisitors. One of them tossed what should have been a softball.

Were the three terrorist attacks that have taken place since Obama’s inauguration motivated by “radical Islam?”

Holder lapsed into two minutes of agonizing, anal-retentive quibbling. Was it radical Islam? Well, it was a “variety of reasons.” Could one of those reasons be radical Islam? “I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion …” And back and forth, until the questioner, Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, finally gave up.

Why is this so hard for these people? Why does Janet Napolitano have so much trouble saying “terrorism,” and instead reaches for gobbledygook constructions like “man-caused disasters”? Why did she say “overseas contingency operations” when what she meant was “war.” The administration’s latest linguistic contortion is CVE, or “countering violent extremism.”

In one interview, Napolitano acknowledged that man-caused whatchamacallits fell a bit short as a descriptor. It was “perhaps only a nuance,” she allowed, “but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

Then there’s President Obama, who famously cheapened the notion of American exceptionalism by saying, well, sure, he’s for it. “I believe in American exceptionalism — just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism,” he said.

All this represents the exposed tip of something larger, an important marker and a classic dividing line between right and left.

Since the ’60s at least, those on the leftish end of the spectrum have had an annoying tendency to place themselves above the nation and what it stands for. They have a profound discomfort with the notion that the country must be defended, an effort that sometimes requires military force.

Some of the more exotic of the species, the Jane Fondas and Susan Sontags, blatantly identified with our adversaries. In the late 1960s, both of these characters popped up in Hanoi and blathered about the nobility of the North Vietnamese struggle against the vile imperialist Amerikans.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that a lot of the people who came to Washington with Obama carry intellectual residue from this era. How else to explain the comical difficulty they have in coming up with a straightforward term for an enemy that turned airlines into missiles and revels in the slaughter of innocent civilians?

For decades, various people on both the right and left have mined this rich lode. One of the latest is Paul Berman, a member of the editorial board of Dissent, the leftist magazine, and author of the new book, “The Flight of the Intellectuals.” Berman is also an increasingly rare species: He is a liberal hawk.

In an interview with the blogger Michael Totten, he marveled at the inclination of intellectuals to dismiss the brutality of regimes that threatened the West and their eagerness to undermine the idea that the West is even worth defending.

Part of it, he said, is that many see a world dominated by cultures that, however impoverished, are somehow “authentic,” where the culture of the West is artificial and false and therefore inferior.

“We look at ourselves in the Western countries and we say that, if we are rich, relatively speaking, as a society, it is because we have plundered our wealth from other people,” Berman said. “Our wealth is a sign of guilt. If we are powerful … it is because we treat people in other parts of the world in oppressive and morally objectionable ways.”

Bottom line: We should feel guilty about our success and freedom, because these are only symptoms of “how morally inferior we are.”

The problem with American exceptionalism is that some see it as the assertion of a claim to run the world. Sorry, but our system — separation-of-powers federalism — works for us but isn’t for everyone. It’s, well, exceptional. But it has successfully melded a lot of different people into something greater than the sum of the parts.

As the writer Joel Kotkin noted, we are the first “world nation.” Virtually every ethnic group and nationality has found a home here. It’s hard to see why the president has such a problem with the broad, hopeful, human story that this implies — or why the people he hired are so tongue-tied when asked to explain why it must be defended.

Another Obama free radical gets loose

By: Bill O’Reilly
Examiner Columnist

In yet another example of the federal government’s being out of control, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner, in a human rights discussion with the Chinese, brought up the new Arizona illegal-alien law as an example of American “discrimination.”

Posner said he discussed the law “early and often” with Chinese officials, even though they didn’t even initiate the conversation.

So let me get this straight. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department is trying to persuade China to close its political concentration camps, to stop incarcerating dissidents and to cease brutalizing the people of Tibet, and in the course of that discussion, Hillary’s guy says, “Oh, yeah, we’re pretty bad, too. Look at Arizona!”

Is this Bizarro World or what?

The Arizona law will not even take effect until the end of July, but already, according to some, the United States is violating human rights. The law simply says that authorities in Arizona can question people about their nationality if they are already involved in a police matter.

But if you listen to NBC News, you wouldn’t know that. No, the liberal media are telling the world that Arizona law enforcement officers will be dragging Hispanics out of Kmart. Be careful walking your dog in Phoenix; you could wind up in handcuffs.

Now, I expect this kind of stuff from the dishonest, ideological press, but from an assistant secretary of state? That takes the issue to another level. So, what’s really going on?

Well, it’s ideology again. Michael Posner is a committed left-wing zealot who joined the State Department in September 2009. Before that, he founded an organization called Human Rights First, which is generously funded by radical billionaire George Soros.

Human Rights First is a very lively group. In 2005, it joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in trying to sue former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for torturing people. Posner’s group opposes the Patriot Act, rendition, all coerced interrogation and Guantanamo Bay.

Also in 2005, Posner made a speech comparing the treatment of American Muslims to the rounding up of Japanese-Americans during World War II. If this guy isn’t a left-wing loon, nobody is. So, what on Earth is he doing in the State Department negotiating with the Chinese?

We called Secretary Clinton and, surprise, received no response. But if you think about it, Posner’s presence at State really isn’t a surprise. You may remember that White House environmental adviser Van Jones was sacked after it was learned he was a member of a Marxist group in San Francisco and had accused the U.S. government of attacking itself on 9/11.

Another far-left person, former Georgetown professor Rosa Brooks, holds a position of responsibility in the Defense Department.

Critics of this column will cry McCarthyism, but there comes a point when a person’s credentials should matter, especially when that person is representing the United States in delicate matters, such as human rights.

Michael Posner should be hosting a program on Air America. Not speaking on behalf of the American people.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Another-Obama-free-radical-gets-loose-94732204.html#ixzz0or7VKby4

No more police escorts for union thugs

It is standard procedure across the nation when officers from one jurisdiction cross into another to provide advance warning, but that was not done in the case of Bank of America Deputy General Counsel Greg Baer. (Photos.com)

Examiner Editorial

Imagine you are sitting at home on a peaceful Sunday when you hear buses pull up in front of your house and begin disgorging hundreds of angry people waving signs with threatening messages, shaking their fists and crowding onto your lawn. Soon, hundreds of screaming people are tromping on your flower beds, peering into your windows, and scaring neighbors who nervously begin placing calls to 911.

As the noise levels rise and demonstrators start banging on your front door, you begin to fear that something very bad is about to happen. Then you spot the police cars, and relief floods over you. “At least the cops will keep things under control,” you tell yourself. But your relief is shattered when you realize the cops you thought were there to protect you are actually from another jurisdiction and they are there because they escorted the mob to your address.

Sound like a fantasy, something that could never happen here? Guess again, because that exact scenario played out last week in Bethesda. The demonstrators were from the Service Employees International Union, the target of their anger was the home of Bank of America Deputy General Counsel Greg Baer, and the cops escorting the SEIU-ers were from the Metropolitan District of Columbia Police Department, which, like departments across the country, is represented by the Fraternal Order of Police union.

Although it is standard procedure across the nation when officers from one jurisdiction cross into another to provide advance warning, that was not done in this case. The only person inside the Baer home when the demonstrators and D.C. cops arrived was one of Baer’s young sons, who locked himself in the bathroom until his father arrived to rescue him after bravely forcing his way through the crowd. Eventually, the Montgomery County police appeared on the scene, and the demonstrators later departed.

There are multiple lessons to be gleaned from this highly disturbing situation. Such tactics are standard fare for SEIU, whose leaders think it’s just fine to target the private homes and families of people associated with whatever company the union has decided to demonize. These assaults are clearly meant to shock and intimidate. Congress long ago banned secondary boycotts from union tactics. It’s time to put a stop to all such assaults on private homes and families. And the conduct of the D.C. police highlights another critical question — should law enforcement officers be pawns of union bosses? Collective bargaining should no longer have a place among those sworn to protect and serve the public.

Battle for a Drug lord

KINGSTON, Jamaica (AP) — Masked men defending a reputed drug lord sought by the United States torched a police station and traded gunfire with security forces in a patchwork of barricaded slums in Jamaica’s capital Sunday.

The government declared a state of emergency as sporadic gunshots rang out in gritty West Kingston, stronghold of Christopher “Dudus” Coke, a Jamaican “don” charged in the U.S. with drug and arms trafficking. His defiant supporters turned his Tivoli Gardens neighborhood and other areas into a virtual fortress with trashed cars and barbed wire.

Four police stations came under heavy fire from gangsters roaming the streets with high-powered guns. In barricaded Hannah Town, close to Tivoli Gardens, black smoke spiraled into the sky from one that was set aflame by molotov cocktails.

Officers fled the burning station in impoverished West Kingston, where a 2001 standoff between gunmen and security forces killed 25 civilians as well as a soldier and a constable.

Authorities said two security officers had been wounded by Sunday night.

Police said the attacks were unprovoked. It called for all “decent and law-abiding citizens” in the troubled areas to immediately evacuate their homes and said security forces would ferry them out safely.

Police Commissioner Owen Ellington said “scores of criminals” from gangs across the Caribbean island had traveled to West Kingston to join the fight. “It is now clear that criminal elements are determined to launch coordinated attacks on the security forces,” he said.

In a gritty section of the capital of an island known more for reggae and all-inclusive resorts, the violence erupted after nearly a week of rising tensions over the possible extradition of Coke to the United States.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding had stalled the extradition request for nine months with claims the U.S. indictment relied on illegal wiretap evidence. After Golding reversed himself amid growing public discontent over his opposition, Coke’s supporters began barricading streets and preparing for battle.

Before Sunday’s shooting started, police urged the neighborhood boss to surrender, calling the heavy barricades encircling his slum stronghold a sign of “cowardice.”

The U.S., Canada and Britain issued travel alerts Friday warning of possible violence and unrest in Jamaica. Most islanders have been avoiding downtown Kingston.

The state of public emergency, limited to the parishes of Kingston and St. Andrew, will be in effect for one month unless extended or revoked by lawmakers, the government said.

In a national address Sunday night, Golding said the order gives authorities the power to restrict movement and effectively battle violent criminals. Security forces will also be able to conduct searches and detain people without warrants.

Golding stressed that Kingston “is not being shut down,” and schools and businesses outside the battle zone will be open.

Coke is described as one of the world’s most dangerous drug lords by the U.S. Justice Department. He has ties to the governing Jamaica Labour Party and holds significant sway over the West Kingston area represented in Parliament by Golding.

Golding’s fight against the extradition strained relations with Washington, which questioned Jamaica’s reliability as an ally in the fight against drugs. His handling of the matter, particularly his hiring of a U.S. firm to lobby Washington to drop the extradition request, provoked an outcry in Jamaica that threatened his political career.

Coke, who typically avoids the limelight, has remained silent. He faces life in prison if convicted on charges filed against him in New York.

Jamaica’s political history is intertwined with the street gangs that the two main parties helped organize — and some say armed — in Kingston’s poor neighborhoods in the 1970s and ’80s. The gangs controlled the streets and intimidated voters at election time. In recent years political violence has waned, and many of the killings in Kingston now are blamed on the active drug and extortion trade.

Coke was born into Jamaica’s gangland. His father was the leader of the notorious Shower Posse gang, a cocaine-trafficking band with agents in Jamaica and the U.S. that began operating in the 1980s and was named for its members’ tendency to spray victims with bullets.

The son took over from the father, and expanded the gang into selling marijuana and crack cocaine in the New York area and elsewhere, U.S. authorities allege.

Lawyers for Coke — who in addition to “Dudus” is also known as “Small Man” and “President” — have challenged his extradition in Jamaica’s Supreme Court. As a West Kingston community “don,” Coke has acted as an ad hoc civic leader and provides protection and jobs.

Is This Just a Nightmare, or Did It Really Happen?

By Jared E. Peterson

Over the past week we witnessed presidential and congressional disloyalty without precedent in American history, events that should be indelibly imprinted on the American electorate’s collective memory. For the first time (at least to this writer’s knowledge), a foreign head of state who is promoting an ongoing, aggressive, illegal, and often violent invasion of America came to our country, met with our president, and, from the White House itself, received our president’s implicit but obvious public support for that invasion; and that same foreign leader spoke to Congress and received a standing ovation from its Democrat members’ for his country’s war on America’s borders.

Is this just a nightmare, or did it really happen?

During Barrack Hussein Obama’s May 19, 2010 joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderón, our president — constitutionally charged with the duty to defend America from all enemies, foreign and domestic — earned the scarlet “D”: By silence he aligned himself with the invaders of our country and their leader against the citizens of America’s own state of Arizona who have been forced by his dereliction to defend themselves.

Nearly as amazing, on Thursday, May 20, 2010, that same foreign president, speaking from where Churchill stood during World War II, received a standing ovation from the Democrat members of Congress when he reviled the citizens of Arizona for daring to try to fashion a defense of their part of the American-Mexican border. And the Republicans did not walk out or offer any other visible, dramatic objection.

An aside: The feckless Republican non-response to the Mexican President’s May 20 congressional rant is probably the least astounding of the week’s events. Our stodgy Republican opposition, with a few exceptions (e.g., see Congressman Tom McClintock’s superlative speech) is notable for its lack of leadership, courage, eloquence, timing, and political prescience. That a foreign head of state who insults the overwhelming majority of America’s citizens from a congressional podium might require a dramatic response from them, and at the same time might present a perfect opportunity to make clear which party is aligned with the American people on illegal immigration, would not occur to most of the timid and unimaginative mediocrities in this bunch.

But to return to the point: Consider carefully the stain of disloyalty that President Obama indelibly affixed to himself during the week just past.

On Wednesday, May 19, 2010, Felipe Calderón, President of politically and economically failed Mexico, stood on the South Lawn of the White House as a guest of America. He proceeded to claim that Arizona’s recently enacted immigration law “is forcing our people there to face discrimination,” and thereby he publicly trashed the State of Arizona, its legislators and governor, and, if polls are accurate, about 70% of its residents (and probably nearly the same percentage of all Americans) who unambiguously want the border sealed and support Arizona’s benign efforts to accomplish that goal. He said more, but that was enough.

Standing next to this boor, the President of the United States (sic) responded to the tirade against America with silence. Or as the rest of the world will interpret Obama’s muteness, “I agree with everything you just said.” Can anyone imagine similar complicit disloyalty from Lincoln, Roosevelt (T. or F.D.), Truman, Kennedy, or Reagan?

Rather than defend the reasonable actions of his countrymen, our president joined in the foreigner’s indictment of them. Later, on television, while the offensive Mexican president was still in the country, Obama added his own condemnation of those vile Americans he risibly claims to lead and protect: Of the Arizona statute, he said, “The Justice Department is looking at the legislation to make sure it’s consistent with ‘our core values’ and ‘existing legal precedent.'” Again, code-speak for “I agree with El Presedente. The people of Arizona, their legislators and governor, and all those who support them are despicable bigots.”

When America is being invaded by a foreign power, one expects the President of the United States to be on America’s side. That’s how it’s worked in the past, anyway. If that’s too steep a demand, could we ask that our president not publicly endorse the enemy’s characterization of modest defensive efforts as “discriminatory”? If even that decent silence is too much, could our president at least not provide the invaders’ leader with a White House venue to denounce our people and our laws?

Note to those Americans who have not yet noticed: Barrack Hussein Obama does not like or sympathize with this country.

His instinctual affinities are with others, particularly if they come from the southern hemisphere or call themselves Muslims, and especially if they vote Democrat when they get here. For a long time, some have known this about America’s first anti-American president. Many have not yet perceived it. Had most Republican members of Congress not been asleep, confused, or afraid, the events of last week could have cast a brilliant light on this awful truth.

But exposing the charlatan when he allows the truth to spill out, as he did last week, requires a courageous, clear-thinking, and articulate opposition. Other than Representative McClintock and a few more, who among key GOP officeholders possesses these traits?

An effective, courageous, and astute opposition lacking, the only course for loyal Americans is never to let last week’s outrages be forgotten.

Any Republican candidate who fails to remind the November electorate that Barrack Hussein Obama, and the congressional Democrats en masse, endorsed and applauded America’s invaders and condemned its defenders, does not have the requisite qualities of intellect and courage to be helpful in the struggle to reclaim our country.

Jared E. Peterson graduated from the University of California at Berkeley in Political Philosophy, and from the Harvard Law School. He has been a practicing lawyer for more than thirty-five years.


By Neal Boortz

The tea parties really seem to bring out the irrational side of liberals .. as if there is any other side. But liberals cannot stand the idea that there would be a real, grassroots movement in the United States that unifies around freedom and limited government, rather than control and big government. Well .. not only can’t liberals stand the very idea of the tea parties .. they’re actually scared witless by these people with their flags and pointed questions.

That brings us to Anthony Bourdain. Apparently this loon has a show on the Travel Channel where he wanders around the globe eating strange things. Well I’m thinking that he ate something that bored into his brain and rewired a few circuits. The Bourdain clown shows up on Anderson Cooper’s show (where else? But I’m not going there) where, for some reason, he is asked about the tea party movement. Bourdain proceeded to compare the tea party supporters to those who campaigned for George Wallace back in the day. He says:

You know, I was just reading “Hellhound on His Trail,” a book about the — about the assassination of Dr. King and about — particularly about the Wallace-for-president campaign in California back then. And you’re looking at, I think, at basically the same demographic: a lot of marginal, very angry white people.

I’m pretty happy about the Tea Party, because I think they’re ensuring that no reasonable electable Republican will be — will be president.

Hmmm. Wondering why CNN is dragging its butt at the hind-end of the cable news channel ratings wars? Having this gastronomical moonbat spout off about the tea parties might give you a clue. Maybe Cooper can ask some tea partier what she thinks about eating sloth snot.

It really is getting old, isn’t it? Yeah .. those tea partiers are nothing but a bunch angry white people. Liberals are afraid of the tea party movement because they know that the tea party principles are the only way that we are going to get our country back on track (if that is even possible). But they are not easy solutions. They are hard and they require self-reliance and less government. Liberals aren’t really fond of those concepts, so their solution is to paint the tea party folks as fanatics.

Worm-eater Anthony Bourdain isn’t the only one out there spouting this kind of rhetoric. A column in the Washington Post by Gene Weingarten takes a shot at the tea party movement. In a review of a George Bernard Shaw play, Weingarten digresses into this little rant:

This sort of unwritten literary convention may seem quaint today, but such subtle rules are still practiced. For example, American journalists know they can write about the Tea Party, but only if it is presented as a serious ideological movement instead of as a posse of ignoramuses carrying signs such as the one in the second photo on this page [above] … But I digress!

Rand Paul’s victory is a big one for the Tea Party movement, but it isn’t enough for liberals. It will never be enough. The next president could be a Tea Party candidate, but it will still be viewed as a racist movement, a right-wing movement, a fringe movement.

Oliver North: Indisputable service

By: Oliver North
Examiner Columnist

This year falling on May 15, Armed Forces Day was designated in 1949 to recognize active-duty soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen and Marines. Memorial Day, now a “nearest Monday” federal holiday, has been observed at the end of the month since 1868 in tribute to America’s war dead. It’s ironic that this year, these two dates celebrating those who serve in our nation’s uniform are bookends for a political candidate accused of inflating his claims of military service.

On May 17, The New York Times, The Associated Press and just about every other news outlet on the planet made it known that Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut and a candidate for the U.S. Senate, has made a habit of portraying himself as a veteran of the Vietnam War. He is quoted as having told a Connecticut veterans group in March 2008, “We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam.” At a Veterans Day event later that year, he said, “I wore the uniform in Vietnam, and many came back to all kinds of disrespect.” He has emotionally recalled being “spat on” and claimed, “We couldn’t wear our uniforms (when) we returned from Vietnam.” On other occasions, he apparently has reflected on “the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse” he suffered after coming back from Vietnam. At a 2003 rally of support for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” and he often has made reference to “the days that (he) served in Vietnam.” Unfortunately, none of this is true. Jane Fonda has more time on the ground in Vietnam than Blumenthal.

Confronted by the evidence that he never really was deployed overseas, the Senate candidate called a news conference to say, “I regret that I misspoke on those occasions. I take full responsibility.” He went on to explain to reporters that his claims to have served in Vietnam were “absolutely unintentional” and “a few misplaced words.” That affront to those who really did serve — and who now serve in harm’s way — was apparently acceptable to those who stood beside the attorney general in his Mark Sanford moment.

In fairness, Blumenthal did enlist in the Marine Corps Reserve in 1970 — after receiving at least five draft deferments. He apparently made it through Marine boot camp at Parris Island, S.C. — no mean feat. The publicly available record shows that after completing basic training, he never deployed overseas, but he did fulfill his obligated service in a Washington, D.C.-based Civil Affairs detachment and a Motor Transport unit in Connecticut. That entitles him to wear the same Eagle, Globe and Anchor that adorns my uniform. But that doesn’t give him the right to demean the service of the young Marines and Navy corpsmen with whom I served in that long-ago, faraway war — or those from the present fight who have volunteered to go in harm’s way.

Blumenthal’s lies about his service aren’t simply a problem of “misspeaking,” as he now claims, or just a matter of padding a r?sum?. His deceptions and distortions had but one self-serving end: to advance his political career by establishing affinity with veterans and their families, no matter what price they had really paid. Apparently, he was so good at it until now that no political opponent, veterans organization or enterprising reporter ever analyzed Blumenthal’s DD Form 214 or his Service Record Book to determine the truth of his assertions.

Blumenthal now maintains he isn’t going to talk about this matter anymore and is moving on to “issues that make a difference now and in the future to the people of Connecticut.” Whether “moving on” and “putting this behind us” will prove to be a successful political ploy remains to be seen. In the 1990s, then-Rep. Wes Cooley, R-Ore., who falsely claimed he had served in the Korean War, was thrown out of office by his constituents after being caught up in his lies. Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., resigned this week when his extramarital affair was revealed. These men are no greater charlatans or frauds than Blumenthal, who must know that others — such as Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa — have survived self-serving “expansions” of their own military records.

Blumenthal says he is going to continue his quest for the U.S. Senate, so the issue of his credibility and his “war record” ultimately will be decided by the people of Connecticut. It will be interesting to see whether the state that gave us Revolutionary War heroes Nathan Hale and Israel Putnam wants to seat a hypocrite like Richard Blumenthal in the U.S. Senate with a real American hero like Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va.

That’s all ahead for the nice folks in the Nutmeg State. For the rest of us, please remember that Memorial Day is more than a day off. It’s our opportunity to honor those who indisputably served our country in harm’s way. They are buried in cemeteries all over this globe — including one near you.

Examiner columnist Oliver North is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.

%d bloggers like this: