If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
IS TO REJECT PROFILING ALL MUSLIMS, EVEN SOME TERRORISTS
Policy Analysis by JB Williams
(Jan. 8, 2010) — So as not to offend any of his Muslim brethren who paid for his college education and much of his presidential campaign, Obama rejects “terror-profiling” the very common traits of Middle Eastern men most likely to travel with a bomb in their shorts in favor of the TSA treating everyone at an airport like a potential terrorist.
And although the intelligence community did its job, the fact is that it was Hillary Clinton’s State Department which sat on the knowledge that a Yemeni member of Al Qaeda was about to board a commercial flight for Detroit with a bomb in his underwear. Obama uses the Christmas Bomber opportunity to take another swipe at the CIA – a swipe that Leon Panetta was fast to rebuff.
Despite the fact that Abdulmutallab climbed aboard a US-bound plane at a foreign airport, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano sees placing 300 new imaging machines at US airports as the solution. Three hundred imaging machines at US airports would not have stopped Abdulmutallab, who didn’t climb aboard that plane at a US airport. But Janet’s agency is far more concerned with “potential domestic terrorists” (AKA those opposed to Obama’s Marxism) than folks like Abdulmutallab; hence, 300 new scanners for US airports.
Meanwhile, Eric Holder has assured the Fruit of the Loom bomber his day in a US criminal court, complete with US civil rights and a taxpayer-funded dream team of lawyers that will surely get his charges reduced to jay-walking before this circus is over.
The clear increase in potential terror attacks from “the religion of peace” has given no pause to Obama’s intentions to release his friends from Club Gitmo and bring them to US soil where US lawyers paid for by US taxpayers can make certain that America, the DOD and the CIA pay for their crimes against the terrorists who have allegedly been abused (water-boarded) during their “unconstitutional” detention.
But just in case you think that Obama isn’t tough on terror, just look at how he is going after “domestic terrorists” caught doing their job within the US Military. Military courts are fine for our soldiers, but not for terrorists, if your last name is Obama or your first name is Osama.
That’s because according to Janet Napolitano, American soldiers (AKA potential domestic terrorists) present a greater threat to the Marxist agenda under way in DC. Foreign terrorists actually help the agenda by keeping the average citizen focused on the foreign enemy so that they hardly notice the enemy within…
Those who might “resist” Obamunism are far more dangerous than those willing to help Obamunism by keeping the American people engaged in self-defense, while the people responsible for providing a common defense train their guns upon “resisters of the revolution.”
What a country these days…huh!
Not too long ago, a white paper was declassified which contains the following warnings:
“Al Qida (sic) is not some narrow, little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy. Rather, several of our regional policies need to address centrally the transnational challenge to the US and our interests posed by the Al Qida network.
Al Qida is the active, organized, major force that is using a distorted version of Islam as its vehicle to achieve two goals; 1) to drive the US out of countries from Morocco to Indonesia; 2) to replace moderate western regimes with extremist theocracies along the lines of the Taliban.”
This white paper was not written by the “warmongering” Bush administration to an incoming Obama administration. It was written on January 25, 2001 for the incoming Bush Administration, by none other than Clinton official, leftist anti-Bush hero, Richard A. Clarke.
Yet here we are in 2010, with an administration that refuses to recognize the very real fact that walking away from the “transnational” war on Islamic terror will not end the war on terror; it will only bring that war to our own planes and streets.
Clarke’s report went on to say: “Al Qida affects centrally our policies on Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asia, North Africa and the GCC. Leaders in Jordan and Saudi Arabia see Al Qida as a direct threat to them.”
Less than nine months after this report was written, 3000 American citizens died on September 11, 2001. Like it or not, the Bush administration’s national security adjustments made in the wake of 9/11/01 kept the nation safe from further attack through the end of their term in office.
Nine years later, under a new “terror-friendly” Obama regime, we find average American citizens having to risk life and limb to thwart terror attacks on US planes under an administration that is more concerned with anti-Obama resisters than well-known Islamic terrorists.
Treating American soldiers and Tea Party-goers like “enemies of the state,” while affording known enemies of the state common criminal benefits of the doubt, is no accident. Even Obama, Pelosi and Reid are not that ignorant of reality. Even common leftists know that turning the other cheek with Islamic terrorists will simply get more innocent civilians killed.
So, we are left to ponder what the real purpose of a pro-terror security plan is really all about – what purpose it serves – who benefits from a spineless US security policy which lets terrorists roam free while keeping a close eye on domestic resisters of the Obama regime?
Rather than making any assumptions myself, I leave the answer to this question up to you.
But one thing is certain: Obama’s policy decisions will get more American citizens killed, and when they do, Obama won’t be able to blame it on the Bush administration. It’s the Obama administration now and Obama will own the results of his policy decisions, all by himself.
Obama is a big boy playing a big boy’s game in a big boy world. Whatever happens from this moment forward, it is Obama’s legacy being written. Where’s Richard Clarke now?