You are here: Home / Archives for Osama Bin Laden

Obama’s Analysts: Oops! We Put Muslim Radicals In Charge Of Libya

September 30, 2011 by 36 Comments

obama oops1 Obama’s Analysts: Oops! We Put Muslim Radicals in Charge of Libya

Even as the Obama administration celebrates the killing of American-born al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki and his traitorous friend Samir Khan in Yemen, its analysts are beginning to admit their war by decree in Libya empowered Islamic extremists bent on exporting jihad throughout the region. Thanks to Obama’s policies, al-Qaeda-linked radicals may be pillaging Muammar Qaddafi’s stockpile of weapons and receiving shipments of contraband from overseas.

In the closest thing to an admission Obama administration figures lied us into war, Reuters reports:

During the half-year campaign by rebels to drive Muammar Gaddafi from power, U.S. and NATO officials downplayed fears that al Qaeda or other militants would infiltrate anti-Gaddafi forces or take advantage of disorder to establish footholds in Libya.

Since then, however, the assessment of top experts inside the U.S. government has sharpened.

Former CIA asset and Obama adviser Bruce Riedel summarizes, “There is a great deal of concern that the jihadi cadre now are going to be exporting their ideas and weapons toward the east and west.”

This author reported the cause of their alarm a month ago. The National Transitional Council (NTC), the body the United States now exclusively recognizes as the official government of Libya, elected Abdel Hakim Belhaj commander of the Tripoli Military Council in late August. Belhaj is the co-founder of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which the State Department designated a foreign terrorist organization in December 2004. The New York Times relates that LIFG members received “combat experience in Iraq or Afghanistan” — fighting the United States. Belhaj, who met Osama bin Laden twice, now commands 8,000 troops, Libya’s largest fighting force.

U.S. analysts, who covered up the links the “rebels” have to Islamic fundamentalists, now worry Belhaj and his LIFG warriors have raided Qaddafi’s arsenal, despoiling it of anti-aircraft weapons that could one day be turned against U.S. or NATO planes.

The radicals may not need Qaddafi’s weapons, as other nations in the area are reportedly replenishing their cache. Rebels in the city of Zintan intercepted a cargo shipment to Belhaj from the nation of Qatar, which Belhaj insisted contained food and milk. Those who opened it say it contained weapons. Taking note of the interference Mohamed Benrasali, a leading figure in the Libyan government, replied, “We are very sorry the Qataris have taken the decision to support Belhaj’s brigade. This will backfire on our Qatari friends.”

Despite Benrasali’s tough talk, one suspects the fire will aimed in his direction.

Qatar was influenced to support the rebels by Sheik Ali Salabi, a Libyan Islamic scholar who lives in the monarchy. The Washington Times states, “Mr. Salabi has close ties to Mr. Belhaj. The sheik’s brother, Ismail, is the commander of a powerful rebel brigade in eastern Libya.”

With Belhaj’s control of Libya’s strongest militia and the apparent backing of a foreign nation, the nation’s self-proclaimed “Islamists” are well-positioned to topple any provisional government and seize power by force. The current prime minister, Mahmoud Jibril, is under fire from all sides. Sheik Salabi has denounced the NTC’s leadership as “rabid secularists.” Even Benrasali said the rebels’ inability to form a permanent government is “testing our patience.”

Despite all the evidence, some American politicians have a different assessment. The story broke the same day a delegation of four Republican senators met with Libya’s (temporary) government to tell them they “inspired the world.” The quartet included Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mark Kirk — all confirmed RINOs — and the much-hyped Marco Rubio, whom the Beltway GOP establishment has anointed as the next vice presidential nominee. The senators stressed, as have European diplomats, that the new government must continue its cooperation with the U.S. war on terrorism. Although McCain said, “This is Libya’s revolution, not ours,” he instructed his hosts to ensure “that past wrongs do not become a license for future crimes, especially against minorities” — which, in fact, they already have.

Even if Libya’s leadership were not ideologically committed to the destruction of the West, it seems unlikely it would heed any further American entreaties. Two of the four senators who visited this week, McCain and Graham, met with Muammar Qaddafi and his son Muatassim on August 14, 2009. Sens. Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins joined them. All four assured Qaddafi his new relationship with the United States would be a long-lived affair and they would attempt to help him improve his military capabilities, especially getting new C130s. They requested that he continue to cooperate with the war on terrorism and allow the U.S. to build a more secure embassy.

Less than two years later, the same senators were the most outspoken in supporting Qaddafi’s ouster. McCain went on to blast his own party’s alleged “isolationism” for refusing to help Belhaj, et. al, conquer Tripoli.

No national leader would cooperate with “allies” like this. Libyans have every incentive to stand against the United States. We’ve given it to them.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , ,

Videos: Obama Lied About Troops On The Ground In Libya

September 14, 2011 by 40 Comments

This author has observed, “If the media wanted to conserve resources, they could simply fuse the words ‘The Obama administration lied’ to the opening line of each day’s edition and fill in the blank appropriately.” Today proved no exception. Despite President Barack Obama’s assurances that no ground troops would ever be sent to Libya, the Pentagon confirmed Monday that U.S. soldiers are on the ground.

Four servicemen landed in Tripoli over the weekend. The newly elected commander of the Tripoli Military Council, Abdel Hakim Belhaj (aka Abu Abdullah al-Sadiq), is an al-Qaeda asset and founder of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who twice met with Osama bin Laden. Belhaj has claimed U.S. agents tortured him for days, but he does “not want revenge.”

Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby refused to answer whether Obama would send additional troops to the region.

This contrasts with Obama’s pledge on March 18, as he launched his war-by-decree, when he stated, “The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya.” A few days later, Obama reaffirmed, “I said that America’s role would be limited, that we would not put ground troops into Libya…Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.”

White House officials have insisted this weekend’s deployment in no way constitutes a violation of Obama’s no-troops promise, because these soldiers are only assigned to determine whether it is safe for U.S. diplomats to return to the country. However, they are armed and may defend themselves if attacked.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland asserted, “When the president made his commitment to ‘no boots on ground’…obviously that had to do with entering into the fray between the Qaddafi forces and the Libyan freedom fighters” — many of whom are al-Qaeda members — “and that’s not what these guys are engaged in.”

In fact, it appears Obama broke his promise before he ever made it. CIA agents were on the ground in Libya before the United States engaged in hostilities kinetic actions in the six-month-long war, which he vowed would last “weeks, not months.” American intelligence operatives worked alongside British MI6 and French special forces.

The foreign reinforcements have proven unable to assure victory for the Libyan “rebels.” Despite repeatedly claiming they had Muammar Qaddafi surrounded or on the brink of surrender, as of this writing the Libyan leader remains free and at large.

Obama is reportedly considering breaking his campaign promise to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by his original deadline, as well.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Never Forget 9/11

September 9, 2011 by 3 Comments

by Susan Stamper Brown

9 111 Never Forget 9/11

Recently, I was reminded of the value of freedom while attending a military retirement ceremony in Washington, D.C. Driving down the hill after the ceremony, my soul was stirred as my eyes caught a glimpse of the late-summer sun reflecting across the sea of white-washed stones at the adjacent Arlington National Cemetery — and wondered what it is that defines a person who is willing to give his or her life in exchange for freedom.

As I wrote in an article, “Obama Standing on Bush’s Shoulders,” written just after Osama bin Laden’s death, it seems like only yesterday when the eyes of the world were fixed on television screens filled with ghastly scenes of fellow Americans forced to make the decision as to how they would die that dreadful September 11, 2001 morning. Some chose skull-splitting skyscraper-to-sidewalk jumps, while others chose to be charred-alive in a steel-melting inferno. On airplanes, some decided to sit in their seats and silently pray, while others shouted “Let’s roll,” and took matters into their own hands.

As the stench and smoke from human infirmaries colored the skies gray, a cloud of grief descended over the country — and America’s enemy celebrated. Pictures of Old Glory intermingled with homemade signs displaying the words “Never Forget” sprang up on street corners and front yards throughout America. And, for a brief moment, it appeared that the patriotism of yesteryear was awakened from its long slumber as Americans chose to cross racial, political and religious barriers to join hands and hearts to celebrate our commonality. The nasty partisan divide resulting from the 2000 presidential election seemed to be temporarily patched with the bandage of brotherhood, as our nation swallowed a bitter pill of truth: We were at war with Islamic extremists seeking to destroy our freedoms. These extremists strategically attacked when we were distracted and weak from political divisiveness.

Time seemed to stop for most Americans who found themselves caught up in grief. Nevertheless, the sun continued to rise and fall, and the seasons changed. We bandaged our wounds the best we could, and were forced to move forward, although it seemed inappropriate. Ten years-removed, and amidst wars on three fronts, war-weary Americans have fallen into a regimen of “normalcy” and have adapted to a necessary post-9/11 mentality.

Great strides have been taken to weaken our self-avowed enemy, but we are still at risk. Only months into President Obama’s presidency, Americans grew to understand that having an American president with Muslim heritage makes little difference to a terrorist. Attacks and attempts continue; just last week, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a five-page bulletin, warning of potential homeland al Qaeda attacks via small aircraft.

Nor does a president possessing a Middle-Eastern name improve America’s standing in the Middle East. A July 13, 2011 poll conducted in six Middle Eastern countries by Arab American Institute found Obama’s approval rating never got above 10 percent. Ninety-nine percent of Lebanese, 90 percent of Egyptians, 88 percent of Moroccans and 77 percent of Saudis believe Obama did not meet his 2009 Cairo speech expectations. The survey found Obama’s approval ratings lower than George W. Bush’s second term and lower than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s, with the exception of Saudi Arabia.

Be it war-weariness, human nature, the divisiveness of the current administration, or a little of each, patriotism has paled, and our unity, diminished. This writer included, many have forgotten who the real enemy is, and have forgotten to remember those who willingly pledged our freedom with their blood. We are eternally indebted to those who satisfied the yearning for freedom within their souls by running headlong into the face of death, realizing they would never fully taste the freedom for which they were dying. And, most certainly, in that moment of self-denial, their souls inhaled freedom in its purest form.

May we never forget.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

King Obama’s War Put Al-Qaeda-Linked Extremist In Charge Of Tripoli

September 3, 2011 by 4 Comments

Obama Car Libya Flag SC Flicker.com CC 5914760451 0281079446 z King Obama’s War Put Al Qaeda Linked Extremist in Charge of Tripoli

Barack Obama may not believe in fundamentalist Islam, but most of the people helped by his foreign policy do.

The most recent beneficiary of Obama’s “success” in Libya is a former CIA detainee with links to al-Qaeda. The National Transitional Council (NTC) — the governing body representing “the rebels” in Libya — elected Abdel Hakim Belhaj commander of the Tripoli Military Council last weekend. The council vested Belhaj, who also goes by the name Abu Abdullah al-Sadiq, with authority to keep order in the nation’s capital and to exercise command of 8,000 troops, the country’s largest fighting force. In a nation on the brink of collapse, with no organized army or political infrastructure, this is no small power.

The post rewarded his heroism in battle. The New York Times recounts how the east Libyan burst onto the scene, seemingly out of nowhere, personally leading a cadre of disciplined fighters in a raid on Muammar Qaddafi’s Bab al-Aziziya compound. However, his fighting men were not exactly strangers to warfare. Belhaj has ample experience coordinating and co-founding the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which the State Department designated a foreign terrorist organization in December 2004.

LIFG was the creation of the “Afghan” Libyans, who traveled to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets alongside fellow mujahideen including Osama bin Laden. After returning home, they waged a series of deadly attacks throughout the 1990s in an effort to topple the Qaddafi government. In the process, its members enjoyed ties with both al-Qaeda and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. By decade’s end, the organization was largely defeated and its leadership imprisoned. Yet in the last year, it has come roaring back to life.

Belhaj admits that he met Osama bin Laden twice, once in the 1980s in Afghanistan, and again in 1998, shortly after Osama launched his worldwide jihad against the United States. He presents both meetings as virtually accidental, insisting he had no sympathy for the man nor his global operation.

Despite his protests of innocence, U.S. intelligence took an interest in his activities after 9/11. This curiosity intensified after Qaddafi brokered an agreement with the United States to end his WMD program. Belhaj claims in 2004 he was detained in Kuala Lumpur, then sent via extraordinary rendition to Malaysia, where he says CIA agents tortured him for days. He asserts that after they determined that he was no immediate threat to the United States, the operatives turned him over to Qaddafi, who kept him in solitary confinement for six years.

In prison, he found an unlikely ally: Qaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, who offered to release LIFG members and give them generous federal benefits if they would write a tract condemning Islam’s theological justification for violence. In late 2009, LIFG members produced the 417-page book Corrective Studies, which abruptly reversed their position and labeled jihad a violation of Islam. They renamed LIFG the “Libyan Islamic Movement for Change” and renounced the use of violence to overthrow Libya’s government.

Many at the time questioned their sincerity. Some would insist Belhaj’s role directing the violent anti-Qaddafi revolution proves he lied about at least one of his beliefs — but not the New York Times, which slavishly quoted his self-defense. “The revolution started peacefully,” Belhaj claimed, “but the regime’s crackdown forced it to become violent.”

The Times also reproduced Belhaj’s insistence that LIFG “never had any link with al-Qaeda, and that could never be.”

Such coverage makes one wonder if the New York Times reads the New York Times. The newspaper of record reported in July that many LIFG members have “combat experience in Iraq or Afghanistan” — although it failed to mention whom it was they were fighting. In 2007 Ayman al-Zawahiri, then al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, announced LIFG had joined al-Qaeda and called on the group to topple Qaddafi. This news was apparently not fit to print.

Instead, the newspaper portrayed Belhaj as too big a man to hold a little thing like days of torture against the Great Satan. “I do not want revenge,” Belhaj said. He later contradicted himself somewhat, saying, “If one day there is a legal way, I would like to see my torturers brought to court.”

Could this be part of Obama’s rationale for supporting the rebels? Could he have hoped this story would create a means of prosecuting those responsible for America’s anti-terrorism policies following 9/11, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, perhaps before the International Criminal Court? The policy would have the added benefit of reversing the one clear benefit of the Iraq invasion, Libya’s forsaking of WMDs, and allow Obama to blame any subsequent “turn” toward al-Qaeda on George W. Bush.

Regardless of why Obama started another war to aid Islamic radicals, the official line is that democracy is just around the corner, and Jefferson is about to have his final triumph on the shores of Tripoli. An unnamed State Department official calmed fears of an Islamist takeover by telling the press, “The last few months, we’ve had the T.N.C. saying all the right things, and making the right moves.”

Presumably, that includes installing Belhaj as head of the nation’s security apparatus.

The new commander, too, states there is nothing to fear. He will fold his fighters into the official police or army, just as soon as the rebels win and establish one.

Although some question his background, Belhaj insists his LIFG “had a different agenda” than al-Qaeda; “global fighting was not our goal.”

LIFG only wanted to wage jihad inside Libya. Thanks to Barack Obama, it finally got its chance.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

VFW Snub Is Part Of Obama’s War On Veterans

August 30, 2011 by 8 Comments
President Obama golfing VFW Snub is Part of Obama’s War on Veterans

Obama will not address the annual VFW national convention. He has other places to be.

Although Muammar Qaddafi is still on the loose and no one knows who will replace him in Tripoli, multiple left-wing and “mainstream” media sources lament that President Obama is not getting enough credit for his “success” in Libya. But Obama is by far the worst offender in not giving credit where it is due. The president has refused to address the Veterans of Foreign Wars‘ annual convention, or to send a top-tier speaker in his place, for the first time since the organization’s founding.

This contemptuous low represents another regretful historic first of the Obama administration. But it is merely one front of Obama’s hostility toward the military — a lifelong obsession that includes everything from threatening to withhold veterans’ pensions, to launching pointless and unconstitutional wars, to denying them the wherewithal to succeed in their mission, to not assuring they have the opportunity to participate at the ballot box.

Obama to the Veterans: Sorry, It’s Not a Campaign Year

VFW National Commander Richard Eubank said, “It is an insult of the highest magnitude that for the first time in the history of the VFW, the White House has apparently decided that this great and iconic organization of combat veterans and all of its members are not worthy of its notice by not at least offering a first-tier speaker from the administration.”

The post has since disappeared from the VFW’s website, because it also criticized Texas governor Rick Perry for not attending the convention. Perry ultimately deigned to “adjust his schedule” and address the gathering.

An unnamed administration official told Fox News that Obama made “every effort” to send a top-tier speaker, but “in all instances, the VFW declined those offers.” But the speakers he offered were less than stellar. He attempted to dispatch such leading lights as United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, the Air Force secretary, the Air Force chief of staff, and the National Guard director. In the end, he sent no less a celebrity than W. Scott Gould, the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to address the gathering.

However, Obama was not always averse to stumping on the VFW’s platform. Candidate Obama had no trouble addressing the VFW’s 2008 convention in Orlando, just after John McCain spoke there. Obama used the opportunity to accuse milquetoast McCain of questioning his patriotism. (Just a month earlier, Obama had called George W. Bush “unpatriotic” for adding $4 trillion to the national debt in eight years, the same amount he has amassed in less than half the time.) “If we think that we can use the same partisan politics where we just challenge our opponent’s patriotism to win an election, then the American people will lose,” Obama said. “I will let no one question my love of this country.” The New York Times described the 2008 convention attendees’ response as “polite but not enthusiastic.”

Obama addressed the VFW again in 2009. He sent Vice President Joe Biden in 2010.

The media have dutifully reported that Barack Obama did not break a 112-convention-long tradition out of disrespect for veterans. Not. At. All. White House spokesman Adam Abrams explained, “The president receives many speaking requests throughout the year, but he is unable to meet them all.” Abrams added, “The president and his administration continue to have deep respect and appreciation for our service members and veterans, and this can be clearly seen in his administration’s policies and actions.”

Obama’s absence from the VFW convention perfectly symbolizes how dismissive his policies have been of veterans’ concerns.

Obama’s War Against Veterans

Despite his protests that he adores the military, Obama has consistently threatened veterans’ benefits and military pay, jeopardized the functioning of the armed forces, and failed to secure the right of overseas soldiers to vote.

The president made not a whimper when Senate Democrats held military funding hostage last year in an unsuccessful attempt to pass the DREAM Act. When the newly elected Republican Congress refused to acquiesce to his debt ceiling demands, Obama threatened to hold up veterans’ pensions. If the new “Super Congress” fails to agree on a deficit reduction plan, the military faces a minimum of $600 million in mandatory spending cuts.

Although the vast majority of enlisted men and women, past and present, oppose open homosexuality in the armed services, Obama made the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” the cornerstone of his military policy. The Obama administration sabotaged its own “defense” of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Immediately upon DADT’s repeal, Obama approved a program of values-bending re-education, instructing soldiers in the deadliest regions of Afghanistan, “If a Marine spots two men in his battalion kissing off-duty at a shopping mall, he should react as if he were seeing a man and woman.” The policy makes no exemption for conscience based on religious convictions.

As commander-in-chief, he has forced the troops to continue nation-building in Afghanistan but refused to send the number of soldiers Gen. Stanley McChrystal deemed necessary lest we risk failure. The New York Times reported Obama denied the general’s request out of “sticker shock, watching his domestic agenda vanishing in front of him.”

Obama has undermined the very freedoms our men are fighting to protect by violating the Constitution’s strictures in launching an unauthorized war in Libya.

In the interest of full disclosure, this author went to college in large part thanks to a scholarship from the VFW. Having spoken at countless VFW halls and met their members — who are some of the best people to grace this earth — they say without fail that their fondest hope is that someday their organization will cease to exist. Obama, literally singlehandedly, frustrated that hope.

Despite his antipathy to the military, the personal-pronoun president has not shied away from stealing credit for their actions. His supporters shill about his “success” in Libya, arguing Obama deserves credit for the soldiers’ prowess in dragging the inept rebels to a teetering, kinda-sorta victory. It was a repeat of the president’s performance after Navy SEALs executed a plan to assassinate Osama bin Laden, made possible by the policies of Obama’s predecessor. After the military’s selflessness and courage got America’s most wanted criminal, Obama’s minions began to spin that he made a “courageous” decision (after dithering for 16 hours), and this should seal his re-election.

But are the soldiers not the ones who deserve the most credit for the wars our politicians start? Are they not the ones who bear the scars of the wars politicians since 1945 seem incapable of ending militarily? And do they not, at a minimum, deserve the peace of mind that comes from knowing their president will not hold up their pension checks as a political stunt or allow state officials’ incompetence to deny them the ability to vote?

Disenfranchisement: An Obama Strategy?

Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr. gave a stirring address to the Heritage Foundation earlier this month. “What could be more important than ensuring that those individuals who are charged with defending our democracy are able to participate in it?” he asked. “I’m here today because, although retired from the military, it is difficult to stand on the sidelines when our service members are not being afforded one of their most basic rights as U.S. citizens.”

In 2008, more than 17,000 active military men and women were disenfranchised. In many cases, ballots did not reach them in time, or other clerical errors prevented their votes from being counted. To remedy this, Congress passed the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act in October 2009, requiring states to send overseas ballots at least 45 days before any federal election. However, the admiral noted:

[A]lmost two years after the enactment of the MOVE Act, there are 10 states that have not changed their laws to fully implement this federal requirement. These states are Rhode Island, Louisiana, Alaska, New York, Wisconsin, Georgia, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Maryland, Nebraska, and the District of Columbia. New York is still under a federal court consent decree, because even after they received a waiver from the Department of Defense, they still failed to get the ballots out by even the later date permitted by the department.

A study released by the Overseas Vote Foundation found one-third of all overseas voters were disenfranchised in 2010. A report from the Military Voter Protection Project, which focused more narrowly on military voters, found 22 percent of overseas voters who asked for a ballot by FAX or e-mail did not receive one. A full 16.5 percent of those who received ballots received them too late to be counted. Even receiving a ballot is no guarantee one will be able to vote. The Overseas Vote Foundation reported that hundreds of people received an incorrect ballot or a ballot marked “sample,” while others did not receive a secrecy envelope for return post. While Obama has been hyperactive on behalf of expanding the voting rolls of his core constituencies, it remains to be seen if the Justice Department will assure the MOVE Act is fully implemented before the 2012 presidential election.

In case one is puzzled by Obama’s inaction, veterans and military voters traditionally favor Republicans by a 60-40 margin.

During his speech at Heritage Admiral Giambastiani said these voiceless service members “are taking the same oath that I took: to support and defend our Constitution.” Barack Obama took the same oath, but he seems more interested in defending the interests of the Democratic base than the liberties of those who fight to secure them.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

China Examines U.S. Helicopter, Because Obama Trusts Pakistan

August 16, 2011 by Leave a Comment

by Jim Emerson

Red China flag SC China Examines U.S. Helicopter, Because Obama Trusts Pakistan

Last May I wrote the Pakistanis cannot be trusted. I hate being right about Pakistan.

The Pakistani government views China as a better ally than the unstable United States under Barack Obama, and their relationship with us has deteriorated since the killing of Osama bin Laden.  They were upset about not being allowed to warn the al-Qaeda leader about the planned raid on his compound  as they clearly did in 1998, before the retaliatory cruise missile attacks for the U.S. embassy attacks in Africa.

Latest Episode

During the raid that killed bin Laden, the United States lost a stealth helicopter modeled after the MH-60 Blackhawk.  Its exterior was modified to reduce its radar signature, and its engines and blades were developed to reduce noise, making this platform a perfect infiltration machine.  Unfortunately, during its landing the helicopter’s tail struck a fence, forcing it to crash. With no chance of carrying the ship’s remaining secrets away, explosives were used to render the wreckage components useless.

Embarrassed and angry at not being informed of the raid beforehand, the Pakistanis threatened to grant China access to the remains of the helicopter. Despite the Obama administration’s request not to do so, they did anyway.   As reported by the Financial Times, an anonymous U.S. Intelligence Official said, “The U.S. now has information that Pakistan, particularly the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) gave access to the Chinese military to the downed helicopter in Abbottabad.”

The administration thought they had won a diplomatic victory when Sen. John Kerry went to Pakistan to grovel before the Pakistanis, begging to get the helicopter back.  It was reported that the highly photographed tail portion was sent back, but as always, it’s difficult to believe Barack Obama about anything. There was enough left behind to sell to the highest bidder.

Now we know the Chinese have seen the helicopter and have paint samples and components for its stealth program. It is likely that Pakistan, as a reliable weapons customer of the Chinese, will also benefit from this treachery. Beside the shape of the airframe, the paint is an important contributor to its stealth ability.

The United States only provides $2.7 Billion a year in aid and token arms deals with Pakistan and we provide little or nothing for its infrastructure and trade.   China, on the other hand, has a robust trade with Pakistan worth over 9 Billion a year and is the Muslim country’s prime arms supplier. Pakistan considers the Chinese a better friend and ally than the America.

The Pakistanis can afford to disregard Obama’s requests because they don’t need us.  Nevertheless, we need them because they have nukes.

Obama’s decision to abandon President Bush’s no nonsense approach of “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists” approach and showing weakness to our enemies and allies has put our future in peril.

Pakistan took bids on our parts and technology and China won.

I hate being right about this. I wish Obama didn’t trust Pakistan, but he apparently does.

To contact your Congressional representative use this link: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

To read more use these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44137555/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/09700746-c681-11e0-bb50-00144feabdc0.html

Photo Credit: johntrathome Creative Commons

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

House Democrats, Media Are Pressing Obama Toward Impeachment

July 29, 2011 by 12 Comments

Historians agree empires and presidencies die from imperial overreach. Now Barack Obama’s closest allies in the Democratic Party, the far-Left, and the media are encouraging him to take actions that will lead inexorably to his impeachment. The president’s hubris and lawlessness seem destined to collide with Washington’s tense polemical atmosphere in a showdown that will put his presidency on the chopping block.

The leaders of the House Democratic Caucus this week urged the president to usurp Congressional authority and order the government to continue borrowing money, (mis)using the 14th Amendment. Caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut called the provision “the fail-safe option” to assure Republicans do not hold the American people hostage.” Larson added House Democrats are “prepared to stand behind” Obama all the way.

Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina played the race card in justifying his call for an executive power grab:

I was joking to my staff the other day: “Tell me the bill number for the Emancipation Proclamation.” It was an executive order. We integrated the armed services by executive order. We integrated the public schools by executive order. Sometimes executives must order that things get done…If the president gets up to August 2 without a piece of legislation, he should not allow this country to go into default. He should sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment and send that to all the governmental agencies for us to continue to pay our bills.

This, Clyburn said, would “calm to the American people.”

He added, almost as an afterthought, “discussion about the legality of that can continue.”

Xavier Becerra, D-CA, went further. He said Obama had to raise the debt ceiling “just as the president took out Osama bin Laden in a way that some presidents wouldn’t have done it.” Thus, preserving big government spending from Republicans takes on the same moral urgency as saving America from al-Qaeda. Becerra sidestepped the legal issue altogether, saying, “The Republicans through their failure have given you license to do whatever it takes.”

The press conference was the most assertive lobbying for this dangerous course of action, which is enjoying increasingly broad support in both houses of Congress. Earlier this week Connecticut’s Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who defeated wrestling executive Linda McMahon in 2010, said the measure “might be something that arguably could be done in the face of genuine crisis, in the face of catastrophe.”

Other prominent party leaders have lent their rhetorical support, however dissembling. Bill Clinton lied that, if were he ever faced with an imminent government shutdown, he would act unilaterally “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me.” (What was this, “Tweet to my 49-year-old self”?)

Ironically, as these Congressmen encouraged Obama to take unprecedented (and unconstitutional) power over the nation’s purse, Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz accused House Republicans of trying to impose a “dictatorship.”

The Democrats’ allies in the media have done their share to keep talk of this political crime alive. The Sunday New York Times ran an extended analysis, which had been taken off the table.

Predictably, the left-wing fringe has pushed Obama to sink the Great Satan’s economy by any means necessary. Robert Kuttner took to Politico Thursday to say, “Bring on the 14th Amendment.” Like Clyburn, he prodded “Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment and announce that Washington will make good on its debt while Republicans and Democrats continue to negotiate the budget” — and the legality of his actions. Kuttner is no mere blogger. The editor of The American Prospect, has longstanding ties to Barack Obama and the American socialist movement. He has written numerous pamphlets for the Democratic Socialists of America, which in turn describes him as a “socialist.” He is a “distinguished senior fellow” at the left-wing institute Demos, which was organized in 1999-2000 with the help of one Barack Hussein Obama. Kuttner is also one of the founding member of the George Soros-funded Campaign for America’s Future, whose “Take Back America” conference Obama has addressed.

Congress brings pressure from a lateral branch of government; Kuttner presses from the Astroturf Left “below”; and the media continue to provide popular cover among the segment of the population at large that still reads this fish wrap.

These pleas to assume royal powers over the treasury have reached the president’s itching ears. Obama, who seemed to back down after Rep. Tim Scott, R-SC, threatened impeachment, is testing the waters once again. The president appeared to rule out use of the 14th amendment last Friday, when he told a town hall meeting at the University of Maryland the concept was “not a winning argument.” Spokesman Jay Carney went further on Tuesday, rightly stating “only Congress has the legal authority to extend that borrowing authority. That’s our position.”

But Carney changed his tune on MSNBC two days later, saying if Congress does not agree to Obama’s “grand bargain,” then “we have no other alternative, we have to take action to ensure that we do not default, and we have to take action to reduce our deficit.”

Mr. Carney would do well to remember Newton’s third law of motion: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” That reaction will be Barack Obama’s impeachment.

Tea Party leader Michele Bachmann has said impeachment would follow “within seconds” of such a move. When asked about the possibility of the president borrowing federal funds on his own authority, Bachmann stated it “would be clearly unconstitutional, because if that were so Article I of the Constitution would be irrelevant.”

If he had the power to do that, he would effectively be a dictator. There would be no reason for Congress to even come into Washington, D.C. He would be making the spending decisions. He would be making the taxing decisions. Clearly, that’s unconstitutional. It’s never happened before. It will not happen now. If it happened, there would be a call for the president’s impeachment within seconds. And it’s not going to happen. (Emphasis added.)

Since the renewed push to grant President Obama fascistic debt ceiling powers, Rep. Steve King has said he would support impeachment, as well. In addition to Tim Scott, Texas Congressman Pete Olson confirmed to ThinkProgress.org that Scott “is not a lonely voice” among House Republicans.

The message from (some) Congressional leaders is clear: Cross this line, and we will defeat Joe Biden in the 2012 election.

Faced with such uncharacteristic backbone, the media have tried to run interference, coaxing, pleading, soothing, and assuring the president they, too, are “prepared to stand behind” him. Adam Liptak wrote in his aforementioned NYT piece:

Another possible reaction to unilateral action from Mr. Obama is impeachment. Professor [Laurence] Tribe [of Harvard] said that was “not politically a very plausible scenario.”

Professor [Sanford] Levinson [of the University of Texas] was less certain. Impeachment by the House of Representatives “seems to me quite likely.” But, he added, “it is also literally unimaginable that the Senate would convict.”

The Times added, “The meaning of the Constitution, these professors say, is in the end what the public believes it to be.”

CNN gave Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin a forum to weigh in on 3 Ways Obama Could Bypass Congress. (This author cannot remember the network posting a commentary during the Bush administration on, say, “How GWB Could Sidestep Congress to Cut Abortion Funding.” Curious that.) Balkin balked:

An angry Congress may respond by impeaching the president. However, if the president’s actions end the government shutdown, stabilize the markets and prevent an economic catastrophe, this reduces the chances that he will be impeached by the House. (After all, he saved the country.) Perhaps more important, the chances that he will be convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, which has a Democratic majority, are virtually zero.

But wait – there’s more! Like the throngs of grateful Iraqis, the American people will greet Obama as a liberator and hero:

The public may regard an impeachment trial as a waste of time, since the ultimate result is clear. In addition, the president will point to the shutdown and the impeachment when he runs against his political opponents in the 2012 election, arguing that they did nothing to save the country from calamity while he has risked impeachment to protect the republic.

Translation: Just do it!

The confluence of Democratic politicians, socialists, and the mainstream media is hardly new, but they are using their diminishing political capital to push Obama onto a path that will lead to his impeachment. Democrats will fall in line; elite spinmeisters will demonize Republicans more than usual; and the extreme Left will step up its role as “bad-cop” in a concerted effort to position Obama as a centrist. But there is one salient fact that is lost on no one outside the Beltway: Obama is not a centrist. He is an ideologically polarized spendthrift whose superficial charm and scripted speaking ability vaulted him well beyond his competence. And as he soared higher, America sank lower, until it reached its present low ebb. The American people are sick of him. They are, to use his phrase, “bone tired” of nine percent unemployment, “necessarily” skyrocketing food and gasoline prices, trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see to bail out Obama’s political allies — and speeches dripping with blame-shifting, arrogance, and condescension that tell them how grateful they should be for his brilliant leadership. They want this movie to end, and impeachment is as good a way as any. Does he really want a parliamentary-style referendum on his politics at 31 months in?

Yet as Obama heads toward his own Little Big Horn, his closest allies are spurring on the horses and crying full speed ahead.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Time To Fire Eric Holder

June 24, 2011 by Leave a Comment

by Susan Stamper Brown

Eric Holder 11 SC Time to Fire Eric Holder

During a recent speech at the American Constitution Society (ACS), United States Attorney General Eric Holder lauded our American civilian court system as “our most effective terror-fighting weapon.” Holder’s address, along with his whole attorney general career, reflects a flawed ideology that believes wrapping enemy combatants in the American flag will somehow steer them towards full disclosure.

We are fooling ourselves to believe our enemies aren’t smart enough to use habeas corpus against us — which the Constitution does not extend to non-citizens held outside U.S. boundaries. While the good cop routine might work on some of the more impressionable, the determined fanatics will take advantage of the situation. Sometimes you need a “Jack Bauer” to intervene to make these people sweat.

Holder’s implied moral high ground originates from the assumption that captured enemy combatants will be mistreated – unless they are blanketed by the security of our Constitution. Holder fails to recognize that our military is bound by the same Constitution, as well as the Geneva Convention.

The last time I checked, those who strayed away from their obligations to constitutional rule of law were duly convicted of crimes. Their actions, along with those of Attorney General Holder, do nothing but undermine the efforts of so many charged with keeping the rest of us safe from the criminals they imprison.

A lack of confidence in the military tribunal system seems to pervade the Justice Department under Holder as service members assigned to Guantanamo Bay do their duty honorably and faithfully, every day.

Case in point is the recent indictment of the two alleged terrorists, Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, who made their way to Kentucky after they were mistakenly granted refugee status in 2009 – despite being involved in insurgency activities against American troops, in Iraq.

Last month they were indicted for allegedly providing support to al-Qaeda in Iraq, from Kentucky. Alwan was charged with conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction to kill U.S. nationals and attempting to provide material support for terrorists. Hammadi was charged with conspiracy to transfer and possess weapons and with attempting to provide material support to terrorists.

An ABC News May 31, 2011, report disclosed that Alwan told a FBI informant that his “lunch and dinner would be an American soldier” and found that his fingerprints “matched an unexploded IED that U.S. troops recovered” in Iraq in 2005. Regardless, AG Holder believes these quasi “citizens” should be afforded Constitutional rights rather than having their refugee status revoked and be given a one way ticket to Cuba.

Meanwhile, you can’t throw a rock without hitting someone who thinks the prisoners at Guantanamo spend every day within an inch of their lives, existing in some hellish, Abu Ghraib nightmare.

In reality, Gitmo detainees have quite the gig. Gitmo is a state-of-the-art facility with a $12 million courtroom located on a tropical island where balmy breezes blow. Detainees receive first class medical and dental care, educational opportunities, outdoor recreation, have access to satellite television stations, balanced meals, and have hordes of civil rights lawyers at their disposal.

It should be noted that actionable information was gathered from Gitmo that aided in Osama bin Laden’s capture, and whether we like it or not, Gitmo is a necessary evil that was built to protect American citizens from the evil ones who reside there.

Civil rights groups whine about abuse concerns for the detainees, yet sit in silence when the real abuse is suffered by our own military – at the hands of the detainees. Former US Marine and Department of Defense contractor Rajai Hakki described the abuse taking place at Gitmo in a May 31, 2011, Huffington Post article, “The Other Side of Guantanamo.” Hakki describes the horror of guards having “urine and feces thrown in their faces,” others being bitten and spat upon, and black guards were recipients of “racist and demeaning” words. Hakki also witnessed detainees injuring themselves in order to make false torture claims.

At some point, Attorney General Holder must be held liable for decisions he’s made that favor America’s enemies over American citizens. His resignation would be a reasonable step in that direction.

Photo Credit: ryanjreilly Creative Commons

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

Obama’s Top Dog: Pat Robertson Is Like Osama Bin Laden

June 2, 2011 by 6 Comments

Pat Robertson 700 club official photo Obamas top dog: Pat Robertson is like Osama bin Laden

President Obama’s faith adviser, Eboo Patel, likened television evangelist Pat Robertson to Osama bin Laden, calling both “totalitarians” who worked collectively against coexistence.

The statements by Patel mark the latest in a series of controversial remarks by the faith adviser to be reported by WND, including comments against the U.S. and Christianity.

In February 2010, Obama named Patel to his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Patel, a Muslim activist, is the founder and executive director of Chicago-based Interfaith Youth Core, which says it promotes pluralism by teaming people of different faiths on service projects.

In his 2007 book, “Acts of Faith: The Story of an American Muslim, the Struggle for the Soul of a Generation,” reviewed by WND, Patel compared Robertson to the now late al-Qaida chief.

Read More at WND By Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily

Filed Under: News From The Web Tagged With:

Federal Employees Say Inept Obama Officials Politicize Their Agencies

June 1, 2011 by 3 Comments

 

Barack Obama’s political appointees are inept, incapable, and needlessly politicize the basic functions of whole segments of the federal government. That is not the assessment of firebrand conservatives but the result of a recent survey of high-placed career federal employees.

The survey, conducted by the Government Business Council, polled 148 Senior Executive Service members. These federal managers ranked Obama’s political appointees at only 2.0, down from the 2.3 rating enjoyed by the Clinton and Bush administrations. At least 10 percent more managers gave Obama’s appointees a D or F than failed Bush or Clinton’s teams. National Journal reports 20 percent gave such low marks to Clinton/Bush, as opposed to “more than 30 percent” for Obama.

More damning than the dry statistical data are the descriptions of federal employees of Obama’s team. According to one manager the political appointees are far more involved in day-to-day affairs, but “the effectiveness, skill and knowledge has dramatically decreased” since January 2009. Some said Obama’s appointees attempt to “break organizations.” One said the administration’s overseers “have a divide-and-conquer strategy, and there are way too many industry fingers allowed in decision-making.” Another said this led to “politicization of normal agency functions.”

The survey comes on the heels of remarks by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-MI, who said CIA employees have a strong current of “dissent and dislike,” because of the administration’s decision to have Eric Holder investigate CIA interrogators.

Hoekstra apparently did not touch upon it, but members of The Agency may also resent the fact that its members obtained the information that led authorities to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden only to have the commander-in-chief sit on the information for months, set a date for a decision, dither an additional 16 hours, hit the golf links as Navy SEALs pulled off the perilous mission, then claim credit for the entire operation on national television – using the address to shill against the enhanced interrogation techniques that made the mission possible in the first place.

Minor things like this tend to grate on employees.

The ranking of career federal employees is usually of little interest to thinking people. The professional bureaucrats, protected by public sector unions, know they are a power unto themselves. They often craft their own policy by waiting out an unfriendly president, perhaps even a two-term president, because they will still be at the cabinet’s controls when the political leadership is long gone. They are particularly hostile to budget-cutters whose frugality threatens their way of life. As they are represented by unions such as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), they tend to vote Democratic.

This survey is significant, because none of these criteria apply to the Obama administration.

Obama proposed a two-year freeze on federal salaries last November and a general hiring moratorium only after adding more than 27,000 new, full-time, non-seasonal employees to the federal payroll during his first two years in office and extending some benefits to same-sex “partners” of federal workers. He increased federal pay as the private sector tightened its belt, to the point that more than 77,000 federal workers now make more money than the governors of the states where they work. Over the last two years, the number of federally owned limousines has increased 73 percent. Obama can hardly be accused of being insufficiently attentive to growing the public sector.

That means if federal employees are unhappy with Obama officials, it is because the political leadership is heavy-handed, corrupt, and inept.

There is no doubt the Obama administration represents the apogee of politicizing the government’s most basic functions. The Associated Press reported earlier this year when federal officials received Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, “Career employees were ordered to provide political staff with information about the people who asked for records — such as where they lived and whether they were private citizens or reporters — and about the organizations where they worked.” Conservatives making FOIA requests have waited as long as six months or received no response whatever, while liberals received prompt responses. Rep. Darrell Issa accused the Obama administration of punishing Catherine Papoi, a whistleblower who accused the Department of Homeland Security of “hundreds” of cases of illegal stonewalling.  Although the Obama administration is withholding documents about Elena Kagan’s role in defending ObamaCare, evidence has emerged that suggests her role as Solicitor General constitutes a conflict of interest that demands her recusal.

Perhaps more obvious is the pressure to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, when two Panthers threatened white voters in Philadelphia with nightsticks. Obama’s Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez may have perjured himself when he told the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights the dismissal constituted “a case of career people disagreeing with career people.” An investigation from Judicial Watch subsequently proved political appointees Steve Rosenbaum and Sam Hirsch were deeply involved in the process. Hirsch has a long history of opposing anti-voter fraud measures.  http://floydreports.com/impeachable-offense-possible-perjury-in-black-panther-case/ Eric Holder’s DoJ has dug in, the Civil Rights Commission has been reshuffled, and nothing is being done on this front.

This author was among the first to Obama has proven a willingness to use federal regulations, from executive orders to departmental rules, to advance a far-Left, anti-family agenda. This hampers not only the good operation of the department but the good of the nation.

 

http://floydreports.com/obama’s-rule-by-decree-to-begin-in-2011/

http://floydreports.com/the-agenda-revealed-how-obama-will-rule-by-executive-order-in-2011

http://floydreports.com/politico-com-encourages-obama-to-rule-by-executive-order

http://floydreports.com/conservatives-discover-obamas-fascism-but-not-what-to-do-about-it

http://floydreports.com/obama-uses-federal-regulation-to-redefine-the-family

http://floydreports.com/sex-change-you-can-believe-in-obama-enacts-transgender-policies-by-executive-fiat

http://floydreports.com/no-time-for-sideshows-obama-holds-first-ever-transgender-conference

Many of those appointed to carry his water have no practical experience leading employees. Their primary background has been as political extremists. Others must remain loyal to the president – who has virtually no experience in anything except delivering speeches, belittling his political opponents, and abusing power.

Surveys such as this prove it is not merely conservatives or extremists who recognize how far our country has declined in two short years.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,