Tag Archives: al-Qaeda

Winning ‘Hearts and Minds’ with Obama and Geraldo

Heart-and-BrainOriginally posted at American Thinker

Recently, two well-known public figures made massively ludicrous comments, both of which laid bare the amazing inconsistency of how liberals think. The first of the two remarks issued forth from the mouth of President Obama, who, while on a visit to the Pentagon, shared deep thoughts about a battle the world is currently in the process of losing.

Here’s some of what Mr. Obama had to say:

Ultimately, in order … to defeat terrorist groups like ISIL and al Qaeda it’s going to also require us to discredit their ideology [and] the twisted thinking that draws vulnerable people into their ranks[.] … Ideologies are not defeated with guns; they’re defeated by better ideas [and] a more attractive and more compelling vision.

Obviously, misguided mega-narcissist Barack believes that with “heart and mind”-altering techniques, the threat from ISIS, whose goal is to bring to pass a 1,300-year-old apocalyptic prophecy, will ultimately be neutralized.

And trust me – no one is going to convince this dude otherwise.

One would think that if the president were working on a generational “hearts and minds” campaign, somewhere along the line he would have had his own “heart and mind” changed about at least one of his deeply held yet delusional left-wing beliefs. Instead, unbending Barack is notorious for digging in, doubling down, and being virtually immovable when it comes to having his “heart and mind” changed about the nonsensical philosophies he ardently clings to.

And while winning “hearts and minds” is important, Obama is concurrently engaged in conveying messages about the issues he, like ISIS, is religiously devoted to.

Case in point: within the body of his Pentagon speech, after discussing winning “hearts and minds,” Obama exhibited his usual dogged determination to placate Muslim-American sensibilities. So rather than laying out plans to conquer ISIS, the president made sure to insert a goodly amount of commentary wherein he alluded to right-wing extremism and placed Americans on a par with terrorists.

Then, proving again that Obama’s “twisted thinking” will never change, the president made mention of the shooting in Charleston.

By infusing a speech about “winning hearts and minds” with references to racism and xenophobia in America, and by insisting on sticking his finger into festering wounds rather than winning people over, the guy with the better ideas accomplished the opposite.

Nonetheless, a poised and self-assured Obama undoubtedly feels that he alone possesses the verbal skills necessary to morally convince ISIS that beheading infidels is “twisted thinking.” The problem is that the one doing the moralizing seems to have forgotten that he supports the slaughter of 4,000 unborn babies a day, and does so with the same religious fervor as ISIS hacking and burning their way through Syria and Iraq.

In other words, unless the plan is to replace one bad idea with another, how in God’s name is a “twisted thinker” like abortion advocate Obama, of all people, going to discredit a perverted line of thought that involves cutting out beating hearts and detaching heads?

Moreover, this is a president whose “more attractive and more compelling vision” includes a virtually open border that gives Muslim extremists easy access to massacre members of the community that he celebrated by lighting up the White House in rainbow colors in honor of gay pride.

And Barack Obama feels he’s qualified to pontificate to ISIS about better ideas?

Never mind the fact that the “heart and mind” of America’s Grand Progressive Philosopher shall not be moved when it comes to things such as “sharing the wealth,” climate change, and the “fundamental transformation” of America. Not to mention a multitude of lawless endeavors to institute undemocratic initiatives that include the ever-unpopular Obamacare, the forcible diversification of America’s suburban neighborhoods, and Obama’s ongoing attempts to hamstring the First and Second Amendments.

Moreover, what’s apparent here is that this president doesn’t grasp the concept that by his own rigid adherence to liberal ideology, he proves that changing “hearts and minds” is an approach bound to fail. After all, if a better idea were all that is needed to eradicate toxic belief systems, liberalism would already be long forgotten. But it’s not.

Speaking of the blight of liberal thought, there’s the other half of the dumb-and-dumber duo of liberal contradiction: Fox News senior correspondent Geraldo Rivera.

Typically, Geraldo Rivera can be found physically assuming a 90-degree angle in gale-force winds or donning riot gear while being lowered by helicopter to interview thugs who assault police officers with bricks.

In addition to being Fox’s man on the scene, Rivera is also notorious for offering the contrarian view to all things conservative. That’s what the senior correspondent did in the wake of Kathryn Steinle’s murder when Sean Hannity hosted the grieving parents of three victims also murdered by illegal immigrants.

After hearing that two died in drunk driving accidents and one was shot in the head while sitting at a stoplight, Geraldo, whose “heart and mind” position is just as dogmatic as Obama’s, persisted in defending illegal immigration.

World-class debater Geraldo argued that if we “put up a wall 100 miles high people like this murderer in San Francisco will get a 100 mile [and] one foot fence to climb it.” Geraldo asserted that determined Mexican criminals would always find a way to circumvent a border wall.

Wait! Doesn’t Geraldo also maintain that gun control would prevent determined criminals from gaining access to guns? Much like “heart and mind”-winner Barack Obama, Geraldo’s position on a border wall contradicts his argument about guns.

So, notwithstanding Geraldo’s self-negating points of view concerning guns and borders, without a wall to keep criminal cretins out, the determined will just continue to cross the border and, once on the American side, will continue to kill innocent people with illegal guns.

As for the obstinate occupier of the White House, when not busy stirring up trouble inside America, the winner of “hearts and minds” is determined to advance his doomed mission to deter ISIS from crucifying and beheading their way to world domination.

Could Benghazi have been a Bergdahl Gambit that Went South?

indexOriginally posted at American Thinker

President Obama has been trying to close Gitmo for years, which means finding a way – any way – to free the terrorists from that prison.  Regrettably for Obama, try as he might, he has been unable to obtain Congressional approval to release Gitmo detainees back onto the battlefield to recommence the murder, mayhem, and destruction.

Thus far, the United States Congress thinks it is in the best interest of the American people to keep highly dangerous Taliban fighters locked up for as long as possible.  Barack “I won” Obama thinks otherwise.

That’s why founding member of the Taliban Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa, who had close ties with Osama bin Laden, and Mohammad Nabi Omari, member of a joint al-Qaeda/Taliban cell and called “one of the most significant former Taliban leaders detained,” along with deputy chief of Taliban intelligence Abdul Haq Wasiq are now roaming free on the streets of Qatar.

Joining that trio are Mohammad Fazi, thought to be the Taliban’s “army chief of staff,” and senior military commander Mullah Norullah Noori, both of whom were present when CIA paramilitary officer Johnny Micheal Spann was killed during the 2001 Mazar-e Sharif prison riot.

All five are classified as a “high risk” to the United States. That’s why, based on those credentials, it’s easy to see why Congress had been reluctant to make a deal with the devil that is the Taliban.

But at this juncture none of that matters, because thanks to Barack Obama’s majestic magnanimity, five jihadists are now free to wage war again on Americans worldwide.

In the past, Barack Obama has repeatedly proven that he believes he is above the law, which is why he took the Gitmo matter into his own hands and circumvented the rule requiring him to notify Congress 30 days prior for approval before releasing prisoners.  By ignoring the National Defense Authorization Act that he himself signed into law, the “rogue” president belittled Congress and again showed total disrespect for the authority of the U.S. Constitution.

What’s distressing is that in this case the commander-in-chief found a man who may possibly be a traitor to assist in his clandestine endeavor to accomplish what Congressional obstacles had thus far prevented.  That assistant was Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was allegedly fed up with being identified as an American and defending America’s interests in Afghanistan.

From the looks of things, Bergdahl may have been attracted to the Taliban even before he walked off his base.  Yet Barack Obama was willing to portray a deserter and possible traitor as an honorable POW and use that as cover to spring five mass-murdering Taliban operatives from Gitmo.

This Bergdahl “rescue” is such a tangle of provable lies it must inspire a certain amount of conjecture, such as: Could the president’s desire to free Gitmo prisoners explain what went down 20 months ago in Benghazi?

Sorry to have to say it, but with such a conniving, deceitful administration, if a Taliban sympathizer/Army deserter was used as the bargaining chip to free five high-level Taliban fighters, is it that farfetched to imagine that the kidnapping of an American ambassador presented the president with the perfect opportunity to swap either the Gitmo Five or some other equally dangerous individual(s)?

Moreover, after observing the president’s dishonesty in the Bergdahl affair, it’s not that much of a stretch to believe that if Obama couldn’t get Congress to agree to swap Bergdahl in early 2012, he might have manipulated the volatile Benghazi situation in hopes that a kidnapped American diplomat would eliminate Congressional objections to a high-level prisoner swap.

If the theory is accurate and Obama calculated to delay trying to save Stevens with the goal of a hostage swap, how could things have gone so terribly wrong?

Granted, dealing with terrorists is a risky endeavor to undertake, regardless of the circumstances. However, the president has proven repeatedly that forethought is not one of his strong suits.  Thus, it probably never occurred to Obama that when working with jihadists the effort could backfire with catastrophic results.

Guesswork aside, what is certain is that according to former regional security officer Eric Nordstrom, after repeated requests for additional security were denied, he was so frustrated in his efforts to protect the American ambassador he said that dealing with the State Department felt like “The Taliban [was] on the inside of the building.” If the hesitation to respond was purposeful when the inevitable finally did happen, it certainly could explain why an American ambassador had been left so poorly defended.

It could also shed light on the initial “stand down” order that was given during the attack; the bizarre rationale behind the White House’s decision to concoct the lie about the video; and why the president’s whereabouts on the night of September 11th, 2012 are still among the Obama administration’s best-kept secrets.

A calculated effort to thwart a speedy rescue in order to orchestrate a potential hostage exchange might also explain why Hillary and Obama were still perpetrating the video lie as the flag-covered coffins carrying the remains of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were rolled off the cargo plane at Andrews Air Force Base.

Even for a man anxious to empty out Gitmo, four dead Americans would certainly put the kibosh on trying a prisoner swap a second time; so maybe it was shell shock that caused Obama to wait almost two years to give Bergdahl a go without Congressional approval.

Either way, if any of this speculation is even remotely close to true, it certainly would make more understandable all the obfuscation and mystery in the aftermath of that fateful night.

But more importantly, after a frustrating two-year-long probe that has accomplished nothing but Obama administration stonewalling, if the unscrupulous tactics behind the Bergdahl/Gitmo charade are ever fully disclosed, maybe America will get outraged enough to demand to know what really happened in Benghazi.

‘Terror Tuesday’ and Targeting Terrorists

judge-jury-and-executioner-obama-drones-executioner-comingt-politics-1338929977-300x214Originally posted at The Black Sphere

An unnerved Greenwald described for readers a weekly scenario where “[t]he president’s underlings compile their proposed lists of whom they feel should be executed.”  Then, on “Terror Tuesday,” a “secret panel” convenes to watch Obama select those destined for death from a pile of “baseball cards.”

Obama Sleeps While Americans Die

 Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Despite the poor economy, high unemployment, and the overall state of national malaise, Barack Obama has been hinging his prospects for reelection solely on the fact that the architect of 9/11, Osama bin Laden, is dead. Rather than giving most of the credit to Seal Team Six, who actually risked their lives by entering the global terrorist’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, President Obama has spent months extolling his own steely determination.

Few would argue that after September 11th 2001, George W. Bush’s handling of the terrorist attack on American soil is what likely won him a second term. Be it Timothy McVeigh or al-Qaeda, American presidents staring down extremists on behalf of Americans usually gains them more supporters than critics.

Therefore, listening to Barack Obama talk about his positive impact on the war on terror, one would think that the 44th president finally found a winning formula to ensure a second term and a terror-free future for Americans around the world.

Yet, what Obama never mentions are the 30 Americans, 22 of whom were DEVGRU Seal Team Six elite Navy SEALS who, in the aftermath of bin Laden’s body being dumped in the North Arabian Sea, were shot down by insurgents while flying in Chinook helicopters in Afghanistan. In addition, what Barack Obama also never addresses is the astounding increase in military deaths by hostile Taliban forces since he took office in 2009.

Now, Barack Obama finds himself up to his nostrils in the muck and mire of controversy over a terrorist attack on September 11, 2012. On the anniversary of killing 3,000 innocent Americans 11 years prior, in a pre-planned, coordinated attack on the American consulate in Benghazi the terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia took credit for slaying US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, computer specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

America is now learning that despite the Obama administration’s indignant reaction to a low-budget anti-Islam video which for two weeks was blamed for the loss of life in Benghazi, the White House was fully aware that what was happening was indeed a terrorist attack. In the same Situation Room where Beyonce and Jay-Z had visited months earlier, the White House watched in real time, via unmanned Predator drone, for five of the seven hours that the four Americans struggled to stay alive. In the end, President Obama chose to do nothing to stop it.

Worse yet, it is being alleged that while Christopher Stevens was being tortured, raped, and killed, the president, who had plans to go to Las Vegas for a fundraiser the next day, went to bed. Meanwhile, as the president slept, life-saving troops were but an hour away in Italy.

That brings us to the 2012 election. Despite his desperate attempts to convince Americans that he singlehandedly rid the planet of the world’s most notorious terrorist, unlike George W. Bush in 2004, it appears that the bin Laden slayer is still losing credibility with American voters.

One can’t help but think that if on September 11, 2012 Barack Obama had at least attempted to rescue those four Americans, his prospects for reelection would be quite different today. If the commander-in-chief had demanded that every effort be made to save the lives of Stevens, Smith, Woods, and Doherty, even if the effort failed he would have been viewed as a tough leader. The drama, the bravery, and the dedication of a US president vowing to “leave no man behind,” whatever the cost, would have eradicated any chance Mitt Romney might have had to replace Barack Obama behind the Resolute Desk come January.

Instead, on the anniversary of September 11th Barack Obama chose to turn his back on four Americans whose lives were lost at the hands of Ansar al-Sharia, and the question is why? Didn’t the President realize that by saving their lives, in the process he could have also secured a second term?

So yes, Osama bin Laden is dead, but as the American body count continues to climb, the question that remains is: What possible reason could Barack Obama offer America for sending SEAL Team Six into Pakistan to kill one terrorist, but then refuse to send help to Libya to rescue four Americans under siege by a band of murderous militants?

This time, Barack Obama’s foolhardy decision to put himself first cost four Americans their lives and should also cost him the election.

DHS Job Fair for Illegals

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

America has a 9% unemployment rate, but the Department of Homeland Security, instead of hiring US citizens to assist in rounding up undocumented aliens and shipping them home, has chosen to authorize employing people who shouldn’t be here in the first place.

The Department of Homeland Security, headed up Janet Napolitano and in cooperation with the White House, has chosen to reward illegals with paychecks that could otherwise be going to Americans who are unemployed. According to Napolitano, DHS apparently sanctions and authorizes hiring foreigners who flout the law, citing “prosecutorial discretion” as the excuse.

What next?  Why not make exceptions for well-behaved child molesters to prove they’re rehabilitated by allowing them to work in day care centers?  Or how about, as a good faith expression of redemptive trust on the part of the federal government, giving car thieves part-time jobs at Cadillac dealerships?

At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Janet Napolitano cited “agency leeway” as an excuse to allow illegals to work – another policy that underscores the absurdity that has defined this administration’s stand on immigration. Regardless of how family-minded, polite, or hard-working, illegal aliens remain lawbreaking interlopers who have zero regard for our country or its rule of law.

Nonetheless, how has the Obama administration chosen to address the pervasive problem of illegal immigration? By bestowing on iniquitous individuals the gift of free education, promised amnesty, taxpayer-funded entitlement programs, and jobs that the perpetually underemployed would be more than happy to fill.

At the hearing, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) probed Janet Napolitano with questions, hoping to get at the root of the lunacy.  Grassley asked the DHS secretary the following question: “According to the information from your department, some individuals who are given relief will obtain work authorizations. So people with no right to be in the country will be allowed to work here. Is that correct?”

Napolitano responded to Grassley’s question by citing a policy “allowing illegals to work,” which she claims has been in place since 1986.  Although the Secretary failed to name the legislation, it’s possible she was referring to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, a bill otherwise known as Simpson-Mazzoli Act.

The original intent of Simpson-Mazzoli was to “curtail the employment of illegal aliens and make employers responsible for verifying applicants’ eligibility to work in the US. Seasonal agricultural workers (who were in the country illegally) were offered amnesty, as were undocumented immigrants who had entered before Jan. 1, 1982 and maintained residence in America.”

The bill also increased border patrols and prompted “efficient adjudication of petitions and applications.” A pathway to citizenship was instituted by adjusting an illegal alien’s status to that of being “an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence. One condition was an absence of a felony conviction and no more than two misdemeanors. After one year, the immigrant could apply for another adjustment of status to become ‘lawfully admitted for permanent residence.'”

The difference between 1986 and 2011 is that since then, the number of illegals residing in the United States has grown from 2 million to an unmanageable albeit conservative estimate of 12 million.

Moreover, 9-11 proved that there are those who have entered the nation illegally who come here for reasons other than picking apples as a ‘seasonal agricultural worker.’  Couple that with the abysmal unemployment picture for American citizens who remain desperate for work, and the federal government offering jobs to illegals, regardless of the excuse, borders on irrational.

So once again the nation is confronted with an administration and Department of Homeland Security that continue to be suspicious of ex-military personnel, pro-life activists, evangelical Christians, and Tea Party members, but who feel comfortable rewarding criminal interlopers who infiltrate the nation’s borders, some with malicious ill intent, with jobs that remain scarce for the law-abiding.

Maybe it’s just that Janet Napolitano is too busy hunting down right-wing extremists to find time to focus on enemies who come to America disguised as destitute migrant workers looking for a better life, or to acknowledge that Al-Qaeda and Al Shabaab operatives routinely slink across the border into the United States.

In the meantime, the Department of Homeland Security, together with Obama, rather than defend the native soil they swore to protect, are complicit in providing pathways for terrorists to be established in occupations whose ultimate payday includes doing the type of work by which unemployed Americans may be financially harmed today and fatally wounded tomorrow.


Heartbreak Amongst Heroes

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Lest we forget, on May 2, 2011, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was shot dead, and rightly so. After performing a flawless covert exercise, Navy SEALs Team 6 left the scene, taking with them Osama Bin Laden’s body. The SEALs treated the terrorist’s corpse with respect, giving him a Muslim ceremony and burying his body at sea.

When Barack Obama met the DevGru SEAL operators who made Operation Neptune Spear successful, the President noted that the men “looked less young and fearsome than he expected, and more like guys working at Home Depot.”

To assure that the identities of the unit who led the operations remained confidential, security precautions were put in place and “despite the numerous news reports that named the SEALs, none of the anonymous briefers from the CIA and Pentagon would confirm it.”

Notwithstanding being unable to get any of the facts straight about the raid itself, in an effort to take preventive measures the President and his team, including counter-terrorism Chief John Brennan, attempted to be cautious about revealing which units accomplished the daring feat, referring to special operation Navy SEALs only as “a small team of Americans.”

In the days following the raid, in a coordinated effort to make a weak Obama look like a strong wartime president, members of Congress who were briefed on the operation, in conjunction with a very confused White House press office and other unnamed officials, slowly leaked conflicting tactical details about the raid on bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound.

Then there’s Joe Biden.  Joe either didn’t get the confidentiality memo, or if he did, didn’t bother to read it. Either way, America can always count on Joe to say the wrong thing.

Benjamin Franklin once said: “Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.”

As Barack Obama was doing his Obama killed Osama/take out the “B” replace it with an “S” victory lap, Joe Biden, who used to just provide comic relief, proved himself to be downright hazardous to classified information.  The Vice President must have been so caught up in the thrilling enthusiasm of the “tempting moment” that once again he spoke without engaging his brain.

The night after bin Laden was killed, at a dinner at Washington’s Ritz Carlton Hotel to mark the 50th anniversary of the Atlantic Council, Joe Biden said the following:

Let me briefly acknowledge tonight’s distinguished honorees.  Admiral James Stavridis is a, is the real deal.  He can tell you more about and understands the incredible, the phenomenal, the just almost unbelievable capacity of his Navy SEALs and what they did last Sunday.

Folks, I’d be remiss also if I didn’t say an extra word about the incredible events, extraordinary events of this past Sunday.  As Vice President of the United States, as an American, I was in absolute awe of the capacity and dedication of the entire team, both the intelligence community, the CIA, the SEALs.  It just was extraordinary.

Little did America know that while Barack Obama was practically being showered with confetti in a virtual ticker-tape parade overseen by the left, the soldiers who carried out the operation were unintentionally being offered up as a sacrifice on the altar of Barack Obama’s bid for re-election.

A few weeks later, amongst friends at Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune, Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted that although the agreement on the way bin Laden was eliminated was to keep all aspects of the operation classified, those close to Obama, including Vice President of the United States, didn’t stick to the agreement.

After the leaks went public, a deeply concerned Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the following:

Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday, the next day.

We are very concerned about the security of our families – of your families and our troops, and also these elite units that are engaged in things like that. And without getting into any details… I would tell you that when I met with the team… they expressed a concern about that, and particularly with respect to their families.

A month later, the man who admitted during his tenure that he wept nightly while writing condolence letters to fallen heroes, retired.

Now, three short months later in Eastern Afghanistan, that which former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates feared would happen did happen when “A military helicopter was shot down in eastern Afghanistan, killing 31 US special operation troops, most of them from the elite Navy SEALs unit that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, along with seven Afghan commandos.”

Although none of the soldiers who perished are believed to have taken part in the bin Laden raid, the fallen are from the same band of brothers. Gone indeed are the “family” members whose safety the SEALs expressed concern over to then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

While the horrific loss may be a coincidental casualty of war, it is also a symbolic message from the brutal Taliban and an act of revenge by terrorists who failed to reciprocate with the same measure of respect afforded the deceased Osama Bin Laden, leaving bodies of dead American soldiers “strewn at the scene.”

Rest assured, Robert Gates is weeping tonight. The former Secretary of Defense maintained that troop safety was his number one priority. However, Gates had no power to save Navy SEAL Team 6 from Taliban terrorist rocket fire launched skyward in the remote hills of Afghanistan.

Contributing to the tragedy is the reality that loose-lipped political operatives with a lackadaisical attitude have to live with the question as to whether top secret information leaked in haste led the Taliban to exclusively concentrate its focus on retaliating against the soldiers who took down Osama bin Laden.

Expert at placing blame, it’s highly unlikely the President will assign himself and his administration the same level of responsibility for being at the helm for “the worst single day loss of life for the US led coalition in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001” as he did the self-congratulatory kudos when bin Laden’s corpse was dumped at sea.

So later this week, right around the time Barack Obama is being feted at his $71,600 per couple fundraiser in New York, somewhere in America flag-draped coffins of heroes lost in a national tragedy will be unloaded from a military cargo plane and returned to fatherless children, grieving widows, inconsolable parents and a sad, but grateful nation.

Two Sides of a Vanity Coin

Originally posted at American Thinker

It’s both pathetic and eye-opening to see a spectacular legend sitting on the floor wrapped in a blanket, reviewing fuzzy images of himself on TV.  In recently released images, a pre-mortem Osama bin Laden, remote in hand, looks like a homeless guy in a squalid shelter, not a terrorist mastermind planning and driving tactical decisions from a Pakistani command and control center.

The compound in Pakistan where al Qaeda’s operational chief was killed by US Navy SEALs delivered “the largest trove of intelligence ever obtained from a senior terrorist leader.”  From the captured cache officials released five very enlightening “video clips of bin Laden taken during the raid, most of them showing the al Qaeda leader, his beard dyed black, evidently rehearsing the videotaped speeches he occasionally distributed to his followers.”

 The videos expose Osama bin Laden’s nefarious plans, half-truths, and pre-recorded messages, which “condemn[ed] US policy and denigrat[ed] capitalism.”  As an added bonus, the video also revealed evidence of bin Laden’s vain personality quirks.  One of the terrorist mastermind’s idiosyncrasies appeared to be a disproportionate obsession with personal image, which is a trait eerily similar to his foe and ultimate deliverer of justice – a guy with a similar name who “jealously guards his [own] image” while reading off a Teleprompter.

No sane person would argue that the most significant benefit from the confiscated videotape is intelligence.  However, an unexpected profit gained from the collection is insight into a President who, like Osama, somehow morphed into a mythical being but whom, upon closer inspection, is slowly turning out to be nothing more than mortal flesh.

Both Osama and his rhyming foe Obama have been buoyed along with religious fervor by cult-like followings. In both cases, the foundation upon which the adversary’s iconic status has been built is based on philosophical ideas, alleged oratory skill, and reputations cultivated by fictional imagery rather than tangible reality.

Although Barack’s popularity was gained for reasons different from the homicidal activities that catapulted bin Laden to the height of notoriety, as it turns out the guy who finally gave the thumbs-up to kill the al Qaeda mastermind also happens to be equally concerned with physical appearance and public perception.

A larger-than-life phantom up until the very end, Osama evoked worldwide fear; yet in one segment of the confiscated videos he is seen to be a feeble, gray-bearded, vulnerable old man, subject to the cold, holed up in a disheveled room, wiling away the time by watching videos starring himself.

One official said: “The videos make clear that bin Laden remained active in al Qaeda’s terrorist propaganda operations, especially in shaping his own image. It is improbable that this kind of footage would be anywhere but with bin Laden… [who]… jealously guarded his image.” The only thing missing was a couple of Greek columns.

Nevertheless, it’s obvious that President Barack Obama would never be caught sitting on the floor of an untidy room, shivering beneath a blanket and watching a CRT television set featuring reruns of his INVESCO Field speech.  However, 7,000 miles away from Pakistan in Washington DC, in Barack’s world he makes certain to be tightly scripted and avoids media disasters through fastidious styling and assistance from a high tech Teleprompter.

Osama’s surprising obsession with how he looked was showcased on the tape when the fearsome commander of worldwide terror’s scruffy beard showed up gray in one shot and black in another.  The same sort of self-consciousness would be on evident on a time-lapse display of Barack’s short-cropped hair change from Monday morning black to Friday afternoon salt-and-pepper. Barack Obama’s ongoing albeit subtle weekly transformation helps the world better understand the sort of Narcissistic obsession that gripped the al Qaeda leader who, when not planning to blow up the world, was carefully dying his beard.

Terrorist tendencies aside, concern for outward appearance and public image takes up residence in a certain type of person, and both Osama and Obama embody the trait. So, after 10 long years, Osama bin Laden, a man who practiced speeches, loved watching videos of himself, and whose chest hair sometimes didn’t match his chin hair, in an ironic turn of events, was justly relegated to the annals of history by a equally big-headed nemesis decked out in designer duds.

Even still, the world is well aware that Barack Obama adheres to diametrically opposed philosophical goals from his now-deceased archenemy from Abbottabad. Yet who would have thought bin Laden, living in compounds and caves among goats, camels and fellow terrorists, actually rivaled Barry in the narcissism department?

 In the area of egotistical conceit, the duo’s pervasive self-absorption extends far beyond ideology and political leaning, because both men share a surprising character trait: prior to bin Laden’s assassination, rivals Osama and Obama were like two sides of a vanity coin.

Cartoon by Richard Terrell of Terrell Aftermath

Preserving Liberty in Libya

Originally posted at American Thinker

Lately, President Barack Obama has been assuming some surprising policy positions.  First, he changed his mind and decided to leave Guantanamo Bay prison open and, instead of in a New York City civilian court, chose to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to trial before a military tribunal. Then the President verbally supported the anti-Mubarak rebellion in Egypt, after which he voluntarily involved the US military in a NATO-led rag-tag civil war in Libya.

In another unexpected turn of events, a normally Second Amendment-shy Obama publicly supported possibly supplying guns to everyday citizens displeased with overbearing leaders and governments. Seems the President is all for the right to bear arms as long as those bearing the arms are not protected by the United States Constitution and are either foreign rebels or Mexican drug cartels.

The National Rifle Association Institute of Legislative Action claims careful review of “real records … votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows [that] Barack Obama,” rather than a proponent of the right to bear arms is, in fact, “a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties.”

Scholar, pro-gun researcher, and gun advocate John Lott claimed that, prior to mulling over supplying armaments to Libyan street rebels, Obama, try as he might to pretend otherwise, was not a big Second Amendment fan.  Which made it surprising that, despite enacting a ban on the importation of semiautomatic guns in America based on the excuse that “imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents,” the President actually entertained the idea of putting military hardware into the hands of rebels infiltrated by al Qaeda.

If Obama can manage to justify denying responsible Americans the right to bear arms based on preventing a catastrophe, why not follow through and ban other hazardous activities such as street crossing, propane tank usage, and lawn darts?

Accident prevention aside, the subject of concern is not whether the United States ultimately arms or chooses not to arm Libyan rebels, but that a President whose policy decisions and appointments point to a future where America is disarmed would even mull over such an idea.

On the one hand, the President verbally maintains support for the Second Amendment, while covertly the same President proposes extensive reporting requirements on sales of long guns, nominates an “anti-gun zealot” like Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Then, to seal the deal, Obama appoints two anti-individual gun ownership Supreme Court Justices whose presence on the bench promises to deliver regulations that will be more restrictive for gun owners across America.

According to Gun Reports:

In 2003, Obama voted in support of SB1195, which, if passed, would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in [Illinois].

If the ban was enacted, law enforcement officials would have been authorized to forcibly enter private homes to confiscate newly banned firearms.

On the 2008 campaign trail, Obama attempted to portray himself as a “Hope and Change” Charlton Heston.  Then the newly-elected supposedly pro-gun Obama administration went ahead an strongly supported the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty.  And, although still refusing to acknowledge knowing about “Fast and Furious” arms to drug cartels, Obama continues, along with Eric Holder, to make less than truthful statements about Mexico’s acquisition of US-provided weaponry.

If ATF testimony proves correct, that means the guy who said “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns” has no problem with drug cartels possessing the rights he believes should be denied law abiding citizens who need guns to protect themselves from the Mexican criminals America has apparently armed.

The Second Amendment, which “James Madison drafted …the First Congress proposed… and the states ratified in 1791,” established the following Constitutional principle: “A well-regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a Free State [and] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Besides giving American citizens the right to protect themselves and their families from crime, “The Second Amendment of the Constitution also gives [Americans] the right to protect … our nation from a corrupt government or foreign invasion.”

Similar to what Libyans are doing on the streets of small towns like Ajdabiya.

Yet on the revisionist left, which is populated by the party of the President, it is often argued that the Second Amendment is not applicable in today’s society.  However, Obama weighing the possibility to arm Libyan rebels proves otherwise. Isn’t protecting those who cannot protect themselves from Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi the reason Obama considered sending arms to street rebels in the first place?

In both Egypt and Libya, dissenters revolted against tyrannical governments and supposedly, in the pro-democracy spirit, Barack supported foreign guerrillas and pondered equipping a “body of the people” in order to “constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” Such a stance presents Obama with a quandary, because at the podium the President may talk the “insurrectionist model” but on paper, where it counts, the truth is that the same man who overlooks gunrunners smuggling guns across the border would rather Americans didn’t have guns.

 

In other words, but for the presence of al-Qaeda in their midst, Obama seemed open to supporting and possibly even arming citizen uprisings against oppressive governments.  However, if legislative direction is any indication of his true gun philosophy, the President is squarely in opposition to a Constitutional precedent for American citizen/militias to be able to protect our own nation from oppression.  Obama’s policies seem intent on purposely leaving Americans defenseless if a situation similar to the one in Libya should arise here in America.

Consistently cogent Founding Father Thomas Jefferson posed an important question in his 1787 letter to William S. Smith, which said: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?” Maybe a President of two minds, when not arming far-off insurrectionists and Mexican criminals, can answer Jefferson’s question for the American people he seems determined to disarm.

%d bloggers like this: