Vehicle Attacks Show The Problem Is Human Nature, Not Guns

It has long been a curious detail that gun control proponents spend their time attacking “gun violence” rather than violence in general. Today's attack in Muenster, Germany gives lie to the claim that “gun violence” is the problem and that killing sprees are fueled by gun ownership and will end if we can only rid society of AR-15s or guns in general.

The Telegraph reports that an unknown driver killed three people and injured 26 people in a crowd of pedestrians in the German city. Early reports indicate that the driver was a 46-year-old German national with a history of mental illness. At this point, there are no known links to terrorist groups.

Using a vehicle as a weapon is not new. With strict gun control laws in place throughout Europe, there have been a number of ramming attacks in recent years. CNN reports that in 2010 Al Qaeda called trucks “the ultimate mowing machine” and encouraged recruits to use them “not to mow grass, but mow down the enemies of Allah.” In 2014, ISIS encouraged lone wolf attacks with alternative methods such as running people over with cars.

In 2016 and 2017, there were at least 10 vehicle attacks on civilians in Europe, Canada and the United States. The worst was the July 14, 2016 Bastille Day attack in Nice, France in which 86 people were killed.

The wave of truck attacks is evidence that violence is not driven by the presence of guns, but by the evil present in the human heart. Solutions to the problem of violence that do not address this core truth will be doomed to failure. If guns are eliminated, evil people who wish to kill others will find other means of inflicting pain and death on their fellow humans.

But guns are uniquely capable of killing large numbers of people in a short time, gun control proponents argue. Mass killings by rogue vehicle drivers argue otherwise. So do mass killings by other means. Two men with “cleavers” killed 29 and injured 130 at a Chinese train station in 2014. A 2016 stabbing spree in Japan left 19 dead and 26 injured. Nigerian rioters killed more than 500 Christian villagers with machetes in 2010. In 1995, terrorists released the nerve agent, sarin, into the Tokyo subway, killing 12 people and injuring 5,500. In Britain, stabbings have become so prevalent in the wake of gun control that knife control measures have been implemented.

The worst mass killing in a US school was not committed with guns and makes most mass shootings pale in comparison. In 1927, a school electrician blew up the school in Bath Township, Mich.. killing 44 people including 38 children.

So, why do activists single out “gun violence” in their protests? There are several likely reasons. The most obvious is that demonizing guns and trying to make them go away is the simple solution. But, as H.L. Mencken wrote, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

A second reason is that it easier to attack guns than to address the underlying societal problems that drive people to commit murder. Murder has been with us since the earliest days of human history. The desire to kill is an innate part of human nature. Civilization and technology have not removed the desire to kill as much as they have made it easier to carry out murder efficiently and on a grander scale.

If activists want to stamp out violence and murder, they must override human nature. One way of doing this is by creating penalties to those who give in to violent urges. Society punishes these people with jail time or execution. For sociopaths who are compulsively driven to hurt and kill, the only solution may be to either kill them or keep them locked away for the rest of their lives.

Much of today's mass violence comes from people with who are willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill and injure others. In the majority of killing sprees, the attacker is among the dead, either by his own hand or by police bullets. The two primary motives for current mass killings seem to be Islamic radicalism or mental illness, both of which are characterized by perpetrators who have little or no regard for their own lives.

The problem of how to defend against such predators is a difficult one. One possibility is to attempt to change human nature. The one thing that can successfully change people, God, is being driven from the public square. Church attendance is down as religious believers are ridiculed and forced to leave their beliefs at home. As a result, many children receive no training in ethics and morality at all. Neither are they warned that a life of sin and violence could result in everlasting punishment beyond this world.

Instruction in ethics and morality that teaches the basic lesson that killing is wrong could be useful, but in today's world black-and-white morality has been replaced by shades of gray. Murder of unborn babies is socially acceptable, even encouraged by some. The right-to-die and euthanasia movements also cheapen life. In any case, such instruction may not overcome mental illness or contrary teachings that murder is a religious duty.

Where human nature cannot be changed, the best solution is to improve security. There is no single answer, but increased police presence, metal detectors and vehicle barriers around pedestrian areas are all partial answers. So is close monitoring of mentally ill people who are potentially violent. Involuntary commitment laws need to be revisited along with privacy laws. Allowing citizens the right to use guns for self-protection is also a piece to the puzzle.

The problem of Muslim extremism is even more difficult to address, particularly in a country that guarantees religious freedom. At the very least, security forces should monitor mosques for signs of extremist activity and track visits to known terrorist websites. Prospective immigrants should be closely screened to prevent extremists from entering the country.

With or without access to guns, human nature is unlikely to change for the positive without a religious awakening. Since our desire to murder is unlikely to go away, the best remaining alternatives are to increase security and self-defense measures. Where perpetrators of killing sprees can't be prevented from launching their attacks, they can at least be stopped with minimal loss of life.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why isn't Trump attacking Hillary?

This week was perhaps the most damaging week of Hillary Clinton’s career. FBI Director James Comey’s decision to recommend that she not be charged for mishandling classified information was overshadowed by the facts that he laid out. Comey called her “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information and judged that her account, as well as email accounts that she was in contact with, were likely compromised by “hostile actors” that could threaten the security of the United States. How has Trump responded to the FBI assault on the basic competence of his opponent? He spent several days embroiled in a controversy over an allegedly anti-Semitic tweet and then came out of in favor of Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi. Why isn’t Trump attacking Hillary?

To be sure, Donald Trump did accuse Clinton of offering a “bribe” to Attorney-General Loretta Lynch by floating the possibility that Lynch might keep her job in a Clinton Administration. The Washington Post noted that Clinton has never publicly stated that Lynch might be welcome in her White House, but that the New York Times had attributed the idea to Democrats close to Clinton.

NBC News also reported that Trump had criticized Director Comey’s decision at a rally in North Carolina on Tuesday, July 5, the day of the FBI announcement. Trump used his pet name for Clinton, “Crooked Hillary,” and told the audience, “You didn't have to be careless. You didn't even have to really know that what you were doing was wrong, and you're guilty. The laws are very explicit. Stupidity is not a reason that you're going to be innocent, OK? It's not a reason.”

At that point, Trump seemed to veer off message. He became distracted by a controversy about a Trump campaign tweet that featured a six-pointed star that some associated with a Star of David. The tweet featured Hillary Clinton in front of a pile of cash and carried the logo, “History made: Most corrupt candidate ever.” The phrase, “most corrupt candidate ever” was inside a six pointed star that has been variously described as a “Star of David” and a “sheriff’s star.” CNN notes that the meme originally appeared “on an anti-Semitic, white supremacist message board.”

Trump said in a tweet that his campaign should not have removed the controversial meme and defended the star on Wednesday, July 6. CNN commented, “Trump's comments on Wednesday revived a controversy that appeared to be quickly fading under the weight of the news that Hillary Clinton's private emails included classified information, and that she will not face charges. On a day when Clinton's controversies dominated the airwaves, Trump resurrected his own.”

By Wednesday night, Trump was totally off message. Rather than spending time attacking Clinton’s judgement, Trump told a North Carolina crowd that Saddam Hussein was a great anti-terrorist.

“He was a bad guy -- really bad guy. But you know what? He did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights. They didn't talk. They were terrorists. Over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism,” Trump said.CNN points out that Trump supported the Iraq War in 2003.

Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was a state supporter of terrorism. The “9/11 Commission Report” stated that “Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups” and “Saddam used foreign terrorist groups as an instrument of foreign policy.”

Donald Trump not only is wrong about history, his comments further focused attention on himself and distracted attention from Hillary Clinton’s disastrous week. This is not the first time that Trump has gone easy on Clinton.

On June 2, Clinton sharply mocked Donald Trump on foreign policy. “Donald Trump's ideas are not just different, they are dangerously incoherent,” she said in Reuters. “They're not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies.” She went on to speculate that Trump might start a nuclear war if elected to the White House simply because “somebody got under his very thin skin.”

One might expect a broadside against the Secretary of State who presided over the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and the rise of ISIS, the bungling of the Arab Spring and the Iranian uprising, the implosion of Syria, the failed Russian reset, and, of course, the debacle at Benghazi. One would be wrong.

Rather than challenging Hillary on the substance of her speech or attacking her own record, Trump responded with tweets as Hillary predicted he would do during her speech. The first gave a general challenge to Clinton’s credibility while the second criticized her poise.

“Bad performance by Crooked Hillary Clinton!” Trump tweeted. “Reading poorly from the teleprompter [sic]! She doesn't even look presidential!”

In fact, Trump’s attacks on Hillary seem very restrained. Compare his criticism of Clinton to his concerted attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge assigned to his Trump University fraud case. Trump spent weeks and devoted large amounts of air time to attacking Judge Curiel’s Mexican heritage just after becoming the presumptive Republican nominee. The time might have been better spent unifying the Republican Party or launching attacks on Hillary Clinton, who had yet to secure her own nomination.

The Wall Street Journal reported that, after clinching the Democratic nomination, Clinton ran 20,000 ads to get her message out to potential voters. For the same period, Trump ran none. Zero. Not a single commercial. This total shutout in advertising is almost certainly what allows Hillary to maintain a lead over Trump in spite of her seriously damaged campaign.

While Trump may be attacking Hillary at his campaign rallies, his criticisms are overshadowed by his own outlandish and rambling comments. Time and time again, Trump’s antics have distracted the news cycle from Hillary’s troubles. Whatever his strategy or motive, his anti-Hillary message is not getting out to voters. Trump is destroying his own campaign.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line

'Mad Vlad' Putin is no conservative hero

Many conservatives are applauding Russian President Vladimir Putin for his decision to intervene in the Syrian civil war. Even though the US-led coalition has been bombing ISIS for more than a year, many feel that Putin has taken a leadership role in the war in comparison to President Obama’s lackluster resolve.

A good example of the conservative applause for Putin comes from Robin McFee of Family Security Matters who applauded Putin for his “moral clarity” in pointing out the failures of the Obama Administration in the Middle East. Going even further, Walid Shoebat, a former terrorist who converted to Christianity, called Putin’s intervention in Syria “a holy war,” saying “it is the latest crusade of our time.”

“Putin is the St. Constantine of our time,” writes Shoebat, referring to the Roman emperor who stopped the persecution of Christians and legalized Christianity. “For like that priestly king of old,” he continues, “he has unsheathed the holy sword of the Church to strike down the enemies of God for the cause of humanity.”

Even Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham and founder of Samaritan’s Purse, said, “What Russia is doing may save the lives of Christians in the Middle East.” Franklin continued, “You understand that the Syrian government for their good and for their bad over the history of this country, they have protected Christians, they have protected minorities from the Islamists.”

Graham’s view is likely close to the truth. Putin and Russia are not intervening to save Syrian Christians. They are intervening to save the Assad regime. The possibility that some Christians might be saved in the process is purely incidental to Putin’s primary goal.

On American Thinker, Fay Voshell writes that the “former KGB agent is now a devout Christian whose faith informs policy” and that “Putin's religious values are rooted in Russian Orthodoxy and personal religious experiences, including his wife's car accident in 1993 and a life-threatening house fire in 1996.”

Nevertheless, Putin’s actions in the two decades since his supposed conversion more closely resemble a Machiavellian strongman than a principled Christian. In 1999, when, as prime minister of Russia, Putin sent troops into Chechnya, it was to stop “the collapse of the Soviet Union,” not to protect Christians in the mostly Muslim republic. As World Affairs notes, Putin blamed Chechen terrorists for a series of bombings in Russia, but when an unexploded bomb was found, Russian agents were revealed to be the perpetrators of the false flag attack.

Putin’s concern for the innocent was not evident in his reaction to the hostage taking at Beslan School No. 1 in North Ossetia in southern Russia in 2004. Security forces responding to the terrorist attack used flame throwers and grenade launchers when they assaulted the school according to the Moscow Times. The attack resulted in the deaths of more than 330 of the 1,200 hostages. Most of the dead were children.

Putin invaded two other countries as well. The 2008 invasion of Georgia and the 2014 invasion of Ukraine bear many similarities. In both cases, Russia used the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians to seize outlying provinces from independent nations. In both cases, Russia seems unwilling to stop with its early gains. The Guardian describes a Russian border fence around South Ossetia that grabbed additional Georgian territory overnight. Likewise, the war in Ukraine is still raging and the country is bracing for a possible full-scale invasion.

After Russian-backed rebels in Ukraine shot down an unarmed Malaysian airliner in 2014, killing 298 people, Putin was quick to blame Ukraine and has continued to use the incident for propaganda against Ukraine. In the United Nations, he has blocked attempts to create a tribunal to investigate the incident.

Putin can be accurately described as a dictator, having been the de facto ruler of Russia since 1999 when he succeeded Boris Yeltsin as president. He served two terms as president until 2008 when Russia’s term limit forced him to step aside. Undaunted, he was appointed prime minister by Dmitri Medvedev and promptly had the constitution changed. When Medvedev’s term ended, Putin was elected to a third term in 2012.

Putin’s alleged Christian convictions did not stop him from ordering the deaths and imprisonment of countless political opponents and journalists. The list of Putin’s Russian victims is long and spans 20 years, not including his time as a KGB officer. The most infamous murder was Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB officer turned dissident. In a plot worthy of James Bond, Litvinenko was poisoned with radioactive polonium in London in 2006.

Even Putin’s alleged concerns about Islamic radicalism are suspect. Both Syria and Iran have long been client states of Putin’s Russia. Syria’s relationship with Russia goes back to the days of the Soviet Union. Unknown to many, it is Russia that is building Iran’s nuclear program that now threatens, not only Israel, but Europe and the United States as well. Likewise, Russia has supplied Iran with modern fighter aircraft as well as air defense systems that would make an attack on those nuclear facilities difficult and costly. Putin is also a major supporter of President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Business Insider points out that Putin actually took credit for the deal.

Although Putin’s support for Iran predates the Syrian civil war, Russia and Iran have found common cause there as the two main supporters of the Assad regime. Bashar Assad is a Shia Muslim as are the Iranians. The opposition to Assad is primarily Sunni. Russia and Syria have had a nonaggression pact since 1950 and Russia has had military bases in Syria since 1971. Fox News reported in August that the commander of the Iranian Quds Force, designated as a terrorist by the US, secretly traveled to Russia to meet with “senior Russian leaders.”

For hundreds of years, Russian foreign policy has been built around two goals. First is the desire to build a buffer zone to protect their borders from invasion. Second is the quest for a warm water port. Many Russian ports are blocked by ice during winter. Other Russian ports are blocked by narrow straits and potentially hostile neighbors. It is likely that Putin’s venture into Syria, in addition to propping up a friendly regime, is about making sure that Russian naval power is not expelled from the Mediterranean.

Russia’s intervention might also be economic. Russia has been battered by international sanctions and low oil prices. The ruble has lost half of its value and inflation for the year is predicted to be 18 percent according to Investopedia. Russia’s imperial wars may be both a distraction from the economic mess at home and an attempt to stabilize and increase the price of oil.

At his core, Putin is an opportunist who is seeking to restore the Russian empire. He seems to take Rahm Emanuel’s advice to “never let a crisis go to waste” when he can use it to expand Russia’s borders or sphere of influence.

In short, Putin is everything that conservatives fear that Obama is. He is a dictator who changed the constitution to stay in power and doesn’t have qualms about killing people who threaten him. He is known to have used false flags to justify war against Chechnya and Ukraine and works world crises to his advantage. Putin is no hero for conservatives.

Originally published on Conservative Firing Line

Governors arm National Guard after Chattanooga murders

This week’s attack by an alleged Islamic extremist on a military recruiting office in Chattanooga was not the first such attack on soldier on American soil. In spite of a string of attacks on military bases and recruiting offices in the past several years, the Obama Administration several has not taken steps to allow military personnel to carry weapons for self-defense. Today a growing number of state governors are taking action to protect their state National Guardsmen from similar attacks.

According to CNN, there have been at least three successful attacks on military targets in the United States in recent years. In 2009, Carlos Bledsoe killed one soldier and wounded another outside an army recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark. Bledsoe was a convert to Islam who had been arrested in Yemen the year before in possession of a fake ID card, bomb making manuals and a phone that contained contacts with Islamic militants.

Also in 2009, Nidal Hasan, an army major and Muslim who opposed the war in Afghanistan, killed 13 soldiers and wounded 32 at Fort Hood, Tex.

In 2013, Aaron Alexis, a civilian contractor and former navy sailor, killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard. Alexis had a history of mental health problems.

In at least two other cases, plots to attack US military bases were disrupted by authorities. In 2008, five Muslim immigrants were found guilty of plotting to attack Fort Dix, N.J. "to kill as many American soldiers as possible" according to the Washington Post. Earlier this year, an Illinois National Guardsman and his cousin were accused of plotting to join ISIS and attack a National Guard base in Joliet, Ill. reported the Chicago Sun Times.

In spite of this pattern of attacks, military leaders and the Obama Administration still prohibit the carrying of firearms on military bases, a policy that dates back to March 1993. While the perimeter of many military bases can be easily secured, military recruiting offices cannot. As Maj. Hasan and Alexis demonstrated, a person with access to the interior of a military base can do serious damage before defenders can respond.

Army chief of staff Gen. Ray Odierno told Fox News yesterday that he would conduct a review of security procedures at recruiting offices, but thought that allowing recruiters to be armed might "cause more problems than it solves."

In a tweet, ABC News correspondent Luis Martinez said that “Marine Corps Recruiting Command has instructed Marine recruiters not to wear uniforms at work, part of force protection since Chattanooga.” This was unverified by other sources.

Some states are taking a stronger tack. The governors of Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas have issued orders to their state National Guard troops to take action to prevent a Chattanooga-style terrorist attack.

At least six state governors have announced plans to allow National Guard troops to carry weapons. Houston’s ABC 13 said today that Greg Abbott (R-Tex.) will arm Texas National Guard soldiers at their bases to “not only serve as a deterrent to anyone wishing to do harm to our service men and women, but will enable them to protect those living and working on the base.”

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) issued an Executive Order yesterday directing the state’s Adjutant General to arm “selected Guard personnel… to preserve the lives, property, and security” of Louisiana Guardsmen. Jindal is a Republican presidential candidate.

In Florida, Rick Scott (R) issued an Executive Order temporarily moving National Guard recruiting offices from commercial stores to armories until state officials can assess and enhance the security of the stores according to the Florida Times-Union. Scott’s order also armed the state’s Guardsmen.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) also ordered full-time Guardsmen to be armed as deemed necessary by the Arkansas National Guard’s commanding officer according to a press release.

The Hill reports that Mary Fallin (R-Okla.) also issued an order allowing full-time Guardsmen in Oklahoma to be armed.

This afternoon, Mike Pence (R-Ind.) became the most recent governor to issue such an order according to Fox 59.

Individual governors can arm their state’s National Guard because the Guard is under state control in normal circumstances with the governor as the commander-in-chief. The National Guard can also be federalized by the president for use with the regular army in combat operations or disasters.

As the death toll from attacks on military installations mounts, it seems likely that more governors will take steps to protect their state soldiers from attack. As Greg Abbott said, “After the recent shooting in Chattanooga, it has become clear that our military personnel must have the ability to defend themselves against these type of attacks on our own soil.”

 Read the full article on Examiner.com

How Obama lost Iraq

The recent news out of Iraq is reminiscent of the dark days of 2004 before President Bush’s surge largely pacified the country. Earlier this month, Israel’s Debka File reported that ISIS, the Iraqi al Qaeda affiliate, had captured the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi from government forces. Fallujah was proclaimed the capitol of a new Islamic caliphate. On January 18, CNN reported another in a series of bomb attacks. The latest bombings killed 19 people and wounded at least 74.

Iraq’s slide back into chaos has its roots in 2011 when the last U.S. soldiers left the country. The Obama Administration and the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had been engaged in months of negotiations in an attempt to reach a new status of forces agreement that would allow American soldiers to remain in Iraq to help support government forces. (The Bush Administration had signed a status of forces agreement that required U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011.) When these talks failed, the stage was set for President Obama to fulfill his campaign promise to remove U.S. forces and end the war in Iraq.

Unfortunately, as pointed out by the Atlanta Conservative Examiner, it was much easier to remove U.S. troops than to end the war. President Obama’s assumption was that American forces were the cause of the fighting in Iraq and that if American forces were removed, the war would end. That turned out not to be the case, partly because of Iran.

In the absence of Saddam Hussein, Iran has grown into a larger threat in the region. According to NBC News, relations between the two countries had been frosty for decades before the Iranian revolution in 1979. Iran, known as Persia until the 20^th century, is comprised primarily of Shia Muslims. The Shia also make up a majority of Iraq’s population even though Saddam and his ruling Baath party were Sunni. Saddam’s control of Iraq was threatened by the Islamist revolution in Iran, leading Saddam to invade Iran in 1980. The war dragged on for eight years.

After the U.S. toppled Saddam, the Iranians revealed that they were developing nuclear weapons. As the U.S. and its European allies worked to diplomatically halt the Iranian weapons program, Iran began aiding Shia militants in Iraq. As far back as 2006, ABC News reported that Iran was directly supplying Iranian made weapons to Iraqi militants. The Washington Post reported that coalition forces captured Iranian agents, suspected to be members of the Quds (Jerusalem) Force of the Revolutionary Guard, in Iraq. The New York Times reported on evidence that Iraqi Shiite fighters were being trained in Iran as late as 2010.

While the Obama and Bush Administrations reached out diplomatically to Iran, the Iranians were actively engaged in a proxy war against the U.S. and the Iraqi government. A look at history shows that Iran has actually been engaged in a shadow war against the United States since 1979. It was less than three years ago that federal agents disrupted an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. by blowing up a restaurant in the District of Columbia. Given the history of Iran with both Iraq and the United States, it is not surprising that the radical Islamist regime would move to fill the power vacuum left in Iraq as the U.S. withdraws.

The logical move to protect the U.S. gains in Iraq would have been to negotiate an extension to the status of forces agreement that would allow U.S. forces to remain and assist the Iraqi government in a limited capacity. This agreement would have been in the interest of both the United States, which wants stability in the Middle East, and Iraq, which needs to prevent a resurgence of sectarian violence in order to maintain control of the country.

In October 2011, Foreign Policy magazine reported that even though the Iraqi government had acceded to allowing 8,000 to 20,000 American soldiers to remain in Iraq, the status of forces talks fell apart over the issue of immunity for U.S. troops. The Obama Administration insisted that the immunity be granted in the treaty, something that was not politically possible for al-Maliki government and something that Bush Administration had not demanded in the previous status of forces agreement.

A former senior congressional staffer told Foreign Policy that a treaty agreement was never required. “An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that's done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry," he said. "If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up it’s a--."

In their 2012 debate, Paul Ryan charged that Vice President Joe Biden “was put in charge of those negotiations and he failed to get an agreement” according to the Washington Post. Biden denied the charge, but a month earlier the New York Times had reported that Mr. Biden had chaired a videoconference on Oct. 6, 2010 where he had advanced the idea of replacing Iraqi president Jalal Talibani, a Kurd, with Ayad Allawi of the nonsectarian Iraqiya party as a counterweight to Prime Minister al-Maliki. Talibani would be shifted to the post of foreign minister as a consolation prize, a plan that elicited a retort of “Thanks a lot, Joe,” from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ultimately Talibani refused to step aside.

During the conference, Biden proclaimed, “Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise. I’ll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA (status of forces agreement).” Biden was ultimately proven wrong.

In September 2011, President Obama said that he would like to keep between 3,000 and 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, but, according to the Washington Post, he had not begun negotiations three months before the withdrawal deadline. That November, the Washington Post reported that the vice president was in Iraq seeking to negotiate a continued American presence in Iraq. Many critics pointed out that retaining such a tiny, ineffective U.S. force in Iraq might prove more dangerous than a complete withdrawal.

Author and military expert Max Boot savaged Obama in the Wall Street Journal for not taking the negotiations seriously. Boot noted that President Bush was able to get a deal for a status of forces agreement in 2008 when even more U.S. troops were in Iraq. Boot noted that the immunity issue was covered by a Memorandum of Understanding rather than a treaty in other Middle Eastern countries where American soldiers are deployed.

Boot also pointed out that Obama frequently undercut his own negotiators. By frequently bragging about his plans to “end the war in Iraq,” Obama signaled to Iraqis that he was not serious about maintaining a presence. Further, the Iraqis knew that the number of troops that Obama was willing to commit were far less than the 20,000 deemed necessary by military leaders. Iraqi leaders “were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force,” according to Boot, “that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions.”

Even before U.S. troops left, Iraq began to fall into Iran’s orbit. In June 2011, the Wall Street Journal reported that Iran was wooing the leaders of three key U.S. Middle East allies: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 2012, Iran began overflying Iraqi airspace on an almost daily basis in order to deliver arms and supplies to the Assad regime in Syria. CNN described in March 2013 how Secretary of State Kerry had discussed the matter with al-Maliki, who noted that the Iraqi Air Force had a very limited capability to stop the overflights. Three months later, the Iraqis warned Israel against transiting Iraqi airspace during any attempt to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities according to the Times of Israel.

The Iraqi government is now widely acknowledged to be sympathetic to Iran. The Huffington Post reported in June 2012 that Iran is likely propping up the al-Maliki government behind the scenes. Debka File calls Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki “pro-Iranian” and says that the Iraqi defeats in Anbar were humiliating for Iran which had “heavily backed the Iraqi army offensive.” After the debacle in Fallujah and Ramadi, Iran’s Tasnim News Agency reported that the Iranian government had pledged support for Iraq’s fight against “terrorism and extremism.” Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad is also an Iranian proxy while al-Qaeda supports rebel factions attempting to oust him. The dynamic is partly one of Sunni versus Shia. Al Qaeda is a Sunni Muslim organization while Iran and the Iraqi government are primarily Shiite.

In the end it appears that the expiration of the status of forces agreement provided Barack Obama with a way to fulfill his campaign promise to withdraw American soldiers from Iraq. The immunity issue provided a convenient way to blame the Iraqi government for the failure to reach an agreement. The president’s delegation of negotiations to Vice President Biden, a man that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said was “wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” is perhaps the best indication of how little importance Obama attached to Iraq’s security. Where Obama preferred to withdraw and abandon America’s influence in the Middle East, Iran was more than willing to assume the role of the Middle East’s dominant power.

 

Read the original article at Atlanta Conservative Examiner

TSA Pre-check eases burden on frequent fliers

 

Just in time for the holiday travel season, the Transportation Security Administration has rolled out new security measures that are less intrusive and faster for travelers. The program is called “Pre-check” and I had the chance to try it first hand on an airline trip from Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (airport details on GlobalAir.com). The program expanded to several new airports on Dec. 16.

To participate in the Pre-check program, travelers must be U.S. citizens and members of frequent flyer programs who meet certain TSA criteria, the Pre-check application program, or the Trusted Traveler program. Members of the U.S. military also qualify for Pre-check. U.S. citizens who do not fall into one of these categories can apply for Pre-check status on the TSA website. If you are a member of a frequent flyer program, you may already be approved for Pre-check.

Pre-check is not available at all airports. A list of approved airports and airlines is also available on the TSA website. The list includes hours of operation for Pre-check lanes, but times are subject to change.

Once approved, taking part in the Pre-check is easy. Boarding passes will be printed with the “TSA Pre✓™ ” logo. When the traveler goes to the TSA security checkpoint, a TSA officer will direct them to the Pre-check lane if your trip is eligible. This lane will allow travelers to go through security screening without removing their shoes, belts or lightweight jackets, which greatly speeds the process of clearing security. Laptops and 3-1-1 compliant liquids may be kept in their bags and children under 12 can accompany their adult travel companions.

On my trip, I arrived at the checkpoint after a brief wait and was referred to the Pre-check line by the TSA officer who pre-screened my boarding pass and identification. I carried my roller bag to the Pre-check line which was shorter and moved quicker than the traditional screening lines.

At the head of the line, another TSA officer verified the Pre-check logo on my boarding pass and crosschecked it with my ID again. As we moved toward the checkpoint, TSA officers reminded us that we did not have to remove our shoes, belts or lightweight jackets. On this cold day in Atlanta, most travelers had heavy overcoats that did have to go through the x-ray machines with our bags, however. They did not offer reminders that laptops or 3-1-1 bags did not have to be removed.

My travel documents were examined a third time as I approached the screening area. The screening process was also made quicker by the fact that the Pre-check travelers were screened by a traditional metal detector rather than one of the controversial body scanners. A scanner was present at the checkpoint so presumably it could be used if conditions warranted. Travelers who set off the metal detector were still singled out for a pat-down by TSA officers, but this seemed to happen infrequently.

The TSA Pre-check program is definitely something that the TSA got right. The agency has taken much criticism in recent years for excesses such as pat-downs of children and the elderly who posed no threat. Many videos of TSA pat-downs went viral and outraged the public. The Pre-check program is an attempt to restore sanity and convenience to the traveling public.

Although TSA Pre-check is not available on a national basis, it does hold promise. For frequent flyers, the program should take some of the stress and frustration out of going to the airport. For less frequent travelers, relief will hopefully come soon.

 

Originally published on Aviation Examiner

TSA says no knives on airliners after all

The Transportation Security Administration announced on Wednesday that it was reversing its previous decision to allow small knives and other previously prohibited items to be carried on airline flights. In March, the TSA had announced that it would allow airline passengers to carry small folding knives with blades less than 2.36 inches long and less than half an inch wide in carryon baggage. Sporting equipment such as golf clubs, hockey and lacrosse sticks and miniature baseball bats would also have been allowed.

The items have been prohibited from carryon baggage since the September 11 attacks. The TSA focus on knives and small, sharp objects led some to joke that the agency’s acronym stood for “taking scissors away.”

The proposed changes were part of move by the TSA to transition toward risk-based security initiatives which recognize that the majority of airline passengers do not pose a risk, even if they carry a knife or hockey stick. Risk-based security focuses on determining which passengers pose a greater risk through behavior analysis, interviewing, and screening out low-risk passengers through additional information provided voluntarily through programs like Pre-check and Clear.

Even though risk-based screening has a proven history in Israel, the technique has sparked criticism in the United States. According to a USA Today report, a Homeland Security inspector general cited problems with assessing the effectiveness of risk-based screening and the lack of a comprehensive training program. Critics have also alleged that the system amounts to racial profiling.

The proposed changes to the prohibited items list drew opposition from a wide range of groups. 133 members of Congress, primarily Democrats, wrote to TSA administrator John Pistole to oppose the change. Flight attendants, air marshals, and other law enforcement officials also opposed the new rule.

Airline travelers can find a comprehensive list of acceptable items for both carryon and checked baggage on the TSA website. As a general rule, knives and other items that are considered weapons are permitted only in checked baggage. Chemicals and flammable items may not be permitted at all. When in doubt, travelers should also contact their airline.

See the 10 dumbest things people try to get through airport security.

Originally published on Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/article/tsa-decides-not-to-allow-knives-on-airliners

Boston bombing exposes threat of homegrown Muslim terror

The Tsarnaev brothers’ brief reign of terror has shed light on a growing threat to the safety of Americans: homegrown Islamic terrorists. While the brothers were originally from Chechnya, their family had been in the U.S. for almost a decade according to the N.Y. Times. The brothers, age 15 and 8 at the time, were already Muslim but were almost certainly radicalized long after they became American immigrants.

Homegrown radicals are people who were either born in the United States or who immigrated here prior to becoming terrorists. In many cases, homegrown Islamic radicals become radicalized in isolation. Rather than attending mosques, they listen to and read sermons of radical mullahs on the internet. Many homegrown radicals were converted to radical Islam by the sermons of Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was born in the U.S. He later fled to Yemen where he was killed in 2011 by a drone strike. Some homegrown radicals were born into Muslim families; others converted to Islam later in life.

Unlike some early post-9/11 attacks and arrests, homegrown terrorists are not always directly affiliated with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. They may not have traveled to Pakistan, Afghanistan, or other Middle Eastern countries for training. They often receive information from jihadist internet sites such as al Qaeda’s “Inspire” online magazine, but may not receive direct instructions from al Qaeda leaders. In some cases, al Qaeda may not even be aware of the homegrown radical’s existence.

One of the most famous instances of homegrown terrorism was the 2009 Fort Hood massacre in which Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan murdered 13 people and wounded 32 others. After the attack, it was revealed that Hasan, a native Virginian, had been in email contact with Anwar al-Awlaki. Hasan, who had attended the same mosque as two of the September 11 hijackers, reportedly jumped onto a desk and yelled, “Allahu Akbar,” Arabic for “God is great,” before he began shooting.

Homegrown radical terrorists go back far further, however. In late 2002, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo murdered 10 people in sniper attacks around the District of Columbia. The Baltimore Sun detailed how Malvo’s writings described the pair’s “jihad” against the United States even though prosecutors did not consider Islamic terrorism a motive. The N.Y. Times described how Muhammad planned to extort millions of dollars from authorities with their sniper attacks and then use the money to set up jihadist training camps and fund more attacks.

The list of unsuccessful terror attacks by homegrown terrorists is already long. In 2009, a Tennessee native and Muslim convert shot and killed a soldier at a recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark. Also in 2009, the FBI broke a terror ring in Raleigh, N.C. headed by an American convert to Islam. Another high profile homegrown terrorist plot was the attempt to blow up a Portland, Ore. Christmas tree lighting ceremony in 2010. The man had corresponded via email with Al Qaeda leaders prior to the attempt. An army private from Texas who attempted to bomb Fort Hood in 2011 had planned to use similar devices similar to those that the Tsarnaev brothers built. That same year two Arab-Americans plotted to attack synagogues in New York City. Also in 2011, a New York convert to Islam attempted to attack government buildings around Bayonne, N.J. with pipe bombs. In 2012, a Muslim convert from Brooklyn made death threats against the creators of “South Park” after the show depicted the prophet Mohammed. That same year a Massachusetts man plotted to bomb the Pentagon with a remote control airplane.

Georgia was home to at least one homegrown Islamic radical. In 2011, Jameela Barnette of Marietta mailed a bloody pig’s foot to Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and a Curious George doll to Greg Ball, a state senator from New York. Ms. Barnette, who referred to herself as a “Messenger of Allah and Defender of Islam” told Examiner that her actions were based in her Muslim faith. She said that she believed that suicide bombings and terrorist attacks are justified. Barnette died on Christmas Day 2011 when she ambushed police officers with a gun and knife as they responded to a panic alarm in her home.

The problem of homegrown terrorism is not based on race or skin color. Ryan G. Anderson was a white Muslim convert and a U.S. Army National Guard tank crewman who tried to spy for Al Qaeda in 2003. According to the Defense Human Resources case study, Anderson told undercover agents, “I wish to desert from the U.S. Army. I wish to defect from the United States. I wish to join al-Qaeda, train its members and conduct terrorist attacks.”

Colleen LaRose, also known as “Jihad Jane,” was also a white Muslim convert. In 2009, LaRose received orders from Al Qaeda, again via the internet, to kill a Swedish artist who had blasphemed Mohammed by drawing his head on the body of a dog. LaRose worked with two other homegrown terrorists on the plot and actually traveled to Europe to stalk her prey. She was arrested when she returned to the U.S.

A World Opinion poll of Middle Eastern Muslims shows that an average of about 30 percent supports groups that attack Americans. According to a Pew poll of American Muslims, eight percent believe that suicide bombing is often or sometimes justified and five percent have a favorable view of al Qaeda.

The study estimates that there are approximately 1.5 million Muslims over the age of 18 in the U.S. Slightly more than half are males and approximately 30 percent of the males are 18-29 years old. Although there are female suicide bombers, the majority are young men and the 18-29 age group is a high risk category. If, of the estimated 243,000 young American Muslims, only five percent are potential radicals, that still leaves over 12,000 possible homegrown terrorists.

The Boston Marathon bombing may signal a new phase in the War on Terror in which al Qaeda takes full advantage of the resources provided by homegrown American radicals. In the years since September 11, the terrorist group has been unable to launch another successful attack in the United States. Several attempts at complex, coordinated attacks have been foiled by security agencies in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. The success of the low tech and simple assault in Boston may inspire al Qaeda to reassess its strategy, focusing instead on instigating large numbers of small attacks using homegrown bombers and gunmen.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/boston-bombing-exposes-threat-of-homegrown-radical-islam

“Harbinger” author to headline inaugural prayer breakfast

Jonathan Cahn, a controversial messianic rabbi, announced on his Facebook page today that he has been asked to be the keynote speaker at the Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast on Jan. 21. Cahn is the rabbi of the Beth Israel Worship Center in Wayne, N.J. and president of the Hope of the World ministry. He is also the author of “The Harbinger,” a prophetic novel that details Cahn’s belief that the United States is receiving divine warnings as a prelude to judgment.

“The Harbinger” centers around Isaiah 9:10, a verse in which the ancient Israelites vowed to rebuild stronger than before in the aftermath of an Assyrian attack. Cahn finds many parallels between modern America and ancient Israel.

According to Cahn, the process of divine judgment begins with the removal of God’s protective “hedge” to open the nation to attack. In the case of both nations, the removal of God’s protection led to an attack by terrorists. In Israel’s case, the attack was by the Assyrians in 732 B.C. In America’s case, it was by al Qaeda on 9/11.

In both cases, the attack was followed by defiance. The Israelites made the vow found in Isaiah: “The bricks have fallen down, but we will rebuild with dressed stone; the fig trees have been felled, but we will replace them with cedars.” Put simply, they would take what was destroyed and replace it with something even better rather than repenting of their sins.

Ironically, this obscure Old Testament verse with its vow of defiance was used not once, but twice by American leaders in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. On Sept. 12, 2001, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle quoted the verse in a speech to congress where he specifically linked the verse to America. Three years later, on Sept. 11, 2004, Sen. John Edwards, then a vice presidential candidate, again invoked the verse in a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus. On February 24, 2009, President Obama echoed the defiant tone of the verse, saying in his address to Congress, “I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.” The book cites many other striking similarities between ancient history and modern news.

Other confirmed guests at the Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast include Chaplain of the U.S. House Father Patrick Conroy, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Rep. Eric Cantor, and Sen. Roy Blunt. Worship music will be provided by Jeremiah and Wendy Ginsberg and the Philadelphia Tabernacle of David. It is not known whether President Obama will attend.

Tickets to the event are available to the public. They can be purchased online at http://pipb2013.eventbrite.com/ or by calling (804) 971—0414. Limited tickets will be available at the door.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/author-of-book-on-judgment-of-u-s-will-headline-inaugural-prayer-breakfast?cid=db_articles&no_cache=1357424951

Voters need truth about Benghazi cover-up before election

An emerging aspect to the Benghazi attack story is the Obama Administration’s cover-up of the truth. From the beginning, President Obama and members of his administration have claimed that the attack was the spontaneous work of a mob protesting an anti-Islamic film. It is now apparent that the Administration knew even as the attacks were going on that it was a preplanned terrorist attack.

For over a week after the attack, President Obama and other government officials clung to the fiction that the attack was a reaction to “Innocence of the Muslims,” a film ridiculing Mohammed that had already been on Youtube for months. Charles Woods, the father of Ty Woods, one of the Americans killed in the attack, told radio host Lars Larson that Secretary of State Clinton vowed to have the filmmaker “arrested” and “prosecuted” in apparent disregard for the First Amendment.

In a timeline of the attacks and their aftermath posted on Oct. 26, Factcheck.org points out some of the flaws in the Administration’s claims. There was no mob at the Benghazi consulate in spite of President Obama’s claims to the contrary. State Department reports say that everything was calm until the attack started at approximately 3:40 p.m. At 6:07 p.m., while the attack was still in process, the State Department Operations Center emailed the White House and the Pentagon as well as several other agencies to tell them that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack. The attack continued until about 8:30 p.m. when Libyan security forces drove off the surviving attackers. The attack continued for approximately four to five hours.

Even though there were reports of al Qaeda involvement even while the attack was still in progress, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, and other Administration officials persisted in blaming the film for over a week after the attack. There is no reasonable reason to deny al Qaeda’s involvement for national security reasons since the fact that there was no mob was common knowledge in Libya. The only logical reason to shift the blame to Youtube and away from al Qaeda is for President Obama’s political benefit.

Examiner previously described reports that the Obama Administration denied requests to increase security before the attack. Now there are reports that requests for assistance during the attack were denied as well. Fox News reports that CIA operators were denied permission to assist the Americans under attack inside the consulate. The unnamed sources “on the ground in Benghazi” said that a small team heard the shots from a safe house and requested permission to help. They were ordered to “stand down,” but several members of the team, including former Navy SEAL Ty Woods, ignored the order and were able to evacuate survivors from the consulate, possibly preventing even greater loss of life.

When they returned, the safe house itself came under attack. The CIA team again called for help and were again denied. The Fox News report indicates that a team member on the roof with a laser target designator asked for an airstrike by an AC-130 Spectre gunship. More than seven hours after the initial attack began, a mortar attack on the CIA safe house killed Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, another former SEAL.

The Fox report notes that the CIA denied the report. “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," said spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

The Fox report also states that two American surveillance drones were on the scene during the attack. In spite of the fact that these drones could send real time information and video to Washington, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters that officials had no clear idea of what was going on and could not provide assistance.

As yet unconfirmed are reports that General Carter Ham, commanding officer of the U.S. Africa Command, was relieved of his command because he was about to ignore orders not to help the Americans in Benghazi. Rumors are swirling that the general had a rapid response unit ready to go when he was ordered to stand down. The general responded that he was going to aid the consulate anyway. Less than thirty seconds later, the general’s executive officer relieved him and assumed command. The rescue mission did not take place. Defense Secretary Panetta previously claimed that Ham advised against a rescue mission.

Coverage of the rumor in the Washington Times notes that the Pentagon claims that Ham’s removal was planned in advance. Nevertheless, the article also states that Ham was in his post for only a year and a half. The normal tour length for such a command post is three years.

The reports of the circumstances surrounding General Ham’s dismissal are unconfirmed at this point, but given the other untruths coming from President Obama and his Administration they are plausible. In contrast to Obama’s claims that a Libyan mob killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, it now appears that the only Libyan mob was the one that found Stevens, at that point still alive, in the ruins of the consulate and took him to the hospital according to the Associated Press. At that point, U.S. and Libyan relief forces were still not on the scene.

Mark Thiessen of the Washington Post reported on Sept. 13 that the president’s public schedule showed that the last “daily” intelligence briefing that the president received was on Sept.5, more than a week before the attack. A spokesman for the National Security Council did point out that a printed copy of the President’s Daily Briefing is delivered to the president every day.

Additionally, the Long War Journal reports that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee and al Qaeda member was involved in the attack. Sufyan ben Qumu was transferred to Libyan custody in 2007. He was released by Qaddafi’s government in 2010.

On Friday, in response to repeated questions about the allegations, the president answered as quoted by USA Today, “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”

The FBI team dispatched to investigate the attack did not arrive in Libya until Oct. 4, three weeks after the attack. According to the New York Times, the Obama Administration blamed the delay on the Libyan government.

The investigation of the entire Benghazi matter is ongoing, but will not be complete until after the election. This is unacceptable. Voters deserve to know the truth about the attack in Benghazi and they should know before the election.

Originally published on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/article/voters-deserve-truth-about-benghazi-cover-up-before-election?cid=db_articles

Benghazi security scandal may sink Obama campaign

On Wednesday, October 10, Congress began hearings on the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. In the aftermath of the attack, Obama Administration officials claimed that the attack was the spontaneous response to “The Innocence of the Muslims,” an internet video that also allegedly sparked protests in other Muslim countries.
Doubts were cast upon the administration’s story almost immediately. According to timelines compiled by CNN and USA Today, the president of Libya contradicted Obama’s movie claim on September 16. It was not until September 18 that an administration official, Director of National Intelligence Matthew Olsen, acknowledged publicly that the attack was a terrorist attack. It was not until September 26, more than two weeks after the attack, that the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda. The Obama Administration also denied that there was any intelligence that the attack was imminent and that officials had no knowledge of the impending danger.
Now State Department officials are testifying before congress that both claims were not true. According to CNN coverage of the hearings, Eric Nordstrom, the former regional security officer, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he had made repeated requests for more manpower at the Benghazi facility. At the time of the attack, there were five security officers, three who were assigned to the consulate and two who had traveled with Ambassador Stevens. Nordstrom had requested a total of twelve agents.
According to Wall Street Journal coverage of the hearings, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood of the Utah National Guard and former commander of the Site Security Team, security was actually cut at the consulate prior to the attacks. The 16 member team was replaced by Libyans trained by the State Department.
The State Department disputed Nordstrom and Wood’s testimony. House Democrats noted as well that budget cuts by Republicans had led to diplomatic security funding below what the White House had requested.
The congressional testimony is supported by Ambassador Stevens own journal, which was discovered by CNN. According a Huffington Post report, the journal showed that Stevens was concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism and Al Qaeda in Libya. Stevens noted that there were constant threats to security and even believed himself to be on an Al Qaeda hit list.
The reports of the Obama Administration’s failure to take Al Qaeda seriously and protect American diplomats are explosive. This is especially true considering that they come only a month before the presidential election. President Obama is already slipping in the polls after his lackluster debate performance last week and the new revelations about the Libya attacks present a new obstacle to his recovery.
If the matter is not pursued in the press, it almost certainly will be by Mitt Romney and the Republicans. The unfolding story of the Benghazi attacks and how they occurred will certainly be an issue in the upcoming presidential debates. The third debate between President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney is dedicated to foreign policy and will be held on Oct. 22. The subject will probably also be raised at tonight’s vice presidential debate between Vice President Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan as well the town hall debate between Obama and Romney on Oct. 16.
President Obama has largely avoided fallout from several other administration scandals. He was elected in spite of his ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright and ‘60s radical Bill Ayres. The Solyndra scandal never totally captured the attention of the press and media. The president was able to maintain his distance from the Fast and Furious program, in which the federal government allowed illegal guns to cross the border into Mexico. One of those guns resulted in the death of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. The publicity surrounding the Benghazi security scandal may mean that President Obama is unable to avoid damage to his reelection campaign.
Originally published on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/article/benghazi-fallout-threatens-obama-campaign

White House treatment of Arizona is election issue

In the wake of this week’s Supreme Court decision striking down parts of the controversial Arizona immigration law, the White House announced President Obama’s decision to unilaterally cancel agreements between the federal government and seven Arizona law enforcement agencies. These “287 (g)” agreements had allowed state officials to request that federal officials pick up illegal immigrants held in state and local jails. Previously, the federal government had also allowed state officials to ask federal agencies to check the immigration status of people who were arrested or stopped for traffic violations.

The Supreme Court’s ruling upheld this cooperation between state and federal agencies, but, according to the Daily Caller, administration officials say that Arizona will not be allowed to transfer illegal aliens to federal custody unless they are felons or are known to have recently crossed the border. The practical effect of the White House announcement is to invalidate Arizona’s ability to check immigration status.

The Supreme Court ruling largely invoked the pre-eminence of federal law, but President Obama is choosing not to enforce those same laws. Essentially, President Obama is ignoring federal immigration law and is preventing the states from taking action to protect their own borders and citizens.

The move is apparently an attempt to punish Arizona for enacting its own immigration law against the Obama Administration’s wishes. Several other states have enacted similar legislation that allows state and local police to check the immigration status of suspects and detain illegal aliens. Georgia passed an immigration bill modeled on the Arizona law in 2011.

The move by the White House, together with its announcement last week that it would not deport illegal aliens who entered the U.S. as children, is an obvious attempt to solidify Obama’s support in the Latino community. The president might be disappointed in the results. A recent Gallup poll shows that only 12 percent of Hispanic registered voters view immigration as the most important issue. Healthcare, unemployment, the economy and the gap between rich and poor all rank higher.

The president’s unilateral policy also states that the Department of Homeland Security would issue work visas to the affected young people. President Obama lacks the authority under the Constitution to issue these visas since only Congress is granted the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations” and “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” In any case, since the policy was established by an executive order and not by act of Congress, it is unlikely to last long past the election.

President Obama’s decision not to take border security seriously is a gamble with national security. According to Customs and Border Patrol data obtained by CNS News, agents apprehended 255 illegal aliens from “special interest countries” along the southwestern border in 2011. These included people from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Somalia and Sudan, all countries “that have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members” according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Obama’s moves may cost him support in other areas. A Pew poll from June 2012 showed that 70 percent of Americans believe that border security should be the first priority or equal in importance to a pathway to citizenship for illegals. This may explain why the president’s approval index by Rasmussen has dropped by six points over the past week.

Aside from the immigration question, the unilateral move is another in a series of executive power grabs by President Obama. His decision not to enforce constitutional laws that were duly passed by Congress may not play well with Americans who value the objective rule of law over the subjective whims of whoever happens to reside in the Oval Office.

In traditional American government, Congress, the legislative branch, makes the laws and the president, the executive branch, enforces them. Short of a judicial ruling that forces him to carry out the duties of his office, Congress cannot make President Obama do his job. Generally, if a president does not like the law as it is written, he works with his allies in Congress to pass new laws, not simply announce that the law will no longer be enforced.

The ultimate control over the executive branch lies in the hands of the electorate. If voters believe that President Obama is not doing his duty as president, they may well decide that his contract does not deserve to be renewed for another four years.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s-non-enforcement-of-immigration-law-is-election-issue

ACLU: Ron Paul is more progressive than Obama

Ron Paul supporters claim that Rep. Paul is the only candidate who represents a change from what they see as the almost identical policies of Presidents Obama and Bush. A closer look reveals that just the opposite is true. Not only are the policies of President Obama starkly different from those of President Bush on most issues, but the platform of Rep. Paul is almost identical to that of President Obama in many key areas. A new report card by the American Civil Liberties Union, Liberty Watch 2012, ranks Paul higher than Obama on a host of progressive and anti-war issues.

The area where President Obama and Ron Paul are the most alike is on foreign policy. Both seem to share the conviction that the United States is to blame for many of the world’s problems. Obama said in 2009 that “America has shown arrogance.” In many other statements, he has made clear his belief that the U.S. does not have the moral authority to lead the world. In a similar vein, Ron Paul stated in a 2007 presidential debate on Fox News that the 9/11 attacks were “blowback” from U.S. interference in Middle Eastern politics.

Both Paul and Obama opposed the War on Terror. In 2001, Paul voted for the Authorization to Use Military Force (H.J.R. 64) in Afghanistan, but the next year he voted against the authorization to use force against Iraq (H.J.R. 114). More recently, Paul has called for an end to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and would like to have the U.S. exit from the U.N.

For his part, President Obama also originally supported the war in Afghanistan while opposing the war in Iraq. In 2002, just prior to the congressional vote on Iraq, in a video on CNS News Obama said, “… After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars.  ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.”

A central part of Obama’s 2008 platform was the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. At the end of 2011, the last U.S. troops left Iraq on Obama’s orders. He is currently withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan with the last American soldier scheduled to leave in 2014 according to the New York Times. At the same time, Obama has stepped up drone attacks on terrorists, a policy which Ron Paul has criticized.

On the issue of gay rights, Ron Paul also shares similarities with President Obama. Paul was not in Congress in 1996 when Georgia’s Bob Barr (then a Republican, but now a Libertarian) sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act and President Clinton signed it into law. He did state on Fox News that he opposes a federal marriage amendment on the grounds that marriage is a religious and state issue and that the federal government should not be involved, although he did co-sponsor the Marriage Protection Act, which never became law. Paul was one of only 15 Republicans to vote for the repeal of “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell.”

President Obama has called the Defense of Marriage Act “unconstitutional” and instructed Attorney General Holder not to defend the law against legal challenges. Obama signed the repeal of “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” into law, and under his authority the Pentagon permitted military chaplains to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Hillary Clinton, Obama’s Secretary of State has said that U.S. policy is that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.”

On a number of issues, Ron Paul is even farther to the left than President Obama. President Obama recently rebuffed a petition to legalize marijuana. Ron Paul advocates an end to the drug war, which he claims is rooted in racism. In a 2011 debate on Fox News, Paul also defended the legalization of prostitution. Paul would end all foreign aid. Paul voted against the PATRIOT Act. President Obama reauthorized the law in May 2011.

Ron Paul has criticized President Obama for the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was a senior recruiter and theological leader of al Qaeda. Paul believes that Awlaki should have been given due process, even though he was beyond the reach of the American legal system in Yemen when he was killed in 2011.

Paul is also the only candidate of either party who does not believe that Iran’s nuclear program poses a threat to world peace. On December 30, 2011, Paul told ABC News that “they [the Iranians] don’t threaten our national security,” in spite of the recent revelations of an Iranian plot to plant a bomb in a Washington, D.C. restaurant. President Obama has called a nuclear Iran “unacceptable” and pursued sanctions as a means of isolating that country. Ron Paul calls these sanctions an “act of war.”

Rep. Paul and President Obama travel on two different ideological roads, but they often reach the same destination. Often Paul is farther down the road than Obama. Perhaps that explains why more members of Occupy Atlanta favored Ron Paul than Obama.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

 

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/aclu-ron-paul-is-more-progressive-than-obama