Tag Archives: Al-Qaeda

By the definition of treason given in the US Constitution, both Obama and Clinton are guilty

According to the US Constitution, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of treason and should be charged, tried, convicted and appropriately punished by the forfeiture of their lives.

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution states:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

“The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

I’m sure given enough time and space, one could fill volumes with incidences from Obama and Clinton that would fall under the Constitution’s definition of treason, but all it takes is one conviction to put them in front of a firing squad, but I’ll show more than one cause, at least for Obama.

Libya – Obama – Obama assisted in the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muamar Gadhafi. Obama supplied weapons and air support for the rebels that eventually took control of the government. So who were these rebels? According to some Libyan sources, many of the rebel leaders who ended up in key government positions were members of al Qaeda. Furthermore, the Libyan sources claim that the same members of al Qaeda that Obama helped put into power in Libya were also responsible for the attack on the Us Embassy compound in Benghazi and the murder of US Ambassador Stevens and the three other brave Americans.

“For example, Abdul Wahhab Hassan Qayed now works in the Libyan Interior Ministry where he has been put in control over Libya’s borders. He is the brother to Abu Yahya al-Libi. Qayed, a recently assassinated member of Al Qaeda. Under his oversight, Al Qaeda operatives are being free access to cross the border into Libya where they have been welcomed.”

“Another example is that of Fadlallah Haran Musa and Khalid Atiyeh. Both men have ties to Al Qaeda and have been placed in important government roles. Musa has been made head of the National Security Fares in Barqa (eastern Libya) and Atiyeh has been assigned to be Musa’s assistant.”

Sufyan Gammu is still one of the most sought after members of Al Qaeda, largely because he had served as Osama bin Laden’s personal driver. Information states that he is now living openly in Libya under the protection of the new government, again with the cooperation of the Obama administration.’

Salem Al-Barrani Dirbi, also of Al Qaeda has been in hiding in the mountains of Libya since 1996. Dirbi is
the current leader of Abu Salim Martyrs Brigade and now is free to walk the streets of Benghazi.”

“The list goes on from here of known terrorists and enemies of the United States that have now not only found sanctuary in Libya, but many have been placed in positions of power. And according to the Libyan exiles, their documentation shows that they all have the knowledge and blessings of the Obama administration.”

Egypt – Obama – Obama helped Egyptian rebels to overthrow the government of Hosni Mubarak. One of the main rebel forces behind the rebellion was the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic group. Once Mubarak was ousted, Obama fully supported the new Egyptian government controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood and run by Mohamed Morsi. In fact, Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood was so strong that it led one Egyptian newspaper to claim that President Barack Obama was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Under Morsi’s rule, Egypt’s substantial Coptic Christian population were targeted by not only radical Muslims, but also by police and government agents. Many Christians were beaten, raped, burned and murdered and their homes and churches were looted and burned.

Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood government of Morsi wanted nothing more than to destroy Israel and the United States. During one cabinet meeting, the Egyptian leadership forgot that the meeting was being televised when the cameras caught Magdi Hussein, the leader of the Islamic Labor Party, saying:

“I’m very fond of battles. With the enemies, of course, with America and Israel, but this battle must be waged with maximum judiciousness and calm. Even though this is a secret meeting we must all take an oath not to leak anything to the media unless it is done officially by Sister Pakinam. We need an official plan for popular national security, even if we did …”

In the light of this and other troubling information concerning Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government, Congress voted to freeze all military and financial aid and transactions. However, Obama took it upon himself to illegally bypass Congress and send 20 F-16 fighter jets and millions of dollars that had been frozen, to Morsi’s terrorist government.

It’s clear that Obama’s actions amount to nothing less than treason. In fact, a group of Egyptian lawyers have filed charges of criminal terrorism and crimes against humanity against Barack Obama for his involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood. The charges have been filed in the International Criminal Court and similar charges, including treason, need to be filed against him here in the United States for aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States.

Egypt – Clinton – While serving as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton also fully supported Obama’s support of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government. Her support was enough to bring Egyptian lawyers to file criminal charges in the International Criminal court against Clinton for crimes against humanity, like those filed against Obama.

Reports from Egypt at the time connected then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to domestic terrorism that took place in Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood. In an interview with Turkey’s Anatolia news agency, Naglaa Mahmoud, the wife of ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, she admitted her role in the nation’s violence. She told them that she actively worked to help excite domestic insurrections to overthrown Abdel Fatah Al Sisi, the new Deputy Prime Minister of Egypt. Perhaps the most internationally explosive part of her interview was when she said that her actions were in collaboration with Hillary Clinton.”

“Former Muslim Brotherhood activist turned Christian, Walid Shoebat translated part of the interview with Mahmoud. What she said should shock you and should be enough to dash any 2016 presidential hopes of Hillary Clinton, but you know that the liberal mainstream media will keep this buried just as they have buried the news about the charges filed against Obama:”

“Qaffas: According to Anatolia Press, Mahmoud said, ‘I have between my fingers, a treasure trove of secrets from the White House and Mrs. Clinton fears my wrath. ’She said, ‘I will not speak about Huma Abedin’. When asked if she had a close relationship with Hillary Clinton, Mahmoud said, “When my husband returns from his kidnapping, the one who led the coup will pay a hefty price.’ Of Mrs. Clinton, she said, ‘We have a long friendship of many years. We lived in the U.S. and my children learned there. This friendship increased further when my husband became the legitimate president of the country.’

“Mahmoud went on to say that they were recruited by the Clintons from the U.S. and began their friendship in the 1980′s. This appears to be a conspiracy that is being hidden.”

Speaking of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, let’s not forget her closest aid and confident, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin. What many people may not realize is that there exists an Islamic organization known as the Islamic Sisterhood, a female branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2012, it was learned that there was a list of 63 names of the women leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood. One of those names was Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, the mother of Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin.

Saleha Mahmoud Abedin is a professor and dean at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia and according to Walid Shoebat, has been heavily involved in organizations tied to terrorism. He claims to have found numerous accounts in Arab news sources ‘that implicated Huma’s mother as being part of a plot reminiscent of Hitler’s Nazi Germany.’ However, he says that with the rise of Huma Abedin, that much of the information on Saleha has been efficiently cleansed.

Another name on the leadership list for the Muslim Sisterhood was Najla Ali Mahmoud, who just happens to be the wife of the former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi who was the leader of the militant Muslim Brotherhood. Don’t forget that she is the one who has leveled charges against Hillary Clinton.

Furthermore, at the time Huma Abedin, a devout Muslim was married to then US Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) who is a devout Jew. Knowing the hatred that exists between Muslims and Jews, their marriage is a strange one at best. Normally, a Muslim family would disown a daughter who married a Jew, yet Abedin remained in good standing with her family, again another curiosity begging the question why? As I reported in 2012:

“Have you ever heard of the term Muruna? It’s a Muslim policy that allows someone to lie and deceive in order to gain someone’s complete trust so as to place themselves in a position to gain information useful to the cause. Hamas has used Muruna in a number of ways, one of which is getting a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim person of influence in order to learn or gain access to valuable information and secrets.”

“Walid Shoebat suggests that Huma Abedin may in fact be part of a Hamas Muruna plot. He points out that against all Muslim tradition, she married Anthony Weiner, a Jew and the former democratic congressman from New York who resigned in disgrace after his sex scandal. Shoebat tries to support his possible case against Huma by pointing out that she is still a practicing Muslim and as such, was never disavowed by her very Muslim family for marrying a Jew. Additionally, he mentioned that when Weiner resigned he reportedly told a friend, ‘My problem is that I have three women I have to convince that I’m cured: Huma, her mother — and Hillary.’”

“Now, Huma is the closest person to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and is in a position that gives her access to highly classified documents and information that could prove to be very useful to Hamas and her mother.”

Clearly, Hillary Clinton’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood along with her association with Huma Abedin and her links to the Muslim Sisterhood and Hamas are aiding and abetting our enemies.

As I stated at the beginning, there are numerous other examples that could fill volumes, but I hope I have provided enough evidence to show that both Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are guilty of treason against the United States as defined by the US Constitution. They both need to be charged, arrested, tried, convicted and summarily executed for their high crimes against our nation.


[by Dave Jolly, writing for CONSTITUTION.com]


NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  The Bible says this, in Numbers 32:23: “You may be sure your sins will find you out.”  It appears we are watching that process at work.




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Clinton-Obama Benghazi story refuted by detailed Defense Department report

At the same time Obama, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other top leaders were blaming spontaneous protests for the deadly Benghazi attack, the Defense Department broadly circulated a detailed intelligence report that said an al Qaeda-linked group planned the assault 10 days beforehand.

Its goal was to kill as many Americans as possible.

The Defense Intelligence Agency report is contained in a trove of previously classified documents that the government watchdog group Judicial Watch forced the Obama administration to release under court order.

On another terrorism development that has wide implications today, one DIA report in August 2012 predicted the rise of the Islamic State, which was then emerging in Syria. It now controls wide sections of eastern Syria and northern and western Iraq, and is committing mass slaughter of Christians, Kurds and Muslims of rival sects or clans.

Mr. Obama downplayed the Islamic State as the “JV” in January 2014 when the terrorist army made its first incursions into western Iraq.

Judicial Watch said in a statement that the Benghazi documents are clear evidence that Mr. Obama and his aides lied to the American public two months before the November elections. Amid poor security, the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and an aide. Terrorists later attacked a nearby CIA base, killing two former Navy SEALs serving as a security detail.

Judicial Watch previously forced the administration to release a chain of emails that revealed the tortured process by which White House and State Department political appointees took the CIA’s draft report on the attack and changed it to say the carnage was caused by spontaneous demonstrations over an American-made anti-Islam video.

On Sept. 16, the same date as the DIA report, Susan E. Rice, who then was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and now is national security adviser, went on Sunday political talk shows and blamed the attack on protesters angered by the video.

The administration could argue this point: The final CIA “talking points” paper was approved Sept. 15. The DIA report saying an al Qaeda-linked group carried out the attack was dated Sept. 16.

But Judicial Watch argues that the information contained in the DIA report was obtained as of Sept. 12, the day after the attack.

The president and Mrs. Clinton took days more to concede that the attack was terrorism and not a protest gone violent. Mr. Obama cited the video later that month in a speech to the U.N.

Matt Olsen, who was serving as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, became the first administration official to publicly call the attacks terrorism, on Sept. 19.  Mrs. Clinton followed suit the next day. But Obama, on that same day, was asked at a town hall meeting about the attack and declined to label it terrorism.

The White House on Tuesday did not respond to a query about the Judicial Watch findings.

Subsequent congressional hearings showed the Benghazi post was on a hit list compiled by terrorists who wanted to rid the city of all Western organizations. The hearings showed that Mr. Stevens repeatedly asked for more security but was rebuffed by Washington.

The Washington Times first reported in October 2012 that a defense intelligence report existed and that it blamed al Qaeda for the Benghazi attack shortly afterward.

The DIA papers obtained by Judicial Watch say the al Qaeda-linked group, Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman, claimed responsibility. Rahman is known as the “blind sheikh,” and was convicted and imprisoned for his role in the first World Trade Center attack. The organization is linked to Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan terrorist group that also took part in the attack on the diplomatic outpost.

“The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012,” the defense report said. “The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for the U.S. killing of [an al Qaeda commander] in Pakistan and in memorial of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings.”

Even more revealing is that the DIA concluded that al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri was involved. He sent Abdul Baset Azuz, the brigades leader, to Libya to set up an al Qaeda terrorist cell.

“It was stated that Azuz was not a charismatic leader but rather just a violent radical,” the DIA said.

Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president, called the DIA documents “jaw dropping.” His group sued the administration under the Freedom of Information Act.

“No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them,” he said. “If the American people had known the truth — that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go — and yet lied and covered this fact up — Mitt Romney might very well be president.”

Mr. Fitton said the documents “show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

The DIA report said Azuz quickly established an al Qaeda headquarters in eastern Libya and obtained Russian-designed shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.

Another document states that the Muslim Brotherhood was allied with al Qaeda in trying to bring down the Bashar Assad regime in Syria. At the time, Mr. Obama supported the elected Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, which was later deposed by the military.

“Why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda?” Mr. Fitton said.

The Judicial Watch documents also show that the administration was aware of a major arms trafficking network in Libya that took government missiles and guns and shipped them to Islamists in Syria.

There is no indication that the CIA was involved, as some observers asserted.

On the Islamic State, the DIA said in August 2012 that the terrorist army “could also declare an Islamic State throughout its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

[by Rowan Scarborough, writing for The Washington Times]

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  As all of America knows by now, the only “JV team” that really is one is the team in the White House. Biggest bunch of bunglers ever to assume they could lead the USA.


As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

We’ve heard it all now, folks. Obama says his appearance of incompetence, of wavering and uncertainty in the face of international threats, is really just “strategic patience.” Well, gosh…so sorry we misunderstood, Mr. O…

Putin got Crimea and wants lots more. Iran is still working on the bomb. And ISIS is expanding its territory as fast as it can. But fear not, our illustrious Man On Fire in the White House has everything under control.

Mr. ObummerOur fearless leader knows what he’s doing. First he golfs incessantly to make them think he’s a lightweight. He bows and appeases in person. And then at the last possible second, when they least expect it, he…attacks? No, he falls back to his totally-thought-out plan of Patient Strategy. Or Strategic Patience. It’s also been called Leading From Behind.

Just be strategically patient.

Critics of Obama’s foreign policy have for years assailed his administration for responding too slowly to crises ranging from Syria to Russia. In a far-reaching blueprint released Friday that outlines the administration’s worldview, the White House insisted the United States is leading the global effort to confront challenges in a deliberate manner described as “strategic patience.” (“Leading the global effort” from behind.)

Instead of taking that 3 AM phone call, Barry sleeps in and gets back to it at 3 PM.  Strategic patience.

Instead of rescuing Americans under fire in Benghazi, he lets them die and blames a video. Patient strategy.

A White House summary of the strategy, released in tandem with the overall plan, repeatedly highlights the administration’s intent to lead — in partnerships, with military power, and “with a long-term perspective, influencing the trajectory of major shifts in the security landscape today in order to secure our national interests in the future.”

This is the sort of thing a new business  with no business plan puts out to explain why they need money. “We’re, uh, influencing major shifts, working toward synergy in order to secure marketplace share as part of our long-term perspective. You know, shifts. And synergy. Long-term stuff. We just need some short-term money now so we can get to the long-term stuff.”

Friday’s strategy essentially is the written product of what the White House has all along argued is in America’s best interests: Carefully constructed security plans that consider all options before getting ensnared in risky and potentially open-ended conflicts.

Like Libya? You know, the illegal war Obama launched by lying to the UN, that ended with Al Qaeda taking over.

How about Afghanistan? Syria? Iraq? Where are those carefully constructed security plans that consider all options before getting ensnared in risky conflicts?

Maybe we need to be more strategically patient until the carefully constructed plans are revealed.

“The United States should not “attempt to dictate the trajectory of all unfolding events around the world,” Obama wrote. “As powerful as we are and will remain, our resources and influence are not infinite.”

Says the man who keeps trying and failing to influence other countries as he squanders most of our resources and all our influence. Thanks for clearing that up for us, Mr. O.

National Security Adviser Susan Rice is set to publicly roll out the strategy in a speech Friday afternoon at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington.

And if you don’t like her speech, she’ll blame a YouTube video.

Additionally, the White House calls climate change and energy security as key to US national security. Not opposing the man-burning barbarians who are trying to figure out how to get to Washington as soon as possible. Climate change is the key to our security.

Also gay rights. And ObamaCare. And golfing.

Even Obama’s own top advisers have criticized his administration’s national security decisions. Late last month, former Defense Intelligence Agency head Mike Flynn, a retired Army three-star general, said many in the administration were “paralyzed” by the complexity of fighting the Islamic State, leading them to “accept a defensive posture, reasoning that passivity is less likely to provoke our enemies.”

But wait, General. That’s not passivity. That’s Strategic Patience in action.

Although a 1986 U.S. law requires US presidents to issue an annual national security strategy, Obama’s last policy was issued in May 2010, and made the case for ending the war in Iraq and adding more troops to the fight in Afghanistan.

Well, gosh…big mistake. We’re sorry. Those plans worked out pretty well, didn’t they?

[by Daniel Greenfield, writing for Front Page Magazine]

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

US foreign policy is failing dramatically. Why?

WHEN AMERICA WAS ATTACKED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, ITS REACTION WAS TO DECLARE WAR ON TERROR. For the next 13 years the US fought to defeat tyranny, destroy weapons of mass destruction, and promote democracy and Western ideals. It was hoped that American firepower would make the world a better place.

The opposite happened.

On the Iraq and Afghanistan battlefields alone, some 2.5 MILLION American military men and women put their lives on the line. Yet an Iraqi civil war and an indefatigable Taliban are destroying everything America built to date. In Somalia and Yemen, American drones rain fire on enemies below, yet America’s allies are on the run. In Egypt, US pressure helped topple a dictator ally and replace him with a democratically elected terrorist who hated the US. Another coup soon followed, along with a new dictator. In Libya, America bombed Muammar Qadhafi. In his wake came warring militias with terrorist links, a murdered US ambassador plus three staff, and an ongoing deadly civil war that has killed tens of thousands.

America has great political and military power, but in locations all over the globe our foreign policy is failing dramatically. Why? The truth is that God is no longer on our side. The Bible says very clearly, “I will break the pride of your power…and your strength shall be spent in vain.” (Leviticus 26: 19-20). America continues to tell God over and over again, in many different ways, that we do not need Him or want Him. We have a president who tells us he is quoting from the Bible but has no clue that his quoted passage does not appear anywhere in Scripture.  We have a Supreme Court which upholds abortion and same-sex marriage, and our churches think nothing of installing gay pastors in their pulpits.

The following examples show further the truth of the above Leviticus prophecy.



In 1967 Co. Muammar Qadhafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa. By the time he was assinated, Libya was Africa’s wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest live expectancy and highest gross domestic product per capita on the entire continent. Fewer people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands. Libya was sometimes referred to as the Switzerland of Africa. Wealth was being generated; schools hospitals were running and were free. In 2011 the US led an air campaign supporting the “Arab Spring” and Qadhafi was ousted from leadership. The result was catastrophic. Oil production was cut in half to 810,000 barrels per day. Since 2011, 32,000 people have been killed. The nation is locked in war. It is a terrorist haven, and some 250 militias now control what once was the wealthiest country in Africa.



In 2003 Iraq was invaded by a US-led coalition to remove dictator Saddam Hussein, destroy weapons of mass destruction, and create a democracy. Eight years later, 7,888 US soldiers and contractors were dead, along with 190,000 Iraqi civilians. Total cost including reconstruction: $2.2 TRILLION.  Less than two years after America said “mission complete,” the US-built Iraqi army had virtually collapsed, the radical Islamic State had proclaimed itself to be in charge, Iraq was engulfed in a Sunnis vs. Shiites civil war, and over 24,000 more people were dead. Today, Iraq is essentially split into three warring regions: the area controlled by the Islamic State in the middle, a Kurdish autonomous region in the north, and a Shiite-controlled south. On November 7th, the US president was forced to send 1500 additional US troops back to Iraq to support the 1500 who had previously returned. Obviously, our exit from Iraq could be called nothing if not premature.



Washington is trying to help the Somali government to (1) retake control of vast parts of its country lost to the Iran-sponsored terror group called Al-Shabaab, and (2) maintain a foothold on the strategic Gulf of Aden waterway. In October of 2013 Mr. Obama approved the sending of US military to act as advisers.  So far about 220 terrorist operatives have been killed by US drone strikes, while at least $700 million has been spent propping up the Somali National Army and training African Union forces to combat Al-Shabaab. So far, this terror group appears to be completely unfazed and undeterred.



In early 2011 America helped push long-standing ally Hosni Mubarak from the presidency. This ushered in an era of instability and violence. Three leaders later, GDP growth has been cut in half from 4 percent to less than 2 percent; unemployment has jumped from 9 percent to 12 percent; and external debt has climbed from $34.7 billion to $45.3 billion. At the same time vehicle thefts have quadrupled; homicides have tripled; and armed robberies have risen from 233 the year before Mubarak’s resignation, to 2807 in the year 2012. Politically this one-time US ally now views America with skepticism and suspicion.



In 2009 Obama approved a drone-bombing campaign to help the Yemeni government combat Iran-backed Houthi rebels in the north. America’s involvement turned the local citizenry against the ruling government. By 2011, the Yemeni army and US drones were also fighting Al Qaeda in the south. Today the country is deep in civil war, its capital city is controlled by the Houthi, and the US-backed government faces collapse.



After more than 13 years of war and the death of Osama bin Laden, America is bringing its troops home. The war cost $710 billion and the lives of 2349 American military. After spending $56 billion to equip the Afghan army, it is unclear whether that army will continue to fight the Taliban, or switch sides and join it. At the start of this war the Taliban consisted of approximately 2000 terrorist radicals; that number has now swelled to 60,000. The US has failed in other ways, too. We invested nearly $8 billion in trying to dismantle opium production, but the opium crop is at least twice as large as when we first entered the country. Because we acted as we did in Iraq and announced ahead of time our planned Afghan departure date, Afghan leaders now appear to be cutting deals with the Taliban in preparation for our impending exit.


[From a recent article in The Philadelphia Trumpet]



As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Obama forced to reverse his position from the last six years…

After spending nearly six years of his presidency installing a series of constraints on U.S. counterterrorism operations, President Obama has launched a broad military offensive against Islamist groups in Syria that stretches the limits of those legal and policy enclosures.

The barrage of airstrikes was aimed mainly at a militant group, the Islamic State, that is no longer among the al-Qaeda “associates” envisioned by the military authorization passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The group is not even suspected of planning attacks against the United States.

The unfolding U.S. air campaign has employed weapons — including dozens of 3,000-pound Tomahawk missiles launched from U.S. warships — that have flattened targets in ways destined to test Obama’s doctrine requiring “near certainty” that no civilians be killed.

Obama said the assault was a message “to anyone who would plot against America and try to do Americans harm that we will not tolerate safe havens for terrorists.” Pentagon officials described the strikes as a successful opening to a long-term campaign.

The opening salvo included a smaller and separate mission more in line with Obama’s counterterrorism playbook: a flurry of strikes against an al-Qaeda cell said to be “nearing the execution stage” of attacks against America or Europe.

But overall, the initial dimensions of the assault put the United States on a significantly different counterterrorism course than Obama envisioned last year, when he delivered a speech describing the nation’s security landscape as returning to pre-Sept. 11 normalcy.

“We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us,” Obama said in a May 2013 speech at the National Defense University, outlining an array of new limits, including “respect for state sovereignty.”

“There are a lot of lines that he’s drawn in the sand. Just about every one of which he seems to have crossed now,” said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard University law professor and senior Justice Department official in the Bush administration, who attributed the outcome in part to the nature of Obama’s job.

“The reality is that security threats are his first responsibility,” Goldsmith said. “Between past statements and pretty-sounding principles on the one hand, and the reality of security threats on the other, every president will always address the security threats and discard the principles.”

Obama administration officials disputed that characterization and said the unfolding offensive in Syria is in line with the president’s broader objectives to keep U.S. forces out of ground wars, place more pressure on foreign allies to confront overseas threats, and rely on lethal U.S. capabilities only as a last resort.

In remarks Tuesday, Obama stressed the involvement of other countries, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and described the danger posed by the Islamic State — which has seized territory in Iraq and Syria and beheaded two American journalists — as one he could not ignore.

But eight of the 22 airstrikes that began Monday night Washington time were aimed at targets associated with an alleged al-Qaeda cell in Aleppo called the Khorasan group, an organization so obscure that U.S. officials had never even mentioned it by name until a week ago.

By Tuesday, officials across the Obama administration and U.S. military were describing the group as an “imminent threat” to this country.

U.S. intelligence officials described the group as a unit of Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, that was formed specifically to plot attacks against Western targets. “These are operatives who are quite seasoned,” with experience in Pakistan, Yemen and other conflict zones, a senior administration official said.

U.S. officials provided varying descriptions of the alleged Khorasan plot, with some saying that heightened airport security reflected broad concern about the group’s expertise with explosives and efforts to recruit Westerners, rather than a plan in motion.

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to discuss specifics of the threat tied to Khorasan, but he described strikes against the group as warranted. “Their business is planning strikes against the West,” he said.

Obama’s decision to approve a Syria campaign required White House lawyers to scour international and domestic law and the administration’s own counterterrorism guidelines for ways to justify operations that might exceed the narrow limits Obama had set on lethal action outside U.S. war zones.

In particular, the administration had called for repeal of the two congressional Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed since al-Qaeda’s Sept. 2001 attacks. A 2001 AUMF against al-Qaeda and its associates was seen as overly broad and obsolete in the face of al-Qaeda’s near-demise in Pakistan and Afghanistan and the development of new terrorism threats with no relation to the World Trade Center attacks. A 2002 AUMF on Iraq had been directed at Saddam Hussein, who no longer existed.

Yet those two authorizations have formed the basis of the administration’s justification for its current actions in both Iraq and Syria, along with an assertion of the president’s constitutional power to protect American citizens and national security.

In an NBC interview Tuesday, Antony Blinken, deputy national security adviser, said the Syria strikes were justified under “a doctrine of collective self-defense,” because Iraq had asked “the United States and other countries to act against ISIL because ISIL in Syria threatens them.” ISIL is another acronym for the Islamic State. Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, offered the same justification in a letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Earlier in the day, as it strived to cover all international and domestic justification bases, the White House sent Congress notification of its actions under the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

A senior administration official, briefing reporters Tuesday under White House-imposed conditions of anonymity, said that “the president had the authority under the 2001 AUMF” to strike in Syria because the Islamic State has its roots in an al-Qaeda affiliated group founded in Iraq in 2003, even though it split from al-Qaeda earlier this year.

Congress did not intend “to remove the president’s authority to use force against this group simply because it had a disagreement with the al-Qaeda leadership,” the official said, a position that is at odds with earlier interpretations of the 2001 law.

Obama is unlikely to be challenged on the issue at a moment when there is broad support in Congress for strikes against the Islamic State and an expanded effort to arm and equip moderate rebels in Syria.

An increasing number of lawmakers have raised concern about the administration’s elastic interpretations of the AUMF and have introduced bills designed to address that measure’s perceived flaws.

A measure sponsored by Sen. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.) would repeal the 2002 Iraq authorization and approve action against the Islamic State for one year only, with limitations on ground troops and on applicability to any other so-called “associated forces.”

“Ultimately, this is about a precedent for the future,” Kaine said in a speech Tuesday at the Center for American Progress. “If Congress allows this president to begin this campaign against ISIL . . . we will have created a horrible precedent that future presidents will no doubt use.”

In the House, a bill introduced by Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) would repeal the Iraq AUMF. It would pass a new authorization narrowly allowing action against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and sunset that measure, along with the 2001 authorization, after 18 months.

By relying on the 2001 al-Qaeda authorization, Schiff said in an interview, the administration is “putting the best legal arguments on a very weak case.” They “would probably like a new authorization that repeals the old ones and sets out a new authority,” he said, “but I’m not sure they’re confident it can be done in such a dysfunctional Congress.”

[by Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung, writing for The Washington Post]


As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Don’t miss this opportunity to remember…

We cannot forget-1

We cannot forget-5

We cannot forget-3

We cannot forget-2

We cannot forget-4This was then…



Freedom Tower today...This is now.

Thirteen years (2)

WTC thirteen later...

WTC Memorial at night...

We will never forget...

As always, but today with a reverent heaviness of heart, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Obama administration declares Al Qaeda no longer a threat to the US; intelligence officials declare exactly the opposite…

This should come as no surprise from an administration that sets up Muslim Brotherhood members in top positions in the federal government, aids the avowed enemies of the US, and has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Members of the Obama administration, including National Security Adviser Susan Rice and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough apparently met with senators from both sides of the aisle late Tuesday. According to several of those senators, the meeting was focused on foreign policy and was supposed to be secret, but Yahoo News received comment from some of those senators.

Remember 9-11?

Those nice, peace-loving Al Qaeda Muslims, the ones who are now not a threat to the US, are the ones who did this. Do we remember? THEY DO!


Sen. Bob Corker, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, alluded to the meeting on Wednesday, as the panel held a hearing on whether and how to overhaul the signature law of the global war on terrorism.

“I know we both attended sort of a discussion last night that I found to be one of the most bizarre I’ve attended on Foreign Relations on foreign policy in our country,”
 Corker said at one point, referring to himself and Sen. Bob Menendez (D.-New Jersey), the committee’s chairman.

“I know several of us were involved in a very bizarre discussion last night. This continues a very bizarre discussion,” Corker said at another point.

The Tennessee Republican did not say where or with whom the meeting took place (or why it was bizarre).

The White House later confirmed the meeting. National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said McDonough hosted “an informal discussion on national security issues,” and that Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken attended.

Now, consider that this is the administration really has no desire to hurt their fellow Muslim jihadists in the least. In fact, McDonough was intimately involved in the Benghazi coverup.

However, in one of the most curious places for the truth to come out, The Daily Beast reported:

…the White House has softened its earlier position, concluding that al Qaeda and its affiliates still represented a serious threat. But the tension between the White House and many top military and intelligence officials fighting the long war remain.

In interviews with many of them, a common theme is sounded: The threat from al Qaeda is rising, but the White House is looking to ratchet down the war against these Islamic extremists. As a result, intelligence gathered on these threats remain shrouded from the public and, in many cases, from senior government officials. And now Congress and the White House are beginning to consider modifying—and possibly revoking—the very authority to find, fix and finish those terrorists who pose the threat today.

Now, clearly we are not talking “Islamic extremists,” but rather we are speaking of devout Muslims who are simply following the Qur’an, just as the founder of Islam did when he formed the political ideology. Also, keep in mind that it was the Obama administration that was claiming that al-Qaeda was on the run and that Osama bin Laden was dead.

Again, it should come as no surprise seeing we have an administration involved in open treason, in which an impotent Congress will not impeach him.

More from Al Qaeda...

More work by those nice, peace-loving Al Qaeda

However, while Congress isn’t calling Obama on this issue, many in the intelligence community are. According to The Daily Beast:

One senior U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast the frustration was that there is pressure from the White House to downplay the threat from some al Qaeda affiliates. “It comes from the top, it’s the message that al Qaeda is all these small franchise groups and they are not coordinated and threatening,” this official said. “It’s the whole idea of getting us out to place resources against something that they don’t think is a problem. It’s not their war, it’s not our conflict.”

This week, this internal struggle over the response to al Qaeda is reaching a crucial moment. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday will hold a nearly unprecedented hearing on the 2001 law that authorizes a long, global war against al Qaeda and its allies.

At the same time, U.S. intelligence officers say, there is deep division within their ranks–and with the White House—about the strength of al Qaeda in the place where that war began: Afghanistan. The current estimate of the terror group’s presence there says that al Qaeda has a little more than 100 fighters in the country’s province of Kunar. That, these intelligence officers contend, is wildly out of date. “Al Qaeda has a presence all over Afghanistan today,” a senior U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast. “This is the conversation that no one wants to have. What are they going to do after 2014 when most of our troops will be gone?”

“It comes from the top, it’s the message that al Qaeda is all these small franchise groups and they are not coordinated and threatening. It’s not their war, it’s not our conflict.”

Take a moment and consider that this administration’s former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, failed to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group. They have also failed to call the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, even when Egypt did so. They have claimed Al-Qaeda is on the run, yet covered up the fact that jihadists tied to Al-Qaeda were the very ones who attacked Americans in Benghazi. Why did they cover it up? I believe part of the reason was that Obama and Joe Biden were proudly declaring Al-Qaeda was on the run.

However, as one senior U.S. intelligence official said, “Take this ‘al Qaeda is on the run’ message, it’s something you’ve seen in the last couple of years. If they are on the run, they are on the run to the United States.”

Pamela Geller summed up exactly what is taking place concerning the Obama administration’s willful ignorance of what Islam and jihadists are engaging in and who will feel the brunt of what they are doing. She wrote, “As the global jihad rages across Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Asia, Obama continues to indulge his ROP fantasies to our great peril.”

At least there are still some who recognize the threat and are willing to stand up and be counted.
[by Tim Brown, writing for FREEDOM OUTPOST]


As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized