Observations on Obama's Iraq Speech

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Posted by mafbloggerdanny

OBAMA DISINGENUOUS IN TAKING CREDIT FOR IRAQ SUCCESS
PRESIDENT PRAISES TROOPS FOR WINNING, BUT
FAILS TO ADMIT HE WAS WRONG ABOUT WAR STRATEGY

Sacramento, Calif. – In response to President Barack Obama’s Oval Office speech on Iraq, delivered last night to the 1.5 million heroes who served in Iraq, their families, and millions of Americans across the country, Move America Forward, the nation’s largest pro-troop organization, issued the following statement:

Veterans and military families were shocked and appalled at the blatant manner in which President Barack Obama took credit for success in Iraq in his oval office address last night. Obama boldly tried to take credit by stating it was his policies that resulted in the ending of hostilities in Iraq and the pullout of combat troops.  

Just minutes into his short, 20 minute address, President Obama shamelessly declared “This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office,” he said, speaking about the drawdown of troop levels and handover of security responsibility to the Iraqi security forces. The problem is that President Obama has had nothing to do with the victory in Iraq.

In actuality, the phased drawdown of troops and equipment and transfer of security to Iraqi forces began before Obama took office. The troop drawdown and transfer of authority to the Iraqi government began long before Obama was even elected president.  In July of 2008 there were already 10 Iraqi provinces that had been transferred to Iraqi responsibility, and on September 1st, 2008, Anbar province, once one of the most dangerous places in the country, was peaceful enough to be transferred over to Iraqi security forces. On December 31, 2008, President Bush signed a “Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that eventually led to the pullout of troops from Iraqi cities and set a deadline for eventually removing all U.S. troops from the country by 2011. President Obama and his administration had nothing to do with any of these factors, so his claim that these were his campaign promises is an outright fabrication.

The person singly most responsible for the victory in Iraq, President Bush, was mentioned briefly by President Obama, but was never given any credit leading the country through the darkest months of the war, until eventually a new day dawned on Iraq and the United States of America. Obama said “this afternoon I spoke to President Bush,” but he does not congratulate the former President, nor does he credit him for supporting the war effort until victory was won.

President Bush deserves credit for standing by our troops when politicians like Obama were calling for retreat, cut-and-run, and defeat. Even as security gains in Iraq were becoming apparent, some politicians were still defiantly calling the surge a failure. Obama, then a senator, said, “President Bush [said] that the Surge is working, when we know that’s just not true.”  Vice President Joe Biden foolishly said, “This whole notion that the surge is working is fantasy.”

Senator Barbara Boxer said “the surge is ‘killing our soldiers at a great rate’. Senator Russ Feingold said, “The surge has to be stopped.” Senator Harry Reid said “The war is lost….The surge is not accomplishing anything.” It is now obvious that the surge did accomplish something: victory in Iraq. We know now that it was not a failure, and that these statements made by Obama and his friends on the left were dead wrong, yet Obama did not once allude to the fact that all the naysayers who predicted failure were wrong. He should have admitted that he and many of his cohorts on the left were wrong about Iraq.

He completely ignored the fact that he was against those policies, like the troop surge, which allowed the war to end in victory rather than defeat. He failed to give credit to the vision and resolve of President Bush while hypocritically blaming the war in Iraq for many of our domestic problems which he himself created or contributed to.

It is an admirable thing for a person to admit when they are wrong, but ignoring the fact that you are wrong when it’s so obvious, and trying to take credit for it regardless, that’s dishonest of the President and disrespectful for those who stood tall and defended America’s interest in securing peace through victory in Iraq.

In one of the most inappropriate and disgraceful attempts to score political points that we have ever seen, Obama tried to use this momentous occasion to win more support for his domestic agenda. He criticized the monetary cost of the war, saying “We have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This in-turn short-changed investments in our own people.” Obama did not recognize that the cost of the war in Iraq has paid dividends in American security, but worse still, he failed to recognize the supreme irony in his statement. His own ‘economic stimulus’ plans to “spread the wealth around” have increased our debt far more in just two years than President Bush did in 10 years of financing the war in Iraq.

The audacity of Obama’s shameful perspective on the war expressed in his oval office speech could not be more crystallized by his ironic telling of the story of the Army’s 4th Stryker Brigade, which Obama described in his closing words as “just a convoy of brave Americans, making their way home. This time, no shots were fired,” he said. If America had taken Obama’s cut-and-run advice, the Army’s 4th Stryker Brigade would have left Iraq in utter retreat, being chased out by shots fired from Kalashnikovs and RPGs the whole way. But thanks to the leadership of President Bush, that shameful scene was never realized, and those troops can now come home proud of their victory.

Obama

Which one is (more) Pink?

Monday, August 23, 2010

Posted by superadmin

We think you might agree that the face on Jodie Evans would be the more 'Pink' hue. And here's why:

Move America Forward sponsored the protest in response to Jerry Brown aligning himself with left wing radical group Code Pink.

To be honest we're at a loss as to how Jerry Brown can take money from the likes of Jodie Evans and Code Pink and have even mild respect for our troops. The two are just about as opposed to each other as it can get.

We don't have to wonder what Code Pink Stands for: They hate our military and stand with those who are intent on killing our troops and dismantling vastly-held American values.

Well, we've had enough. We're not going to sit around while these lefty whackos are fund raising for governor-hopeful Jerry Brown....

we'd rather lay down, and be in their way! It seems to have worked.

This weekend we got a rare chance to see just how the methods Code Pink endorses and uses on their targets for political gain (and character assassinations) works on Code Pink itself.

        In brief it suffices to say -- "boy, does it tick them off!" 

Witnesses had these comments about the protest this weekend at Jodie 'the troop hating red head' Evans' residence in Venice, CA.

"Pro-Troop Advocate Conservative Activist - Melanie Morgan, got under Jodie Evans skin (almost literally) this weekend when she confronted the anti-war, troop-slamming (millionaire) in front of her home" (the pink was showing on her face.)

and …

"Jodie Evans became visibly agitated when confronted by Morgan about Code Pink’s $600,000 donation to the families of terrorists who murdered U.S. troops in Fallujah. Evans snapped "You are on crack" as Morgan persisted."

Even more satisfyingly Andrew Breitbart noted on his recent blog posting (www.biggovernment.com):

Morgan added, "These liberals were shocked that we turned up.  They were extremely angry about our obnoxious support of U.S. troops…  and completely oblivious to the irony.  The most fun was watching Jodie Evans’ skin mottle in anger, matching her dyed red hair!"

Perhaps she honestly missed the fact that co-founder Medea was arrested and cuffed for home invasion a day prior in D.C. (short-term memory loss?)

We're glad to be of service, Jodie. Just think of how it may 'warm the hearts' of our troops in harms' way overseas to see the blood 'pink' up your face a bit. You're certainly welcome!

We're also very pleased that in our case there were no arrests at Jodie's Residence even though at least three police officers were in attendance:

"Code Pink representatives called police who arrived in a squad car about an hour into the event.  However, the trio of law enforcement officers found no reason to make any arrests."

See more:

Lots of great pictures

http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/code-pink-gets-pissy-over-protestors-at-jerry-brown-fundraiser/

The arrest of Code Pink's "Medea Benjamin" just a day before (Friday 8/21/2010):

http://biggovernment.com/taylorking/2010/08/21/code-pinks-medea-benjamin-arrested-after-entering-home-of-xeblackwater-founder/

Recent blog posts by Melanie Morgan:

http://bigpeace.com/mmorgan/2010/08/20/why-you-should-join-move-america-forward-and-protest-the-code-pink-terror-supporters-and-governor-moonbeam-this-saturday/

theFoxNation.com Coverage:

http://www.thefoxnation.com/code-pink/2010/08/23/code-pink-gets-taste-own-medicine

Move America Forward, Code Pink, Hamas, Hugo Chavez, Jerry Brown, Jodie Evans, Medea Benjamin, Move America Forward, Obama, Saul ALinsky, U.S. Marines

Remembering a Hero: Gold Star Mom Debbie Lee

Monday, August 2, 2010

Posted by superadmin

Greetings!

As I sit at my keyboard reflecting on tomorrow's date Aug 2nd I am drawn to so many memories and emotions. It seems as though it was just yesterday when I received the knock on the door that would forever change my life. I would be informed of the heroic actions of my son Marc Alan Lee who willingly gave his life so that others could live. He stood out in the direct line of fire 3 times that day so that his teammates could survive. He showed the depth of his love and gave the greatest gift that any human being could give, the exchange of his life for another. John 15:13 talks of that very thing, "Greater love has no one than this that he laid down his life for his friends."

It's been 4 years since Marc made that sacrifice for his buddies, for you, for me, for this country that he so loved. I still miss him so deeply! There is still such a void in my heart that cannot be explained. That was the part of my heart that I shared with Marc for 28 years and still do today. He may be physically gone from this place but lives continue to be changed by this young man when they hear his amazing story or read his last letter home that we call his "Glory letter." That part of my heart continues to grow with love and memories of Marc as I am blessed to hear from people, and watch their expressions as they hear Marc's story, read his last letter home, and understand who this brave warrior was and the sacrifice he made for them.

As a mother the personal story I share is about my son, Marc whose name means "Mighty Warrior." It's about his life, his sacrifice, his childhood, his personality, and quirks, but I write this in memory of every one of America's mighty warriors and their Gold Star family who have also given the ultimate sacrifice.

I receive the DOD casualty reports from the Pentagon daily. My heart grieves for every one of these families and I pray by name for the families of the fallen when I receive the notification. The casualties have been heavy and almost daily in Afghanistan and odds are that tomorrow someone else will be notified of their loved ones sacrifice and I will share that anniversary date with another Gold Star family. So many parents, spouses, siblings, and children know the depth of that pain, and my heart, condolences and love go out to them.

While dealing with Marc's death has been the most difficult thing I have been through it has also provided the deepest emotional and most rewarding time of my life. I can't even begin to tell you the places I've been , the people I've met, the people I've been able to encourage and those who have been there to encourage me and the opportunities I have had to thank our troops.
I'm sure that every morning in Heaven there is a briefing between God and Marc to determine where they will put me for that day, whose path I will cross, and how our lives will be used to encourage one another.

I just recently returned from my second trip to Iraq. I was able to see firsthand the changes that have been made there. We have turned over the majority of the bases in the International Zone to the Iraqis and they are successfully managing them. We are helping the Iraqi Air force rebuild and educate pilots. I was able to get an exclusive interview with Gen Anwar who is in charge of the Iraqi Air force. He shared on behalf of the Iraqi people the depth of the gratitude that their people feel for the sacrifices we have made. He looked me in the eye and told me with deep sincere emotion that "We will never forget the sacrifice that has been made. American blood has been poured on our soil and we will never forget, we will tell our children for generations to come of the sacrifice Americas has paid to secure our freedoms.

After I heard that I was reminded of what Marc said in his last letter home, "It will take longer than most think but we will get Iraq to stand on its own feet. He was right again, wise beyond his years.

Marc also wrote about witnessing "the morals of a man who care nothing of human life." He was referring to Sadam. I also witnessed that on my recent trip to Baghdad. I saw extravagance in the multitude of palaces that Sadam had built for himself. He built a private zoo for his sons, most parents by a dog or a cat, but no an entire zoo. He rerouted the Euphrates river for three days leaving his country in drought and with no water so that he could fill the palatial palace grounds with lakes around them believing that Allah could not see through the water so he could commit his vile actions of rape, murder, orgies and death. There are mass graves with thousands of people in each one. Talk about a weapon of mass destruction, Sadam was one.

We saw Disneyland playgrounds designed for his grandchildren to appease them after murdering their Father's. Marc's letter came to life as I was able to see through his eyes and witness firsthand what he was talking about. I spoke with so many of our troops and heard the success stories of what is taking place in Iraq. I also shared the love and gratitude from all of you back home to our troops for their sacrifices.

I was so grateful when my feet were back on American soil as Marc said "Our country is a great country," and it's the sacrifice of so many who have made it that way.

Marc's last letter ended with "PS: Halfway through the deployment can't wait to see your smiling faces." He successfully finished the first half of his deployment here on earth and he has been redeployed to Heaven to complete the final part and yes I will one day see his smiling face. Oh I can't wait to see that big grin when Christ calls me home and Marc is waiting at Heaven's gate to show me the exciting places and unique creations. Until then you and I are only halfway through the deployment. We have a choice to give up, curl up on the floor in our pain and struggles or we can pick up the torch that our loved ones have passed to us.

Giving up has never been an option for me and by God's strength I will continue to march forward. I can carry on and be that voice that Marc gave up that day. I can honor our men and women in the military, their families and especially the families of the fallen. I can encourage others to remember the sacrifices our military makes and make sure they and their families are taken care of. I can remember the sacrifices of our Gold Star families and love support, and honor them and their fallen hero. I can stand for our constitution and the freedoms that so many men and women have sacrificed so much for. I can hold our elected officials accountable to do the same and vote out the ones who don't. I can awaken every morning and thank God for the new day I have been given and use it to make a difference.

So today on Aug 2nd join with me in remembering my mighty warrior, Marc Alan Lee. I've given my very best for this country, my son. Please join with me and pick up that torch and your flag, to honor our troops, their families and the families of the fallen and to fight here at home for our constitutional rights and freedoms.

Remembering A hero,
Debbie Lee

Andy McCarthy: Elena Kagan’s ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ Sharia Policy

Monday, July 19, 2010

Posted by mafbloggerdanny

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
Andrew C. McCarthy
July 8, 2010 4:00 A.M.

Elena Kagan’s ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ Sharia Policy
Political willfulness is not the judicial temperament.

I wonder if Elena Kagan knows about Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani.

Ms. Ashtiani is about to be stoned. That’s where they bury you up to your chest and hurl rocks at you until you die. The rocks can’t be too big. You see, this is real torture, religion-of-peace torture. It’s the kind that happens every day but that Democrats prefer not to talk about. With stoning (or “lapidation” as the press gently call it on those rare occasions when it is mentioned at all), the ordeal must not end too quickly. Otherwise, it might not make the right impression, as it were, on the victim — the sinner — and the community at large.

Had the solicitor general heard about Ms. Ashtiani’s plight, one imagines, she’d have told her to get herself to the nearest courthouse and seek the protection of the law. Alas, it is pursuant to the law that this barbarity will take place. The stoning of this 43-year-old mother of two has been ordered by a court in her native Iran, where the only legal code is Allah’s law, sharia. It is the Islamic sentence for adultery, the crime to which Ashtiani confessed after serial beatings by her interrogators.

During her a stint at the Clinton White House, we now know, Ms. Kagan struck the pose of a champion of women’s rights — at least if you weren’t an unborn girl. So fierce was her devotion to the cause of “reproductive freedom” that she subverted science in the service of abortion on demand — specifically, to preserve the partial-birth abortion procedure, which exceeds even stoning in its ghastliness. She then went on to Harvard Law School where, as dean, she became the champion of sharia.

Not of stoning and other grotesque penalties, of course — nothing so obviously offensive. To hear progressives tell it, we can do nice, clean, friendly sharia, just like we do nice, clean, friendly Islam. “Lapidations,” they will tell you, are no different from jihadist suicide bombings: outmoded vestiges of a long-forgotten time. Except they’re not. They are undeniably rooted in Islamic scripture, and they are happening today, with frequency, wherever sharia reigns. That is because the “moderate Islam” progressives like to banter about is a mirage in search of a cogent set of principles. There is no moderate Islam that can compete with the mainstream, sharia Islam. Thus the crimes and punishments, in all their ghoulishness, endure.

‘PROFOUND MORAL INJUSTICE’

At Harvard, Dean Kagan’s gay-rights activism was as limitless as her pro-abortion activism had been. She banned on-campus military recruitment. Doing so was a flagrant violation of federal law, but she rationalized it by her moral outrage over the armed forces’ “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Once again striking the leftist’s brave “speaking truth to power” pose, she lambasted DADT as “a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order.”

It was a phony courage, the kind where you rattle your “social justice” saber in front of a pretend dragon, knowing your friends will cheer. The kind where you know it won’t cost you anything. The military wasn’t going to do anything to Kagan, and DADT wasn’t a mere military standard. It was a statute enacted by a solidly Democratic Congress with the approval of President Clinton. Shortly after he signed DADT, President Clinton offered Kagan a position on the White House staff. Did she grandstand? Did she speak truth to power with a scoffing denunciation about the profound moral injustice Clinton had endorsed? Not exactly. She accepted the gig in a heartbeat, ditching a coveted tenured professorship at the University of Chicago’s law school, one of America’s finest.

Real courage at Harvard would have called for condemning the university’s profoundly immoral, gluttonous promotion of sharia. While Kagan was at the law school, her patron, Harvard’s president Larry Summers, accepted a stunning $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies to lionize Islam’s history and jurisprudence. The cash came from the Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the billionaire investor whose attempted $10 million contribution to the Twin Towers fund had been refused by New York mayor Rudy Giuliani when bin Talal blamed the 9/11 atrocities on American foreign policy. Summers, the anti-Giuliani, not only took the money but named the program and an endowed professorship in the prince’s honor. And why not? By then, as Ben Shapiro reported, Harvard’s law school already had three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of sharia.

Stonings are common in Saudi Arabia, where, as in Iran, sharia is the only law of the land. Beheadings are common, too. A vice patrol, the mutaween, monitors the population, especially the women, to ensure compliance with sharia standards of dress, prayer observance, and segregation of the sexes. Sanctions are draconian, as a 19-year-old woman learned in 2007, when she was sentenced to 200 lashes with a rattan cane after being gang-raped. Saudi Arabia’s crown jewels, Mecca and Medina, are closed to non-Muslims; forget about building a church or synagogue in those cities — non-Muslims are deemed unfit to set foot on the ground. The slave trade was still officially carried on in the kingdom until 1961 and has been indulged unofficially ever since. Slavery, after all, is expressly endorsed by the Koran (see, e.g., Sura 47:4, 23:5-6, and 4:24) and was practiced by Mohammed himself. The Koran and the prophet’s legends are the prime sources of sharia.

Yet there were no condemnations from Dean Kagan over the prince’s lavish gift. To the contrary, she proceeded to forge the law school’s “Islamic Finance Project.” Its purpose is to promote sharia compliance in the U.S. financial sector.

To be sure, American law discriminates against homosexuals in the narrow area of military service. But it does not persecute them. Indeed, it tacitly permits them to serve as long as they keep their sexual orientation private. Were that not the case, President Clinton would not have signed DADT. In contrast, sharia brands homosexuals enemies of the Muslim state. They must be “punished, in fact, killed,” instructs grand ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq’s highest jurisprudential authority, one who is widely reputed to be a “moderate” and who, relatively speaking, probably is. He added in his fatwa that people who engaged in gay sex “should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing.”

While sharia societies are backward, they do get quite creative, as Ms. Ashtiani can attest, when their legal authorities green-light severe methods of killing. It is no surprise, then, that homosexuals are brutally abused in post-Saddam Iraq. The same is true in post-Taliban Afghanistan. That is because in Afghanistan, just as in Iraq, the majority Muslim population adopted an American-brokered constitution that established Islam as the state religion, installed sharia as part of the fundamental law, and expressly stipulated that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.”

Besides gruesome deaths for homosexuals and adulteresses, these “beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam” hold that apostasy (the renunciation of Islam) is a death-penalty offense. Similar treasonous affronts to the umma, such as proselytism for Christianity, are also met with brutal punishments. Sharia regards women as chattel: Their rights to travel, socialize, marry, and inherit property are sharply restricted; their courtroom testimony is discounted to half the value of a man’s; they may be subjugated in polygamist marriages or kept as concubines; and they are routinely subjected to the pain and indignity of genital mutilation.

LEGITIMIZING FINANCIAL JIHAD

But no, the Kagans tell us, they’re not endorsing all of sharia. Of course they don’t mean to abet the sundry cruelties and the systematic abuse of women, homosexuals, apostates, and non-Muslims. They simply want believing Muslims to be able to participate in our markets without transgressing what they see as sharia’s worthy prohibition against the payment of interest in financial transactions.

Right. What they actually want, like Harvard wants, is to get their mitts on Gulf petrodollars. But even if we take their protestations at face value, they are wrong in every way. To begin with, sharia is not a Chinese restaurant menu, inviting you to pick one from column A and one from column B. It is the indivisible legal framework for a comprehensive socio-political and economic system: Islam. In that system, the state regulates all aspects of human life and seeks forever to expand its dominions.

As Daniel Pipes recounts in reviewing the important work of Duke’s Timur Kuran, sharia-compliant finance (SCF) is the mid-20th-century brainchild of the Islamist intellectual Abu-Ala Mawdudi. His motive, the very antithesis of ecumenical inclusiveness, was economic jihad. As Pipes puts it, Mawdudi sought “to minimize relations with non-Muslims, strengthen the collective sense of Muslim identity, extend Islam into a new area of human activity, and modernize without Westernizing.” In effect, SCF is the financial iteration of sharia’s overriding objective: to insulate and fortify the umma for inter-civilizational battle.

I am indebted to the scholar Andrew Bostom for this assessment of SCF from the architect himself, an excerpt from Mawdudi’s paper, “The Economic Problem of Man and its Islamic Solution”:

If anyone thinks it feasible that this economic system can be successfully implemented even if divorced from the complete ideological, moral, and cultural system of Islam, I will humbly request him to get rid of this misunderstanding. This economic system has a deep relationship with the political, judicial, legal, cultural and social system of Islam. And all these are fundamentally based on the moral system of Islam. . . . If you do not accept this creed, this moral system and the whole of this code of life, completely as it is, the economic system of Islam, divorced from its source, cannot be maintained or administered in its purity for even a single day, nor will any appreciable advantage accrue from it if you take it out of its wider context and then seek to apply [it] to your life.

Kagan and other apologists for SCF would absolve themselves from the real-world consequences of their allegedly well-intentioned diversity fetish. But legitimizing any aspect of sharia is the endorsement of all of it. Moreover, there is no cut-and-dried separation of sharia brutality from the tidy, white-collar world of financial transactions.

To pull off the SCF chicanery, financial institutions hire as advisers Islamic clerics who are expert in Muslim jurisprudence — there being, again, no separation between divine edicts and the secular law in Islam. It is those clerics, many of them Islamists, who decide what transactions are permissible. And very often, to purge the taint, prohibited interest payments are diverted to Islamic “charities.” It all sounds wonderful . . . except for what they don’t tell you: The major schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that support for violent jihad is a legitimate form of charitable giving.

Indeed, as the Middle East Forum’s Raymond Ibrahim observes, the Koran actually prioritizes the need to fund jihad over the need to fight it. (See, e.g., Sura 9:41: “Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah!”) In a canonical hadith, Mohammed confers on the financial backer the same glorious status as the mujahid fighter: “He who equips a raider so he can wage jihad in Allah’s path . . . is himself a raider.”

SCF is thus the Islamist triple-play: It elbows sharia’s way into our legal system, from whence it can expand its influence; it institutionalizes financial jihad; and it pressures true Muslim moderates to shun Western practices. It is, furthermore, unabashedly anti-capitalist — another reason the Left likes it so much. As Frank Gaffney points out, the economic meltdown in late 2008 was taken by SCF proponents as “proof of the inherent corruption of capitalism” and the need to replace it with the asserted virtues of sharia.

But let’s put all that aside. Let’s pretend that there were some way you could compartmentalize sharia, some way you could even slice and dice SCF to facilitate market access without all the unsavory fallout. There would still be the matter of Elena Kagan’s bizarre moral universe.

The U.S. military is an unparalleled force for good in the world. Kagan has said as much, but she claims, straight-faced, that it is just this “extraordinary service” to our society that makes DADT “more not less repugnant” — the bathwater that requires throwing out the baby.

But let’s compare the U.S. military with sharia. Sharia is the cause of indescribable suffering in the world: for homosexuals, women, non-Muslims, and Muslims who wish to embrace the West. Yet for Kagan, sharia’s repugnance is irrelevant. Like opposition to DADT and support for abortion, the engagement of Islamists, the embrace of their case against American capitalism, is a progressive cause célèbre. So count Ms. Kagan in. She’ll worry about logic and sharia victims like Sakineh Ashtiani later — if ever.

Sheer political willfulness is an unattractive quality. In a Supreme Court candidate, it ought to be disqualifying.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

RESTREPO a Movie for Pro-Troop Americans

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Posted by superadmin

ALL CALIFORNIA MAF SUPPORTERS – SUPPORT RESTREPO THE NEW FILM THAT HONORS AND MEMORIALIZES AMERICA’S BRAVEST Hey California, MAF Blogger Danny here to tell you how excited we are about the new film RESTREPO, popping up in select theaters across the country. The movie is changing the way Americans look at war by showing up close and personal, the raw, gritty truth of what our troops go through and how faithfully and selflessly they serve. It’s an amazing film that intimately follows the lives of the troops of Battle Company, 2nd 503rd, 173rd Airborne, stationed at Camp Restrepo (named for a fallen comrade, Juan Restrepo) in the dangerous Korengal Valley, Afghanistan.  It provides a touching and intimate look into the lives of the individuals in the company, the humor, the sadness, and the ferocity of their fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It’s being distributed by National Geographic and also our good friends over at Blackfive have helped promote it . “Humping up ridiculous mountains, blazing away at elusive enemies who always seemed to have the high ground... We saw these guys experience all of that and I think almost everyone in the theater had a cold sweat and chills for most of the film.”  –UNCLE JIMBO, BLACKFIVE.NET   Watch this film! It will give you a new appreciation for our troops, what they go through, and why they do it. Click HERE to visit the RESTREPO movie site. Show times are listed below and the film opens in several theaters around California this Friday July 16th Berkeley, CA Shattuck 10 Theater 2230 Shattuck Ave. Berkeley, CA. (510) 464-5980 Times: 2:15 | 4:45 | 7:15* | 9:55 San Diego, CA La Jolla Village Cinema 8879 Villa La Jolla Dr. La Jolla, CA. (619) 819-0236 Times:  1:40 | 4:30 | 7:20 | 9:40 Santa Monica, CA Santa Monica 4 Plex 1332 2nd St. Santa Monica, CA (310) 394-9741 Times:   1:40 | 4:30 | 7:20 | 9:50 * MAF Blogger Danny and other MAF staffers will be coming in from Sacramento to attend the 7:15 viewing at the Shattuck 10 in Berkeley! Join us!   Please Note: RETREPO has also opened at several other theaters around California, including Los Angeles, Encino, San Francisco, San Jose and others While you could go to these other theaters, MAF is encouraging all members to attend the 3 premieres listed here on FRIDAY JULY 16th so that they become pro-troop events! Show up early and have a little rally for the troops!

Navy SEALs Blog: Troopathon a Success

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Posted by superadmin

http://blog.usnavyseals.com/2010/07/third-move-america-forward-troopathon-a-success.html

While there should not be a day that goes by that we fail to remember our troops, there are occasions when we are reminded all the more of their courage and their dedication.

One of these occasions is the Fourth of July. Various organizations observed Independence Day with activities in support of our troops; in the case of Move America Forward (MAF), celebration came a bit early through a Standing for Our Soldiers Troopathon.

The Troopathon was held on Thursday, July 1, and based on a Fourth of July message from Gold Star Mom Debbie Lee on the Troopathon website, the event was quite a success. It was the third such holding of the event, which raised more than $541,000 for service members. Move America Forward is an organization that describes itself as “a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization committed to supporting America’s efforts to defeat terrorism and supporting the brave men and women of our Armed Forces.”

READ THE FULL BLOG ENTRY HERE

troopathon debbielee

An Independence Day Message from Debbie Lee, Gold Star Mom

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Posted by superadmin

A Personal Message from...   Dear Friends Happy Fourth of July to all of our MAF supporters and again, a HUGE THANKS to everyone who contributed on Thursday’s Troopathon “Standing for Our Soldiers” we raised over $541,000 for our troops! Our third annual Troopathon  was a big success! We had a great lineup of guests this year, including the same familiar faces who helped MAF put on two successful Troopathons in 2009 and 2008! We were rejoined by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura Schlessinger and many more. Gary Sinise and Kelsey Grammer also submitted interviews and we were joined by some new faces like Michele Bachmann, Chuck DeVore and our biggest hit – Alaska’s former Governor Sarah Palin! It was an exciting night for me and all of my friends here at Move America Forward. I cannot express in words how extremely touched I was as I watched the donations pouring in.  Hearing all of our guests praising the troops, seeing the numbers of viewers on our web stream shooting up, and the orders for care packages rolling in, it brought me to tears several times, just to see the huge outpouring of support. We are still taking donations, and you can help raise our total from $541,000 to $600,000. Please consider making a donation on this most auspicious day. Since my son Marc Alan Lee gave his life for his country, I have been fighting to support the troops and speak out on their behalf. I do it for the memory of Marc, who was a Navy SEAL, all his SEAL buddies, and all our brave warriors who serve in our military. That’s why the Troopathon is such an important event every year, near and dear to my heart, and I was so deeply moved by the support showed those who contributed. Our Troops Carry on the Legacy of Our Founding Fathers and Their Fight for Independence Which We Celebrate Today The 4th of July is a time to remember America’s first troops, those who fought to forge a new nation, to gain independence from England. Since that first battle for independence, American troops have brought freedom to the shores of countless countries over the whole world, and the American soldier has been the unshakable defender of freedom throughout the world, standing against all odds, against any enemy. I know my son Marc saw himself that way, and he proudly exemplified the legacy of those first revolutionary warriors who carried the stars and stripes into battle. Marc did that every day in Iraq. He carried the stars and stripes on his shoulder and in his heart as do all of our troops. He was on patrol with his fellow SEALS in Ramadi in 2006, one of the worst places in all of Iraq at the time. They were on a rooftop and Marc’s buddy Ryan had been critically wounded in a firefight. Marc exposed himself and stood up in the direct line of fire hoping to draw attention to himself, so that the medic could get up to the rooftop. The Medic said Ryan was going to die if they didn’t evacuate him right away. So again Marc stood up again in the line of fire and laid down suppressive fire to cover his buddies so they could carry Ryan safely back to base. He saved Ryan’s life that day. Marc and fellow SEAL on a rooftop much like the same one in Ramadi When they got back to base, their Chief came in and said they had found the house where the insurgents who had just attacked them were hiding. He did not expect the SEALs to fight twice in the same day, but Marc looked at his chief and said “Roger that, let’s go get them!”  He and his fellow SEALS volunteered to go back into battle. On that mission, as the team was making their way up some stairs, they took sniper fire through a window and once again Marc put himself in the line of fire to safe his buddies, but this time, he sacrificed himself and laid down his life to save his buddies and to serve his only mission…which was to protect and defend America. Marc gave his life for America, for the American people and the ideals we stand for, and the freedoms we enjoy. The brave troops who fought for America’s independence fought for the very same reason, just as all of our troops in all the wars America has fought, fought for freedom and for democracy, and to preserve the strength and prosperity of the American people. My Son and my Hero, Marc Alan Lee, US Navy SEAL I am so proud of my son Marc, and our troops that continue to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, on this 4th of July, as our nation celebrates our 234th birthday, please think of the troops like my son Marc, and all of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and remember the troops who are still over there, risking their lives, fighting for our freedoms. You can support those troops still fighting by sending a care package through Move America Forward. These packages help them make it through a tough deployment and have lots of goodies that they love to eat. Sponsor a care package now and help Move America Forward bring our Troopathon total up to $600,000. Thank you for your support.  I can tell you with certainty that our troops love receiving these packages, and that their spirits are greatly raised when they receive a care package and a message of support from a stranger. Happy Fourth of July, God bless you and our troops, keep them safe, and God bless this land we call the United States of America Debbie Lee

Debbie Lee and MAF Back in Iraq

Friday, June 11, 2010

Posted by debbielee

Mother of Fallen Navy SEAL returns to Iraq to tell their success stories

We just received our CPIC badges and are heading out to take some pictures. I guess our embed is at Camp Victory so we will be taking the Rhino this evening.

I visited Iraq in Dec 07 the first time and we saw firsthand the turn-around that our troops were making in establishing relationships with the locals to begin to take their own country back.

In Marc's last letter home he said "It will take longer than most think but we will get Iraq to stand on it's own two feet."

To be able to return and see that has happened and to see Marc's vision fulfilled encourages my heart. The wisdom of that young man is deeply missed. There has been great cost to secure this freedom for the Iraqi's. So many of our brave warriors have paid the ultimate sacrifice, just like my son did.

The majority of the bases and the Entry Control Points in the Green zone have already successfully been handed over to the Iraqis. Iraq is a grateful nation for the freedoms that have been given to them. We have talked with troops here who confirm report after report what a success the turnover has been.

Success anywhere has a cost but to know the personal cost our family has paid and see firsthand that it is giving Iraqis freedoms and ridding this world of terrorism brings me great comfort."

Hopefully we will be heading out here soon and be able to start getting some pictures. All we have been allowed to take are at CPIC.

Blessed in Baghdad,
Debbie Lee

Landlord tells veteran he cannot display American flag!

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Posted by superadmin

Shameful, please write a letter or e-mail to this company and tell them that the Charlie Pierce served his conuntry honorably and should be able to display the flag proudly!

Join Facebook Group HERE

Midwest Realty Management
2990 Universal St, Suite A
Oshkosh, WI 54904
Phone: (920) 426-2060
Fax :   (920) 426-2065

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE COMPANY WEBSITE WHERE YOU CAN FILL OUT A FORM THAT WILL BE EMAILED TO THE COMPANY

Tell them to allow the Pierce family their freedom of speech and freedom to be patriots!

FOX NEWS STORY HERE:

Wisconsin Veteran Must Remove Flag After Memorial Day, Wife Says

An Army veteran in Wisconsin will be allowed to display an American flag until Memorial Day, but the symbol honoring his service in Iraq and Kosovo must come down next Tuesday, his wife told FoxNews.com.

An Army veteran in Wisconsin will be allowed to display an American flag until Memorial Day, but the symbol honoring his service in Iraq and Kosovo must come down next Tuesday, his wife told FoxNews.com.

Dawn Price, 27, of Oshkosh, Wis., said she received a call from officials at Midwest Realty Management early Wednesday indicating that she and her husband, Charlie, would be allowed to continue flying the American flag they've had in their window for months through the holiday weekend. The couple had previously been told they had to remove the flag by Saturday or face eviction due to a company policy that bans the display of flags, banners and political or religious materials.

"It's basically an extension so we can fly the flag on Memorial Day," Price told FoxNews.com. "It does need to come down after that."

Charlie Price, 28, served tours of duty as a combat engineer in Iraq and Kosovo, his wife said. To honor his eight years of service, she began decorating their apartment during Veterans Day in November. An American flag topped off the display, she said.



"I knew it made Charlie really proud to see that," she said. "And this isn't something new. This has been up for quite some time now."

Veterans' groups were furious at the realtors' refusal to allow the flag to fly.

"As a veteran, it sickens me that the Dawn and Charlie Price's building management company would imply that the American flag could be construed as offensive by their residents," said Ryan Gallucci, a spokesman for AmVets.

"We're talking about our most revered national symbol. This is insulting to anyone who has defended our flag honorably, like Charlie Price."

Dawn Price said she now works to amend the federal Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, which states no "condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association" may stop someone from flying the American flag. The law, however, does not apply to renters.

"This has been eating at us since Friday," she said. 'The best way to fight this isn't getting an eviction and going after these people in court. That's just going to cost us a lot of time, energy and money."

Instead, Dawn Price said she either intends to place a curtain between the flag and the apartment window to block it from onlookers or will move it to a rear balcony come next week.

"We don't want to fight the eviction," she said. "We know we'd lose."

Officials at Midwest Realty Management, which manages Brookside Apartments, where the Prices live, did not return several messages seeking comment. In a statement to the Oshkosh Northwestern, company officials said the policy was established to provide a consistent living environment for all residents.

"This policy was developed to insure that we are fair to everyone as we have many residents from diverse backgrounds," the statement read. "By having a blanket policy of neutrality we have found that we are less likely to offend anyone and the aesthetic qualities of our apartment communities are maintained."

Despite the brief reprieve, Dawn Price said her husband is disappointed by the flag flap.

"He actually sees it as a slap in the face to his service," she said. "He's pretty upset about it, especially right around Memorial Day."

A Facebook group created by Dawn Price, "Freedom to Display the American Flag," had roughly 2,000 members as of Wednesday.

"As a father of a son [who] is currently serving in Iraq this blackens my heart!!!!" read one comment. "These men and women sign a blank check up to and including their life!"

Obama Skipping Arlington Memorial

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Posted by mafbloggerdanny

So we have seen some of our fellow troop-supporters rightly annoyed, vexed, and upset that President Obama has decided to skip the customary wreath laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetary.

Instead Obama will send Joe Biden (at least he was a blue star dad) while himself enjoys a day with his family on vacation in Chicago. As a consolation, Obama has agreed to visit another, smaller cemetery in Chicago, named after Abraham Lincoln.

Close but not good enough, Mr. President. As commander-in-chief it’s your duty to be there for our troops, they deserve it.

Now, pundits on the right have criticized

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/25/ap-obama-to-skip-arlington-memorial/

And those on the left have responded…

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005250034

And while Media Matters is correct in their history, we have to remember that things ought to be a little different during a time of war. We have troops right now, still serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, still being shot at, still dealing with IEDs and roadside bombs, still rooting out the enemy.

Our troops are still fighting, still dying. On a day that we SHOULD be remembering our fallen, the President has a RESPONSIBILITY to those fallen troops and their families, and it’s still an insult if he’s not there.

Let's take a little look back...

GWB 2001

GWB 2002

GWB 2003


GWB 2004


GWB 2005


GWB 2006


GWB 2007


GWB 2008


Obama 2009

Krauthammer - America in Retreat

Friday, May 21, 2010

Posted by superadmin

The fruits of weakness By Charles Krauthammer Friday, May 21, 2010; A19 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003885_pf.html

It is perfectly obvious that Iran's latest uranium maneuver, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. And it continues enriching at an accelerated pace and to a greater purity (20 percent). Which is why the French foreign ministry immediately declared that the trumpeted temporary shipping of some Iranian uranium to Turkey will do nothing to halt Iran's nuclear program.

It will, however, make meaningful sanctions more difficult. America's proposed Security Council resolution is already laughably weak -- no blacklisting of Iran's central bank, no sanctions against Iran's oil and gas industry, no nonconsensual inspections on the high seas. Yet Turkey and Brazil -- both current members of the Security Council -- are so opposed to sanctions that they will not even discuss the resolution. And China will now have a new excuse to weaken it further.

But the deeper meaning of the uranium-export stunt is the brazenness with which Brazil and Turkey gave cover to the mullahs' nuclear ambitions and deliberately undermined U.S. efforts to curb Iran's program.

The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.

That picture -- a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam -- is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there's no cost in lining up with America's enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.

They've watched President Obama's humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed U.S. negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant U.S. strategic advance in the region in 30 years.

They've watched America acquiesce to Russia's re-exerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured by Russia last month into extending for 25 years its lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol) and over Georgia (Russia's de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama "reset" policy).

They've watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab Levant -- sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hezbollah with Scuds and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the United States and its interests? Ever more eager U.S. "engagement."

They've observed the administration's gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland, and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see not just U.S. passivity as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez organizes his anti-American "Bolivarian" coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active U.S. support in Honduras for a pro-Chávez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.

This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat -- accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.

Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle. It's the perfect fulfillment of Obama's adopted Third World narrative of American misdeeds, disrespect and domination from which he has come to redeem us and the world. Hence his foundational declaration at the U.N. General Assembly last September that "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation" (guess who's been the dominant nation for the last two decades?) and his dismissal of any "world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another." (NATO? The West?)

Given Obama's policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the United States retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There's nothing to fear from Obama, and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America's rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one's friends and punishing one's enemies.

Noah @ FrumForum: Kagan’s Anti-Military Stance Didn’t Speak for Harvard

Monday, May 10, 2010

Posted by superadmin

Kagan’s Anti-Military Stance Didn’t Speak for Harvard
May 10th, 2010 at 2:12 pm by Noah Kristula-Green

Elena Kagan is currently coming under fire for her critical remarks regarding allowing military recruitment on the Harvard campus. As Dean of Harvard’s Law School, Kagan banned the military from using the school’s Office of Career Services due to the military’s ban on allowing gay and lesbian troops to openly serve. After a Supreme Court upholding the right of the military to recruit on campus, Kagan said: “I hope that many members of the Harvard Law School community will accept the Court’s invitation to express their views clearly and forcefully regarding the military’s discriminatory employment policy. As I have said before, I believe that policy is profoundly wrong — both unwise and unjust.”

Yet Kagan’s stance is not representative of everyone in Harvard’s ivory tower. When he was President of Harvard University, Larry Summers gave many speeches to ROTC classes where he extolled their service, sacrifice, and heroism.

Remarks from 2002:
"On that horrible and fateful day of September 11th, the only people who were going up the stairs in the World Trade Center were public servants, were public servants wearing uniforms. None of us should ever forget that. All forms of public service make a great contribution to our society. I believe there is a special grace and a special nobility to those who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice and the ultimate commitment to their country. We are fortunate as a university; we are fortunate as citizens of this country, to have young men like these three who are prepared to serve in our nation’s armed forces."

"You know, we venerate at this university—as we should—openness, debate, the free expression of ideas, as central to what we are all about and what we should be. But we must also respect and admire moral clarity when it is required as in the preservation of our national security and the defense of our country. All of us admire those many graduates of this university who have served in our country’s armed forces. They deserve our respect and our admiration, never more than at this present moment in our country’s history."

Remarks from 2003:
"Let me make one final observation from my experience in Washington. Every year there is a dinner called the Gridiron Dinner that brings together people from the congressional branch, the executive branch, the press corps, and others to celebrate and laugh. At the beginning of that dinner, the songs of each military branch are performed. The people present who had served in that branch of the service stand up when their song is played. I remember when I attended that dinner the gentleman who was sitting beside me who was about 25 years older than me, looked out and noticed that there weren’t nearly as many people standing as when he had attended the dinner 25 years before. At that time, most of the people in the room stood up at one moment or the other, but at the dinner I attended, not many people stood up. And he wondered what that meant for the country. He noted that the military is central to the leadership of the country, and that it was so vitally important that those in the military and those with an understanding of the military be closely connected. He wondered what the lack of people standing was going to mean for leadership of our country in the next generation if the trend continued."

Remarks from 2004:
"But I would say equally to you – this is the point that must be understood but frankly is often misunderstood – that we are free because we are strong, and that freedom depends on our strength. All of us who cherish and pray for that freedom must also support those who contribute to the strength that maintains our freedom. There is much you can do and should argue about every aspect of our country’s policies but the idea that freedom depends on strength is one we should all be able to agree on."

Remarks from 2006:
"Whatever you think about any given policy issues – and there are important policy issues on which there is fundamentally divided opinion – whatever you think about any issue, I believe that our country is most important and I believe that our country is best served when great universities like this one stand with those who defend the freedom that makes it possible for us to do all the wonderful things that we are able to do here."

Iraqis, With US Support, Take out top Al Qaeda Leaders in Iraq

Monday, April 19, 2010

Posted by superadmin

Al-Qaida kingpins in Iraq killed amid continuing impasse over elections

Al-Qaida's two most senior leaders in Iraq have been hunted down and killed, it was announced on Monday, a development hailed by US vice president Joe Biden as a potentially "devastating" blow to the terrorist organisation.

Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, said an intelligence team backed by US forces had killed Abu Ayyoub al-Masri, al-Qaida's leader in the country, and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the purported head of its affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq. The two died on Sunday in a rocket attack on a home where they were hiding near Tikrit in the northern province of Salahuddin.

"The death of these terrorists is potentially the most significant blow to al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) since the beginning of the insurgency," said General Raymond T Odierno, commander of US forces in Iraq.

Maliki showed reporters pictures of two corpses, which he said had been identified through DNA tests. Reports from Baghdad said computer equipment seized with them showed communications with al-Qaida leaders including Osama bin Laden.

Biden described their deaths as a "devastating blow" to al-Qaida in Iraq.

"But equally important in my view is this action demonstrates the improved security strength and capacity of Iraqi security forces," Biden said. "The Iraqis led this operation, and it was based on intelligence the Iraqi security forces themselves developed following their capture of a senior AQI leader last month."

Biden said a soldier accompanying the Iraqis was killed, but the name was being withheld until family was informed.

Toby Dodge at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London called the operation a coup for Iraqi intelligence. "This is clearly a victory in propaganda terms and possibly also in terms of capacity," he said. "We'll have to see over the next weeks and months if the tempo of mass casualty attacks drops off or not."

Masri, an Egyptian veteran of the Afghan anti-Soviet jihad, replaced Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian founder of AQI, who was killed in a US airstrike with the help of Jordanian intelligence agents in 2006.

Baghdadi was a more shadowy figure who, it had been reported by US officials, operated under a false name dreamed up to give an Iraqi face to a foreign-run terrorist group. He was identified under his real name, Hamid Dawud Muhammad Khalil al-Zawi.

Both men featured prominently in jihadi publications and had been reported killed or captured several times before. Analysts normally counsel caution in such cases, especially since Maliki is keen to bolster his image as a strongman amid the uncertainty about the outcome of Iraq's March parliamentary election. But the US statement may dispel such doubts.

Earlier this month, the Islamic State in Iraq claimed responsibility for triple suicide bombings that hit foreign embassies in the capital, killing 30 people and injuring 200 others. These and other attacks fuelled concerns that al-Qaida was making a comeback in the post-election impasse.AQI intensified its attacks last year as US forces began to withdraw.

In a separate development, Iraq's independent electoral commission on Monday ordered a manual recount of ballots cast in Baghdad nearly six weeks ago. The recount could affect who becomes the next prime minister after Iyad al-Alawi emerged with a narrow lead over Maliki.

The incumbent had wanted votes recounted in five provinces, and complained that the electronic system of counting was unreliable. But Baghdad accounts for 68 seats in the 325-seat parliament, so even a slightly different result there could change the overall outcome.

Alawi's Iraqiya list, a cross-sectarian group backed by minority Sunnis, came first with 91 seats. Maliki's State of Law won 89 seats while his erstwhile Shia allies in the Iraqi National Alliance gained about 70. Kurds together control 58 seats.

"There has been no sustained evidence of substantial or nationally-orchestrated election fraud in Baghdad so the decision to move to a manual recount of Baghdad's vote makes it look as if they have succumbed to the politically-motivated demands of Maliki," said Dodge.

"This is very worrying because it casts a shadow over the whole election, allowing the politically powerful to challenge the outcome of a vote they did not win simply because of their grip on state institutions."

Pamela Geller on this year's CPAC

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Posted by mafbloggerdanny

I think everyone should read this: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/02/what-i-saw-and-didnt-see-at-cpac.html

Geller is a great blogger and has worked very closely with Robert Spencer on the threat (and sometimes disturbingly - the reality) of radical islam and jihad creeping into American society under the radar. She has been very active in documenting the continuing drama over the Rifka Bary case amonth other things. Her commentary on CPAC was, in my opinion, very insightful and spot on.

MAF Warned About GITMO Detainees in Afghanistan

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Posted by mafbloggerdanny

With the news that came out recently that there are now two former GITMO detainees in Afghanistan leading the Taliban against coalition forces, I was reminded of some e-mails we sent out last year warning about just this situation. In fact, our emails mention the SAME detainee (although by a different name) as the AP article posted about.

Abdul Qayyum, who the AP reported is leading the fight against coalition forces in Marjah, was also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, which is how we referred to him in our previous email. As it turns out, Abdullah Rasoul is actually his father's name, but we now know his real name to be Abdul Qayyum, either case, he is the same terrorists released from GITMO and now in charge of  the Taliban in the south.

This excerpt from the AP Article mentions the name change and reasoning:

A Taliban commander in the 1990s who was notorious for brutality and summary executions, Qayyum was captured in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan and taken to Guantanamo. According to interrogation transcripts, he identified himself to his American captors by his father's name, Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, and said he had been conscripted by the Taliban but left at the first opportunity.

According to a military transcript of his subsequent hearing, he said, "I want to go back home and join my family and work in my land and help my family." In December 2007 he was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to the Afghan government and held in Pul-e-Charkhi jail, on the eastern edge of the Kabul.

Now here is the email that MAF sent out, originally sent March 11, 2009, almost a year ago!

“WE ARE TERRORISTS TO THE BONE”   FIVE GITMO DETAINEES THREATEN AMERICA WHILE A FORMER CELLMATE TAKES LEAD OF THE TALIBAN   The new head of the Taliban who is leading the fight against Americans in southern Afghanistan is a former prisoner at Guantanamo Bay. Now his goal is to slaughter the 17,000 additional troops that President Obama has sent to Afghanistan, according to the Associated Press.  “Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, formerly Guantanamo prisoner No. 008, was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to the Afghan government in December 2007. Rasoul is now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir, a nom de guerre that Pentagon and intelligence officials say is used by a Taliban leader who is in charge of operations against U.S. and Afghan forces in southern Afghanistan.” Rasoul’s  “stated mission is to counter the U.S. troop surge” in Afghanistan, according to the AP. Rasoul’s return to terrorism is a prime example of why Obama should not close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. What is he thinking when he knows that these terrorists are returning to the battlefield to kill Americans? At the same time that Rasoul’s Taliban promotion hit the news, five other Gitmo prisoners said they are proud of their part in the slaughter of innocents on 9/11. Obama stopped the trial for these terrorists, but a judge released their statements. "Killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you ... are all considered to be great legitimate duties in our religion," said the five terrorists, one of whom is Khalid Sheik Mohammed the alleged 9/11 mastermind, who call themselves the "The 9/11 Shura Council,” which is the Arabic word for  advisory group. Obama is making a truly fatal error by closing Gitmo. Please help Move America Forward stop the closure.      “The evidence is mounting that Obama’s order to close Gitmo endangers Americans, but his first priority should be protecting the American people,” MAF Executive Director Catherine Moy said. “Our troops will now have to deal with Rasoul and other former Gitmo prisoners because they were allowed to leave the prison, which is safe and humane.”   Even the AP admits that the revelation of Rasoul’s leadership position and intent to attack American troops hurts Obama’s plans to close Gitmo and send the prisoners to the United States or other countries. America released Rasoul to the Afghan government, which released him.  At least two Saudi detainees once held in Gitmo were released to Saudi Arabia for rehabilitation. Now they are al-Qaida members, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair said. “Mr. Obama has no concrete plans on what to do with these very dangerous prisoners, and that should alarm Americans,” Moy said. “The leader of the Taliban was set free in Afghanistan. The same thing can happen over and over if Obama closes Guantanamo Bay.”   Move America Forward has produced a TV commercial focused on Obama’s dangerous plans to close Gitmo. Watch the commercial here http://www.youtube.com/moveamericaforward.com/     Stop Obama from closing Guantanamo Bay and help MAF get the commercial on the air.  Did You Know? Move America Forward is now on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube! Join Today!        Facebook - Join our Group! Twitter- Hit "Follow" YouTube - Hit "Subscribe"

GITMO

Gold Star Family License Plates Getting a $25,000 Boost!

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Posted by mafbloggerdanny

Early this morning I attended a press conference at the California Department of Veterans Affairs office. Gold Star families here in California have been fighting for years to get special recognition: license plates available to families who have lost a son or daughter in military service. Currently 44 states have similar license plates available for Gold Star families in those states, yet California does not. California has given more than any other state in the War on Terror; we have lost more of our brave young men and women than any other state, so it seems a no-brainer that California should join almost every other state in offering this recognition to their families who have sacrificed so much. Despite that California remains one of the few without Gold Star license plates.

Through the hard work of many Gold Star families, like Mike Anderson, whose son Mike Jr. gave his life in Iraq, as well as State Senators Cogdill and Denham, the law has been passed but even with the bill allowing these plates on the books, none have been printed yet.

Why not? The State is REQUIRING that the Gold Stars come up with over $300,000 just to put them into production. Well today they received another $25,000 from the organization AMVETS towards their fund, but they still have almost $200,000 still needed. It’s heartbreaking that those who gave so much are required to give more… the State of California should be able to do better by our Gold Star Families.

CDVA Secretary Roger Brautigan has helped the coalition of Gold Stars throughought the difficult process, he was there today to MC the event.

Not Just CIA Agents and Navy SEALS that Obama is trying to throw in prison

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Posted by superadmin

Just read this very interesting article, sent to me by one of our members. Dr. John Woo is a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law and was, as you will read in the following article, one of the principal architects of the country’s counter-terrorism legal policy after 9/11. These policies to a large extent have been kept since the Obama administration, just like Obama has kept most if not all of President Bush’s policies in administering the Iraq war and Afghanistan war. The notable exceptions to this are all of the high-visibility proclamations that Obama made, such as announcing civilian trials for terrorists, the ending of so-called enhanced interrogations, and his intention to close Guantanamo Bay.

While these policy changes provide the media story of “course-changing” as Yoo points out in the article, if you look at the legal framework and strategy actually being employed on the ground, it’s really Bush’s policies that are winning. John Yoo helped shape those policies, but enough of my inadequate attempts to discuss how, better you read it from the genius himself, Dr. John Yoo.

The only other thing I would point out, is that the “witch-hunt” that Yoo is describing, that went on within the judicial community is similar to the way in which CIA agents and to a large extent our troops, are running scared from Obama and his Department of Justice. There is a fear that anyone who is too strong or zealous in their jobs of protecting America, and treats the enemy a little too roughly, will be hunted down and reprimanded. You saw this in the administration’s treatment of not only CIA agents but even Navy SEALS and with this revelation, lawyers and judges as well.

Read on:

My Gift to the Obama Presidency Though the White House won't want to admit it, Bush lawyers were protecting the executive's power to fight a vigorous war on terror. By JOHN YOO Barack Obama may not realize it, but I may have just helped save his presidency. How? By winning a drawn-out fight to protect his powers as commander in chief to wage war and keep Americans safe. He sure didn't make it easy. When Mr. Obama took office a year ago, receiving help from one of the lawyers involved in the development of George W. Bush's counterterrorism policies was the furthest thing from his mind. Having won a great electoral victory, the new president promised a quick about-face. He rejected "as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" and moved to restore the law-enforcement system as the first line of defense against a hardened enemy devoted to killing Americans. In office only one day, Mr. Obama ordered the shuttering of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, followed later by the announcement that he would bring terrorists to an Illinois prison. He terminated the Central Intelligence Agency's ability to use "enhanced interrogations techniques" to question al Qaeda operatives. He stayed the military trial, approved by Congress, of al Qaeda leaders. He ultimately decided to transfer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the planner of the 9/11 attacks, to a civilian court in New York City, and automatically treated Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day, as a criminal suspect (not an illegal enemy combatant). Nothing better could have symbolized the new president's determination to take us back to a Sept. 10, 2001, approach to terrorism. Part of Mr. Obama's plan included hounding those who developed, approved or carried out Bush policies, despite the enormous pressures of time and circumstance in the months immediately after the September 11 attacks. Although career prosecutors had previously reviewed the evidence and determined that no charges are warranted, last year Attorney General Eric Holder appointed a new prosecutor to re-investigate the CIA's detention and interrogation of al Qaeda leaders. In my case, he let loose the ethics investigators of the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to smear my reputation and that of Jay Bybee, who now sits as a federal judge on the court of appeals in San Francisco. Our crime? While serving in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the weeks and months after 9/11, we answered in the form of memoranda extremely difficult questions from the leaders of the CIA, the National Security Council and the White House on when interrogation methods crossed the line into prohibited acts of torture. Rank bias and sheer incompetence infused OPR's investigation. OPR attorneys, for example, omitted a number of precedents that squarely supported the approach in the memoranda and undermined OPR's preferred outcome. They declared that no Americans have a right of self-defense against a criminal prosecution, not even when they or their government agents attempt to stop terrorist attacks on the United States. OPR claimed that Congress enjoyed full authority over wartime strategy and tactics, despite decades of Justice Department opinions and practice defending the president's commander-in-chief power. They accused us of violating ethical standards without ever defining them. They concocted bizarre conspiracy theories about which they never asked us, and for which they had no evidence, even though we both patiently—and with no legal obligation to do so—sat through days of questioning. OPR's investigation was so biased, so flawed, and so beneath the Justice Department's own standards that last week the department's ranking civil servant and senior ethicist, David Margolis, completely rejected its recommendations. Attorney General Holder could have stopped this sorry mess earlier, just as his predecessor had tried to do. OPR slow-rolled Attorney General Michael Mukasey by refusing to deliver a draft of its report until the 2008 Christmas and New Year holidays. OPR informed Mr. Mukasey of its intention to release the report on Jan. 12, 2009, without giving me or Judge Bybee the chance to see it—as was our right and as we'd been promised. Mr. Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip found so many errors in the report that they told OPR that the entire enterprise should be abandoned. OPR decided to run out the clock and push the investigation into the lap of the Obama administration. It would have been easy for Mr. Holder to concur with his predecessors—in fact, it was critical that he do so to preserve the Justice Department's impartiality. Instead the new attorney general let OPR's investigators run wild. Only Mr. Margolis's rejection of the OPR report last week forced the Obama administration to drop its ethics charges against Bush legal advisers. Why bother fighting off an administration hell-bent on finding scapegoats for its policy disagreements with the last president? I could have easily decided to hide out, as others have. Instead, I wrote numerous articles (several published in this newspaper) and three books explaining and defending presidential control of national security policy. I gave dozens of speeches and media appearances, where I confronted critics of the administration's terrorism policies. And, most importantly, I was lucky to receive the outstanding legal counsel of Miguel Estrada, one of the nation's finest defense attorneys, to attack head-on and without reservation, each and every one of OPR's mistakes, misdeeds and acts of malfeasance. I did not do this to win any popularity contests, least of all those held in the faculty lounge. I did it to help our president—President Obama, not Bush. Mr. Obama is fighting three wars simultaneously in Iraq, Afghanistan, and against al Qaeda. He will call upon the men and women serving under his command to make choices as hard as the ones we faced. They cannot meet those challenges with clear minds if they believe that a bevy of prosecutors, congressional committees and media critics await them when they return from the battlefield. This is no idle worry. In 2005, a Navy Seal team dropped into Afghanistan encountered goat herders who clearly intended to inform the Taliban of their whereabouts. The team leader ordered them released, against his better military judgment, because of his worries about the media and political attacks that would follow. In less than an hour, more than 80 Taliban fighters attacked and killed all but one member of the Seal team and 16 Americans on a helicopter rescue mission. If a president cannot, or will not, protect the men and women who fight our nation's wars, they will follow the same risk-averse attitudes that invited the 9/11 attacks in the first place. Without a vigorous commander-in-chief power at his disposal, Mr. Obama will struggle to win any of these victories. But that is where OPR, playing a junior varsity CIA, wanted to lead us. Ending the Justice Department's ethics witch hunt not only brought an unjust persecution to an end, but it protects the president's constitutional ability to fight the enemies that threaten our nation today. Mr. Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, was a Justice Department official from 2001-03. He is the author, among other books, of "Crisis and Command: A History of Executive Power from George Washington to George W. Bush" (Kaplan, 2010).

Torture, DoJ

Senator Blasts Obama Admin. on Terror

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Posted by catmoy

Move America Forward has been a leader when it comes to the fight against dangerous public policy in the war on terror. Specifically, MAF has warned against closing Guantanamo Bay and giving constitutional rights to enemy combatants, such as the radical jihadists who want to kill Americans.

Today, Sen. McConnel spoke about the failurs of the Obama Adminstration.

Heritage has the story:

McConnell Takes Aim At White House Terror Spin

Bloggers Comment Reveals: They Dont' Care About Facts they Just Want GTIMO Closed

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Posted by mafbloggerdanny

THE TRUTH IS; THEY HAVE NO REASON, THEY DON’T EVEN KNOW WHY, BUT THEY WANT GITMO CLOSED.

The people that want Guantanamo Bay to be closed have made it clear that when you take all the arguments against GITMO and refute them each, discredit them all, and show all the arguments in favor of keeping the terrorists at GITMO, no matter what the multitude of problems GITMO solves; the ultimate fact of the matter is: when no other arguments stand, they still don’t care, they jus want GITMO to close.

They just hate it, they want to vilify it, and to them closing it proves that they were right.

The longer that the controversy over Guantanamo Bay gets drawn out, that is becoming increasingly clear about the motivations and the arguments of the people who want to see GITMO closed, that is, the anti-war people, the simple bush-haters, the far left, President Obama, and those who are willing to support him.

First they said ‘it’s illegal’ but here we are years later and GITMO still stands. It’s an entirely legitimate facility, built to house people who have no official standing in what we think of as war criminals or foreign armies. They said we tortured people, they said we were violating their rights, they said we had no right to hold them, they said it was a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, they said it made us look bad.

They have leveled every complaint in the book at GITMO and yet they don’t have a better solution, and all of their criticisms have been shot down. Eric Holder sent a team in and they determined (as we ourselves did in 2008) that the facility was run extremely well, efficient, and in accordance with every law set forth in the Geneva Conventions, this DESPITE the fact that the terrorists held there aren’t even technically eligible for those protections, since they represent no formal State or governmental body.

This blog post seems to say it all for me. This is the mentality that I SEE and HEAR when talking to people about Guantanamo and reading the articles they write about it. But in this blog post it’s on stunning display; plain and simple.

From Chicagoist

At yesterday's Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on the sell of Thomson Correctional Center to the federal government, Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT) raised the issue of a prison on U.S. Soil as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. And to make his point, he remarked how much nicer Guantanamo Bay was than Illinois.

They go on to quote Hatch, who is talking about the same kinds of things we’re talking about, that Guantnamo Bay really treats those terrorists a lot better than they deserve, and that really they have a much comfier existence on the island out in Cuba than they would in frigid Illinois.

Reading on….

Well, you're right. As much as we normally get riled up with our inferiority complex, this time, Hatch is right. But come on, Senator. Illinois in January is the perfect deterrent. Even you admitted, "I think it's easy to see... that no matter what we do, they're going to criticize us." So why not?

The magic words. “So Why Not”

When all other arguments fail, “WHY NOT” 

Hatch is right – and THEY ADMIT IT! The fact that Obama reached out to the Muslim world has not changed their attitude toward the West. Especially not the jihadists. They are still bent on killing us all. Will closing GITMO take a recruiting tool away from Al Qaeda? Probably not, but even if it does, they have thousands more lies to tell about the USA, the Great Satan.  But even if closing GITMO accomplishes nothing, even if it puts America in danger… they still want to do it. Why Not? It’s a symbol of the Bush years, and they want to destroy anything that reminds them of W.

When we CAN spend $300 billion dollars to do duplicate something that already exists, WHY NOT!

 

Major Hasan and the Ideological Blinders

Friday, January 29, 2010

Posted by mafbloggerdanny

Major Hasan and the Ideological Blinders
By Walid Phares

Major Nidal Hasan was not flagged because Washington has disarmed its own analysts with ideological blinders. The Pentagon's review of the act of terrorism committed at Fort Hood deserves national attention regarding not only its important conclusions, but also what it missed in terms of analysis.

Jihadi Penetration: Part of a War

As announced by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the report "reveals serious 'shortcomings' in the military's ability to stop foreign extremists from trying to use America's own soldiers against the United States." The Pentagon's review of the Fort Hood massacre stated that "serious shortcomings" were found in "the military's ability to stop foreign extremists from trying to use its own soldiers against the United States." The first question that comes to mind is whether the issue is about "shortcomings," as described by the Pentagon, or about "systemic failures," as announced by President Obama in his evaluation of the Christmas Day terror act. For as underlined by the Department of Defense in the case of Major Hasan, these failures were about the military's ability to "stop foreign terrorists from using American soldiers against the United States."

Such a statement is extremely important, as it finally informs the public that the U.S. personnel roster is indeed being infiltrated and recruited by foreign jihadists, who are described politically by the administration as "extremists." Hence, the first logical conclusion from that finding is that jihadi networks are performing acts of war (and thus of terrorism) against U.S. defense assets and personnel in the homeland. This warrants the reevaluation of the conflict and a re-upgrading of it to a state of war, even though it would still need to be determined "with whom."

Self-Radicalization

Secretary Gates said that "military supervisors are not properly focused on the threat posed by self-radicalization and need to better understand the behavioral warning signs." He added that "extremists are changing their tactics in an attempt to hit the United States." He then concluded that the Fort Hood massacre "reveals shortcomings in the way the department is prepared to defend against threats posed by external influences operating on members of our military community. ... We have not done enough to adapt to the evolving domestic internal security threat to American troops and military facilities."

The bottom line of the Department of Defense report is, as I relentlessly argued before and since Hasan's shootings, that the U.S. military and intelligence lack the capability of detecting radicalization, should it be "self"-developed or activated from overseas. American analysts are not able to "detect" radicalization from where it is generated. In my last three books and dozens of briefings and testimonies to legislative and executive forums, I underlined the crucial importance of identifying the ideology behind radicalization. The latter is produced by a set of ideas assembled in a doctrinal package.

Unfortunately, the Bush and Obama administrations were both poorly advised by their experts. They were told, wrongly, that if they try to identify a "doctrine," then they will be meddling with a religion. Academic and cultural advisers of the various U.S. agencies and offices (the majority of them, at least) failed their government by triggering a fear of theological entanglement. To the surprise of our Arab and Muslim allies in the region, who know how to detect the jihadist narrative, Washington disarmed its own analysts when bureaucrats of the last two years banned references to the very ideological indicators that could enable our analysts to detect the radicalization threat.

And it is not about "extreme religious views" as much as it is about an ideology. If Arabs and Muslims can identify it in the Middle East, why can't Americans also? It is simply because jihadi propaganda has already penetrated our advising body and fooled many of our decision-makers into dropping the ideological parameters.

Hence, stunningly, Major Hasan, who fully displayed the narrative of jihadism, was not spotted as a jihadist. The report tried to blame his colleagues and other superiors for failing to find him "suspicious enough" and thus for causing a shortcoming. I disagree: What allowed Hasan to move undetected was a bureaucratic memo issued under both administrations, and made into policy last summer, ordering the members of the public service not to look at ideology or refer to words that can detect it. We did it to ourselves.

The Strategic Threat Ahead

The report raises "serious questions" about whether the military is prepared for similar attacks, particularly "multiple, simultaneous incidents." In my book, Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America, published half a decade ago, I sternly warned about the strategic determination of jihadists, al-Qaeda and beyond, to target the U.S. homeland -- not just in terms of terrorizing the public, but in the framework of a chain of strikes widening gradually until it would evolve to coordinated, simultaneous attacks. In 2006-2007, I served on the then Task Force on Future Terrorism of the Department of Homeland Security and developed an analysis clearly showing the path to come. My briefings to several entities and agencies in the defense sector clearly argued that implanting, growing, and triggering homegrown jihadists to strike at U.S. national security is at the heart of the enemy's strategy. I even projected the existence of a "war room" that directs these operations; Imam al-Awlaki's example of multiple operatives' coordination is only a small fragment of what it would be like.

In facing this mushrooming threat, not only do we lack a detection capacity to counter it, but we have been induced in error to adopt policies opposite to those suitable to our national defense. The misleading advice that the U.S. government relied on is deeply responsible for the failure to stop and counter radicalization. The report, although a step in the right direction, has troubling shortcomings:

A. It claims that "fixation on religion" is a missing indicator. This means that if Muslims insist on praying or Catholics refrain from eating meat on Fridays during Lent, this could be a lead to radicalization. Obviously, it is a dead end, for the indicator is the substance of the fixation, not the mere fact of religiosity. One statement of commitment to jihad is by far more important than fasting during the whole month of Ramadan. It is not theology but ideology, even though many writers in town insist on merging both based on their readings of text. I offer our government an easier way to detect the threat without venturing into unnavigable religious debates or unnecessarily apologizing for one or another particular faith.

B. The report describes Hasan as "an odd duck and a loner who was passed along from office to office and job to job despite professional failings that included missed or failed exams and physical fitness requirements." Nice shot, but it leads nowhere, for the other potential Hasans amongst us aren't all necessarily odd, failed students, and physically unfit. The next jihadists could be sharp, professional, and extremely social. It all depends on what the "War Room" is going to surprise us with. Medical doctors in Britain, rich young men from Nigeria, or converted farmers from North Carolina aren't all in one profile basket. So let's stop looking for framing "profiles" and start detecting ideology.

C. The report calls on the Defense Department "to fully staff those teams of investigators, analysts, linguists and others so the Pentagon can quickly see information collected across government agencies about potential links between troops and terrorist or extremist groups." This is a long-awaited initiative, short of creating further catastrophes by staffing our bureaucracies with more cultural advisers who would further mislead our leaders and worsen the fledgling counter-ideology sectors already in place. I am making the bold statement that our problem is precisely that the expertise we sought over the past eight years is the reason for our inability to detect radicalization. Hence I would recommend an additional inquiry into our own specialization body before we re-contract it to lead the war of ideas.

The beef is there. Everything else is dressing.

Dr. Walid Phares is Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) in Washington, D.C. He is the author of the recently released book, The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.