Obama and Co. Support Terrorists and Terrorism

O-Bow-ma runs around the world bowing to every muslim ruler and tinpot dictator he can find, he stands in front of a muslim audience in Turkey and says the U.S. is no longer a Christian nation, he says in his campaign he has visited “all 57 states” which corresponds to the 57 muslim states, he downplays the “crotch bomber” (Great balls of fire!) at Christmas and keeps playing golf, and OBTW most people claiming to be Christians (as he still does) are usually celebrating the birth of Christ on Christmas instead of playing golf.

Now the U.S. Treasury, at the direction of O-Bow-ma, has removed the hamas terrorists from the TERRORIST WATCH LIST so that they can get money with no restrictions.

Obama is a muslim, anti-American, terrorist sympathizing communist.

---

http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3326

Hamas may have been whitewashed, but it is no cleaner than before

25 Jan 2010
A news item entitled ‘US Terror Blacklist Whitewashes Hamas, Enables Funding’ just arrived in my e-mail a few minutes ago. According to its authors, the US Treasury has removed all the Hamas members previously blacklisted as terrorists, with the exception of Musa Abu Marzouk, the deputy chairman of the Hamas political bureau, from the black list that banks almost everywhere are obliged to use in order to block known terrorists from exploiting the financial system to finance their operations.

In practical terms, the Treasury’s black list of names is a total waste of time: as it is a public document, everyone named in it knows that his name is there, and should he want to open a bank account somewhere, he will find a suitable way round the regulations, either by using a false passport or by using a third party to act on his behalf. And apart from that, the details of many entries in the black list document are simply not very accurate or practical: as a senior compliance executive of one of the biggest European banks told me a few years ago, “the black lists are lousy” as a way of preventing terror finance and money laundering.

Nevertheless, this news is absolutely alarming, not so much because of the symbolism of removing the names of known Hamas leaders and terrorists from the black lists, but because doing so will now allow the European Union to continue sending money to the Hamas-run regime of thugs in Gaza without needing to pretend that it is only financing humanitarian efforts, while boycotting the ’military’ side of the government there. There is a genuine problem of how to ensure that genuine humanitarian aid continues to flow without helping Hamas — most of whose victims are actually Palestinians living in Gaza, rather than the hated Israelis — but this discussion is for another occasion.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://lonestartimes.com/?p=1113

Obama Okays Funding of Hamas Murderers

by texpat · 01/26/2010 7:15 am

Israel National News reports:

The United States Treasury has taken all but one member of Hamas off the international list of terrorists, thus enabling funds from the European Union to enter Hamas-controlled Gaza.

It is an open secret that large sums of money from the EU flow into Gaza in the guise of humanitarian aid and salaries for officials, but are actually funneled into the coffers of Hamas, which controls Gaza with an iron grip. This method of transferring funds into terrorists’ hands could have been blocked by an international lawsuit, but according to journalist Avi Tarango, the United States Treasury has made this impossible by removing all but one Hamas man – Deputy Chairman of the Political Bureau, Musa Abu Marzouk – from the list of international terrorists.

and this:

However, according to Tarango, who went over the list, none of the tens of thousands of people who form Hamas is mentioned – other than Abu Marzuk, who resides in Damascus. The terrorist list is meant for distribution in the world banking system, where the transfer of funds to anyone on the list is prohibited.

The Bush administration was adept and persistent in trying to destroy or, at least, make very difficult the transfer of funds into terrorist hands around the world after September 11, 2001. Many of these measures are slowly being dismantled.

“EU laws define Hamas as a terror organization and therefore the EU people need to verify on a name-by-name basis that none of the people receiving salaries and support is a terrorist,” Tarango said. “This is done by the EU’s cash transfer mechanism, PEGASE, which verifies that none of the recipients of salaries are members of Hamas’s police force or activists of the military wing of Hamas, by comparing the names as received from the PA treasury department with the list of international terror activists. However, since the newly-updated list contains no Hamas officials except for Marzouk, the European check will find nothing and the funds for Gaza salaries will be transferred in whole to the Gaza banks.”

+

---

Political Correctness Ignores REAL Enemy of Ft. Hood Shooting

One of the seeds of our destruction will be POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, which is to say CENSORSHIP OF FREE SPEECH.  The flower of that seed, at least in America, will be islam.

It is absolutely insane that we can't or won't name the enemy which seeks our destruction out of fear of OFFENDING that enemy.

---

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100121070356.aspx?print=on

CNN's Cafferty Slams Pentagon's Omission of Islam in Ft. Hood Report

By: Matthew Balan

January 21, 2010 18:23 ET

CNN’s Jack Cafferty blasted the Defense Department’s report on the Fort Hood massacre as a “joke” on Thursday’s Situation Room, singling out how there was “no mention in the report of the suspect’s [Major Nidal Hasan] views of Islam.” Cafferty also highlighted a recent Gallup poll that found that “43 percent of Americans admit to feeling at least a little prejudice toward Muslims.”

The CNN commentator wasted no time in criticizing the 86-page report released by the Pentagon on the Fort Hood shootings: “The Pentagon report into the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas that left 13 people dead- it’s a joke. No mention in the report of the suspect’s views of Islam- none- in fact, the 86-page report doesn’t even once mention Major Nidal Hasan by name. It lumps in radical Islam with other fundamentalist religious beliefs, and instead, focuses on things like military personnel policies and the emergency response to the November shootings.”

Cafferty later read a quote from 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, and continued his attack on the report: “Lehman...told Time magazine the Pentagon’s silence on Islamic extremism- quote, ‘shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become,’ unquote. What a shame....The Pentagon acknowledges it did not focus so much on Hasan’s motives, as on what it called ‘actions and effects.’ The report says they didn’t want to interfere with the criminal probe into Major Hasan. Garbage.”

Before reading his “Question of the Hour,” the commentator noted the Gallup poll: “Meanwhile, a new Gallup poll shows 43 percent of Americans admit to feeling at least a little prejudice toward Muslims. That’s more than twice as many who feel that way about Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, and the same survey finds that Islam is the most negatively viewed religion. One-third of those surveyed say their opinion of Islam is- quote, ‘not favorable at all,’ unquote.”

In recent days, Cafferty has “gone rogue,” (to paraphrase the title of his favorite subject of ire, Sarah Palin), blasting top Democrats over their secret negotiations to pass a final version of ObamaCare, labeling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a “horrible woman,” and tossing the idea that the Earth’s climate could actually be cooling. If it wasn’t for his December 2009 endorsement of a global one-child policy, you’d think he’s becoming a conservative.

The full transcript of Jack Cafferty’s commentary, which began 12 minutes into the 5 pm Eastern hour of Thursday’s Situation Room:

CAFFERTY: The Pentagon report into the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas that left 13 people dead- it’s a joke. No mention in the report of the suspect’s views of Islam- none- in fact, the 86-page report doesn’t even once mention Major Nidal Hasan by name. It lumps in radical Islam with other fundamentalist religious beliefs, and instead, focuses on things like military personnel policies and the emergency response to the November shootings. This despite the fact that Hasan made no secret of his radical Islamic faith. He allegedly proselytized to his fellow service members, (Why do we tolerate muslims ACTIVELY proselytizing in America, especially in the military, yet we won't even let Christians MENTION their faith, display a Bible on their desk, or display ANY religious symbol?  Self destruction.)  [and] spoke out often against the wars the U.S. is fighting in Muslim counties.

John Lehman, the member of the 9/11 Commission, told Time magazine the Pentagon’s silence on Islamic extremism- quote, ‘shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become,’ unquote. What a shame. The Texas congressman, whose district includes Fort Hood, says the report- quote, ‘ignores the elephant in the room- radical Islamic terrorism is the enemy,’ unquote. The Pentagon acknowledges it did not focus so much on Hasan’s motives, as on what it called ‘actions and effects.’ The report says they didn’t want to interfere with the criminal probe into Major Hasan. Garbage.

Meanwhile, a new Gallup poll shows 43 percent of Americans admit to feeling at least a little prejudice toward Muslims. That’s more than twice as many who feel that way about Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, and the same survey finds that Islam is the most negatively viewed religion. One-third of those surveyed say their opinion of Islam is- quote, ‘not favorable at all,’ unquote.  (Because the pieces of swine excrement keep BLOWING US UP and SHOOTING US!)

So here’s the question: why would the Pentagon choose to ignore the Fort Hood shooter’s ties to Islam in its report? Go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile, post a comment on my blog.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

---

America, Use Your “Free” Speech Now. It Will Be Taken From You Soon.

Europe is already lost. They have become dhimmi’s to their muslim invaders. The muslims they have capitulated to did not originally come brandishing guns and knives. They came en masse due to the idiotic open borders policies put in place by Europe’s socialist governments. Now the muslims are the largest minority, and in many cases are about to outnumber the citizens of several European countries.

Europeans have almost completely capitulated to the demands of emboldened muslims in their countries. Muslims are allowed to govern themselves according to sharia law and have separate courts and justice systems. The European citizens can’t voice any criticism of islam or the muslims for fear of rioting, being killed, or beheaded. To appease the muslims, the spineless Dutch have now decided to try Geert Wilders (produced film “Fitna”) for a “hate crime.” Apparently it’s OK for muslims to parade through the streets carrying signs threatening all western nations with another 9/11, with beheading, and other violent forms of demise. Apparently it’s OK for muslim clerics to preach hate and violence against non-muslims. Apparently it’s OK for muslims to criticize and belittle ALL non-muslims and their religions and lifestyle choices. But apparently it is not OK to speak the truth or voice an opinion about a religion that has proven itself to be violent, dangerous, and incompatible with the rest of the world. Geert Wilders expressed an opinion backed up with demonstrated facts, and because the truth upset the poor little downtrodden muslims, Mr. Wilders is now being tried for a “hate crime.”

This is already starting to happen in America. We have the same open borders, and the same disregard for illegal immigrants and those who wish us ill coming across our borders. Spineless liberals are starting to cave to muslims anytime they demand something. “Separation of church and state” is strictly enforced when it comes to Christianity and Judaism. But the government will spare no expense to make muslims happy by installing foot baths and providing places to “worship” and practice their religion on public and government property. Hypocrisy.

If we do not stand up and protect our own freedoms, they will be taken away from us. Liberals already try to silence us by calling us names and slinging mud to keep us quiet. Because we speak out against ILLEGAL immigration they call us racists. They call us Nazis because we disagree with a government takeover of our healthcare system, our banks, our private businesses, and anything else we have.

But I will not be silenced. I will hold to and speak the truth boldly. I will give my last breath to speak the truth. I will not be enslaved by liberals, by muslims, or by anyone. I will resist any attempt to oppress me with any means at my disposal. I will protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America until God calls me home.

Do you value your freedom enough to defend it? Are you willing to give your life to defend our constitution and our way of life?

Start at the ballot box. Elect representatives who will uphold their oath to defend the constitution, unlike the current crop of misrepresentatives who are actually trying to destroy it.

Be active in educating yourself and others on the truth. Do not be intimidated into silence by those who disagree with you. You have a right to speak, and they have a right not to listen.

Hold to your 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. It was meant as a last line of defense between the citizenry and a tyrannical government. It is the American insurance policy.

---

---

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122082
THEIR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

Dutch lawmaker ordered to ‘hate crime’ trial

‘The legal system in North Korea is better than in the Netherlands’

Posted: January 16, 2010
12:20 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Dutch Parliament member Geert Wilders, whose film “Fitna” warns that Islam is threatening Western civilization, will be tried for a “hate crime” in the Netherlands.

Wilders previously was banned from Britain – a move later overturned in court – because of the subject of “Fitna,” which features Quranic verses shown alongside images of the 9/11 terror attacks, the 2004 attack in Madrid and the 2005 attack in London.

The film calls on Muslims to remove “hate-preaching” verses from the text of their holy book.

Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, has been living under 24-hour protection from police since 2004. Al-Qaida has called for his murder.

According to a report from the Christian Institute, a ministry promoting Christianity in the United Kingdom, a court ruling this week removed the last obstacle to Wilders’ trial, dismissing his objections to the prosecution.

The report said Wilders’ lawyer argued his client should not be prosecuted for discriminatory statements since the Dutch superme court last year found that insulting a religion did not automatically “imply an insult to its believers.”

A lower court, however, concluded the provision did not mean Wilders could not be put on trial based on charges that originated from complaints filed by Dutch lawyer Gerard Spong on behalf of several clients.

The report said Wilders’ remarks included suggesting Muhammad should be tarred and feathered and expelled from the Netherlands and declaring no Muslim should be allowed to enter the nation.

Prosecutors originally chose not to file any action against Wilders, the report said, citing their conclusion the comments were “in the context of societal debate.”  But the case was resurrected after a campaign urged people to complain to the courts.

Wilders has called the prosecution an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“In this country, you are apparently allowed to criticize only if you are politically correct in how you express yourself,” he has said.

Blogger Diana West wrote on Wilders’ website, “It is not just the repression … of Islam that Wilders is outspoken about… He is equally if almost singularly outspoken about the political remedies necessary to halt the extension of Islam’s law. Such remedies include stopping Islamic immigration and deporting agents of jihad. These are simple measures any democratic state that wished to repeal Islamization would take. … It is a political trial, then, in the worst sense, that we are about to witness. And it is about more than the future of freedom of speech. The trial of Geert Wilders is about the future of freedom.”

Wilders’ 17-minute documentary, “Fitna,” meaning “strife,” likened the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s manifesto, “Mein Kampf.”

Early critics had expressed fears the Wilders film would show a copy of the Quran being destroyed, but the ending offered a slight surprise.

As someone leafs through the Quran, a sound of tearing is heard.

“The sound you heard was from a page [being torn out] of the phone book. It is not up to me, but up to the Muslims themselves to tear the spiteful verses from the Quran,” text on the screen reads. “Stop Islamization. Defend our freedom,” the film concluded.

Wilders has received numerous death threats. His police protection has been in place because of the 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh, the director of a film that exposed violence against women in Islamic societies.

Since the Van Gogh murder, the government of a nation proud of its liberal social attitudes has cut back on generous welfare programs to immigrants and made Dutch-language classes mandatory for newcomers.

Van Gogh’s film, “Submission,” was written by Wilders’ former political ally, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Societies dominated by Islam, in the meantime, have been working at the international level to ban any criticism of Islam globally.

A plan is being pushed by the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to “protect” Islam from what they perceive as criticism.

The resolution, pending in one form or another since 1999, originally was called “Defamation of Islam.” The name later was changed to “Defamation of Religions,” but Islam remains the only faith protected by name in the proposal.

The proposal is based on the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. The declaration states “that all rights are subject to Shariah law and makes Shariah law the only source of reference for human rights.”

However, the latest vote on the nonbinding proposal came just weeks ago at the U.N. and showed falling support, with 80 votes in favor of the proposal, 61 against and 42 abstentions. A year ago there were 86 yes votes, and two years ago the support came from 108 votes.
+
+

---

Political Correctness: Cancer Eating the U.S. Military

I can speak from personal experience to back up and expand on this story.  The political correctness forced upon the military by the politicians over the last two or three decades has all but paralyzed the military when it comes to policing its own ranks.  An atmosphere of fear has been created where service members are afraid to bring up concerns about fellow service members because of the well founded fear that it will be seen as as discrimination in one of the areas of “race, creed, sex, (sexual preference), religion, or national origin.”  If you voice a concern, you become the criminal and the person whom you complain about becomes the victim.  I have seen this many times, and seen the careers of officers and NCO’s ruined over nothing more than an unfounded accusation.  Granted, there are some sleaze bags out there who need to be dealt with, but in the Military Equal Opportunity arena you are guilty until proven innocent, and then you are not innocent, they just couldn’t prove you did whatever you were accused of.


So, rather than policing our own ranks and doing our job as military men and women, what do we do?  We waste countless hours in “sensitivity training,” various forms of anti-discrimination briefings, and an ever increasing barrage of material and briefings that teach that white males of Angl0-Saxon descent are oppressors.  We can’t have an open, honest discussion about our differences that might actually help us learn about one another.  We are forced to remain silent and simply accept what we see lest we potentially OFFEND someone.

I’ve read the entire constitution, and I can’t find anywhere in the document that says you have the “right not to be offended.”  By the nature of the institution, freedom of speech is somewhat curtailed in the military, but I’m pretty sure there is still no “right” in the military “not to be offended.”

I will remind everyone what the mission of the military is SUPPOSED to be.  The United States military’s job should be to be ready, willing, and able to kick anybody’s butt, anytime, anywhere in the defense of America and her interests.  There is no room for political correctness or the other extraneous crap that is forced upon the military when politicians decide to use us as their “social laboratory” when they can’t get the public to buy into their idiotic social programs.  As good a military as we STILL are in spite of the interference, we would be so much more effective for a given size if we didn’t have all of the extraneous crap to deal with.

Now let’s talk about the “accountability” that is suddenly being thrust upon the military for the failure to identify and stop Nidal Hasan.  As I’ve highlighted in orange in the article below, the head cutting in this case will likely stop at the rank of colonel.  Why is this important?  Unless it is politically expedient for the president, any president, you will seldom if ever see anyone above the rank of 1-star (brigadier general) be punished for anything.  These officers are confirmed and appointed by the president, so embarrassing them embarrasses him.  The ranks of general officers are kind of like the mafia.  a 1-star is a “wise guy,” trying to make a name for himself.  He’s still expendable.  2-stars and above are “made men.”  They haven’t necessarily been picked for their leadership ability, although once in a while a general has managed to hide the fact that he can lead until AFTER he gets promoted.  Generals are usually picked for their compliance and lack of political backbone.

Here are a few examples of the “wise guy” analogy.

• The Beirut barracks bombing. The 1-star in charge warned of the dangers and begged for the resources and permission to protect his men.  He was told to “shut up and color,” and then punished and made a scape-goat when the barracks were actually attacked killing dozens of marines.  No one above 1-star was punished.
• The shoot down of two Blackhawk helicopters by F-15’s in northern Iraq. The Blackhawks weren’t squawking as per the theater SPINS (transmitting the proper Identification Friend or Foe codes prescribed by special instructions). The flight of F-15’s intercepted them and IMPROPERLY identified them as Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters.  There were several breakdowns in operations as crews tried to adhere to an extremely complicated, politically driven and designed set of ROE (Rules of Engagement).  Several of the front line folks were strung up, but no one above 1-star was touched, including Lt. Gen. Charles Heflebower who was in charge at the time, or any of those responsible for putting the rules in place and signing off on them.
• The CT-43 crash in Dubrovnik, Croatia in which then commerce secretary Ron Brown was killed. Brig. Gen. William E. Stevens, the 1-star wing commander, was fired because he pushed the VIP airlift planes and pilots to break rules in order to please the VIP’s whom the wing served.  He had higher headquarters guidance that would have severely hampered operations, but he sat on it so as not to take heat from VIP’s who would be unable to get to their destinations.  His deputy, Col John Mazurowski, was also fired because he knew of this guidance but said nothing.  Maz was a good guy who regrettably failed to do the right thing.  Stevens, the 1-star, was the tallest tree to get clipped.  Remember Heflebower?  He was in charge during this debacle as well.  Untouched.  An excerpt from this article (http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/08/us/air-force-cites-command-failures-in-brown-crash.html?pagewanted=all) summarizes Heflebower’s leadership (or lack their of) role in the incident, and in general.

Perhaps the most explosive deposition taken by the investigators came from Lieut. Col. James A. Albright, former commander of the squadron to which the doomed plane belonged.

In his testimony, Colonel Albright described an atmosphere in which safety concerns may sometimes have been secondary to on-time performance, and in which pilots were required to fly jets with outdated equipment into airports that offered only the most primitive navigational aids.

Powerful Government officials  and their staffs, Colonel Albright said, often demanded that Air Force planes on which they traveled fly through dangerous weather or to airports with poor navigational equipment. (i.e. Ron Brown and various senators, congressmen, and other staff flunkies.  I experience this pressure SEVERAL TIMES 1ST HAND.)

“I think there is an atmosphere of fear,” said Colonel Albright, who was removed from his command five days before the crash because of differences with General Stevens, his superior. “In the matrix of safety versus mission, Stevens is mission first.” (Absolutely true, from 1st hand experience.)  (Albright was a gifted leader, but lacked enough tact to survive in the extremely political environment.  He and Stevens had a history, and Stevens was looking for an excuse to fire him.  Albright called Stevens out on an issue in front of various other commanders in a staff meeting, giving Stevens the excuse he was looking for.)

Colonel Albright also said that Maj. Gen. Charles R. Heflebower, the commander of the 17th Air Force, the parent command of General Stevens’s 86th Airlift Wing, had a “reputation for intimidation and pushing pilots to do things that are blatantly illegal” from a safety standpoint and that General Heflebower himself had made illegal and potentially dangerous maneuvers while flying Air Force planes. (Again, absolutely true, witnessed 1st hand by me, and reported to my chain of command prior to the accident, and during the investigation.)

In their own depositions, both General Heflebower and General Stevens denied Colonel Albright’s accusations.

And now you have the Fort Hood debacle.  No one will speak the truth because of the oppressive atmosphere of fear of reprisal for speaking out.  We are not allowed to call the enemy the “enemy.”  We are not allowed to say anything potentially offensive about the people who want to kill us.  In the 80-90 page report that Secretary Gates released on the incident, the word “islam” was not mentioned ONCE.

In general, not discriminating because of race, creed, religion, sex, or national origin is a noble practice.  However, when one or more of those categories are attempting to KILL YOU, it may be time to make an exception.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,583083,00.html

Officers May Be Punished for Fort Hood Rampage

Friday , January 15, 2010

As many as eight Army officers may be punished for failing to heed warning signs and take action against suspected Fort Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Hasan, a U.S. official said Thursday.

First reported in the Los Angeles Times, an official familiar with a Pentagon review of the case, which will be discussed at a briefing Friday, said the officers who face discipline hold ranks of colonel and below.

The review reportedly found that superiors allowed Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, to advance within the ranks despite his failings to meet physical and professional standards. Hasan avoided physical training, was overweight and frequently late, but was seen by superiors as a rare medical officer and thus avoided corrective action.

“Had those failings been properly adjudicated, he wouldn’t have progressed,” the official told the Times.

Additionally, the Pentagon review into the deadly rampage that killed 13 found that the Defense Department does not do an adequate job of sharing information about internal personnel, and it focuses more on hunting spies than ferreting out extremists.

The Defense Department made public its own review of the rampage earlier this week and found that doctors overseeing Hasan’s medical training repeatedly voiced concerns over his strident views on Islam and his inappropriate behavior, yet continued to give him positive performance evaluations that kept him moving through the ranks.

Both reviews seem to point to the fact that supervisors failed to heed their own warnings about an officer ill-suited to be an Army psychiatrist.

Recent statistics show the Army rarely blocks junior officers from promotion, especially in the medical corps.

Hasan showed no signs of being violent or a threat. But parallels have been drawn between the missed signals in his case and those preceding the thwarted Christmas attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner. President Barack Obama and his top national security aides have acknowledged they had intelligence about the alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, but failed to connect the dots.

Hasan remains under guard at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, where he is paralyzed from the upper chest down, his lawyer John Galligan told Fox News. Hasan also has “several other medical issues” related to his gunshot wounds, Galligan said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

---