A True Southerner understands and sympathizes with the circumstances of Israeli Jews living in the Middle East. Southerners completely understand the concept of property rights and the Rule of Law. This is why most of us just do not support a “Two State Solution” as the Solution.
Lemme break it down for you, Southern style:
Let’s say you live next door to a couple of guys that really hate your guts. In fact, from the moment you moved in, all they could talk about was how they were gonna kick your azz and send you back to where you came from. Heck, all you wanna do is kick back after working hard all day and enjoy a little life. Your neighbors, on the other hand, have plenty of time to curse you and make life miserable since they depend on their relatives for a living and sit on their azz all day.
Then, one day, while you were having a cook-out or something to celebrate your birthday, these two guys sneak over to your house and start tearing up your stuff, screaming that they are gonna kill you. Thankfully, your BBQ guests are pretty good at self-defense and their plans are foiled.
You sue your neighbors in State Court for all the damages and get a judgment, fair and square. You execute on the judgment by taking their only asset: the house next door. It’s a pretty good set-up cause your former neighbors, Mr. Ham and Mr. Fat have to move way cross town so it’s harder to mess with you.
Imagine your surprise when Mr. H. and Mr. F go back to an International Court and convince a judge that, if they just get their house back, they will leave you alone and live in peace. To make matters worse, they even convince the Judge to give them access to go across your yard to get to the bus stop at the corner. All this while they continually tell your neighbors that they hate your guts and want to kill you.
Now, what true Southerner would support this?
As a descendant of Jefferson Davis, I guess that I could request that the USA recognize the pre-1865 borders or something.
Let me first say up front that Osama bin Laden deserved to die for the premeditated murder of 3,000 innocent Americans. OBL deserved to die without a trial, without representation by government paid Leftist lawyers, without unnecessary delays or appeals of any judicial verdict of death, without the government paying for his room and halal meals for the next ten or twelve years that the case would wind through the legal system. Most important, did we really want to capture and hold the hero of the Radical Islamist Movement in a U.S. Prison?
This is exactly what “Seal Team Six” feared. (hereinafter “STS”, also known affectionately as “Cheney’s Death Squad”) Whether following orders from the White House, or acting within their loosely defined Rules of Engagement, members of the United States military entered the compound of OSB with the intent to kill. Not “Kill or Capture”, but to terminate OBL “with extreme prejudice.”
Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off.
A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound.
Mr. Panetta said: “Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.
If you are a member of an elite team tasked with the termination of America’s Number One Enemy, why would you want a live feed of the operation beamed back to the White House? This, in light of the fact that the White House has not been very kind in its treatment of your brothers-in-arms thrown under the bus in the Global War on Terror. (See: Seal Charged with Assault http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/11/25/navy-seals-face-assault-charges-capturing-wanted-terrorist/ )
The White House and NSA Boob John Brennan were quick to inform the media that the brave seals encountered resistance from OBL’s bodyguards. Now, after some backtracking, Jay Carney says the STS met armed resistance from two bodyguards who were in the Guest house on the ground floor. There was not another shot fired by anyone inside the compound, other than the STS. When the Team reached the third floor where OBL was sleeping, the first reports stated that he was killed “while resisting.” Although not an independent witness without obvious bias, OBL’s daughter claims that the STS members shot him in front of the family and then dragged his body off to a helicopter. Now answer me this: Is this the kind of action the STS would want to be sent back to the Situation Room via live feed. Not no, HELL NO!
The STS members had to be aware of the ramifications of video tape. After all, the CIA officers who utilized harsh (but proper and legal) interrogation techniques on detainees at GITMO were criticized by the Left for destroying tape of the interrogations. The “interruption” of the live feed from multiple helmet cams to the Situation Room in the White House for the critical twenty-five minute period was not an accident. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328402/CIA-punished-destroying-tapes-waterboarding-interrogations.html
The only legitimate question that remains to be answered is Who Gave the Order to Kill OBL? Was it the White House or was it the command on the ground? Who limited the mission to “Kill on Sight” rather than “Kill or Capture”? I believe the question must be answered in the light that protects the STS. I believe that the command on the ground cut the link to the live feed to the White House, and ordered the STS to terminate OBL with “Extreme Prejudice.”
Last Saturday, I rode with my octogenarian parents to a funeral in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The two hour drive gave the three of us some time to catch up and discuss politics and the overall state of the country. I credit my mother with teaching me from an early age about politics and government. Both of them have been active in the Republican Party for as long as I can remember, even taking us kids with them to vote for Eisenhower and Goldwater. My mother was the minority member (Republican) on the Surry County Board of Elections for several years. During our conversation, my mother casually used the term “Tea Baggers” when referring to the Tea Party Patriots.
Oh Boy. . .
My mother is, to borrow a phrase from the President, a typical white southern person, having lived in North Carolina all but two years of her life. She never would have used the phrase as a description of the Tea Party were it not for the Progressive Media’s constant use of the term, knowing full well of the vile and disgusting origin of the term. She would have been mortally embarrassed had she used the term in polite company and had a stranger explain to her the original meaning of the word. As a loving son, I had a duty to educate my mother.
“Mother”, I began, “I think I had better explain where the term ‘Tea Bagger’ came from.”
CNN’s outed homosexual anchor Anderson Cooper is credited with first using the pejorative “Tea Bagging” to describe the grass roots political movement that spawned the folks carrying the “Taxed Enough Already” signs at political rallies. Anderson Cooper and David Gergen laughed like a couple of seventh grade girls after Cooper notoriously said on live t.v. “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea bagging.” This from two serious media commentators?
Fox’s Greg Gutfield had the best take-down on the childish antics of Anderson Cooper: “Now, if you’re too old or too high to get what’s going on, here’s the joke: The liberal-leaning media are goofing on the tea parties by invoking the term teabagging, a phrase used to describe an act of oral sex performed by a man – either on another man, woman, or in Alec Baldwin’s case – a cheeseburger.”
There was no way to sugar coat the explanation for my mother. If I was too “delicate” in explaining the term, the disgusting aspect of the word may be lost. “Mom, I don’t think that it’s proper to use the term ‘Tea Bagging’ to describe folks who are protesting high taxes. The Leftist Media has borrowed a term from the homosexual lexicon to reflect poorly on conservatives. The homosexual term ‘Tea Bagging’ refers to a sex act where the man rests his testicles on the chin of the man giving him oral sex. Tea Bagging is a vile and disgusting pejorative term, Mom, and needs to be challenged every time someone utters the phrase in your presence.”
I don’t think I was this uncomfortable talking about sex since my parents told me where babies came from.
These two seemingly unrelated stories are actually indicative of the mindset of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Obama Justice Department when “dirty money” is being investigated. First, from the L.A. Times:
The founders of the three largest online poker sites were indicted on Friday in what could serve as a death blow to a thriving industry.
Eleven executives at PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, Absolute Poker and a number of their affiliates were charged with bank fraud and money laundering in an indictment unsealed in a Manhattan court. Two of the defendants were arrested on Friday morning in Utah and Nevada. Federal agents are searching for the others.
Prosecutors are seeking to immediately shut down the sites and to eventually send the executives to jail and to recover $3 billion from the companies. By Friday afternoon Full Tilt Poker’s site displayed a message explaining that “this domain name has been seized by the F.B.I. pursuant to an Arrest Warrant.”
(Bold mine)
The FBI claims that a 1996 law passed by Congress was violated as these companies sought to continue operations utilizing loopholes. Recently, the Dallas, Texas bureau had indictments for financial violations ready to go against CAIR operatives with Muslim Brotherhood connections:
During the House Homeland Security hearing last month on the topic of radicalization in the American Muslim community, one exchange between L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca and Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN) concerned the relationship between the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department and Hamas terrorist front the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Sheriff Baca told the congressman:
We don’t play around with criminals in my world. If CAIR is an organization that is a quote “criminal organization,” prosecute them. Hold them accountable and bring them to trial.
But according to a high-ranking source within the Department of Justice, who spoke exclusively to Pajamas Media on the condition of anonymity, Sheriff Baca, a long-time supporter of CAIR, was probably already in on the joke.
The joke is that a number of leaders of Islamic organizations (all of whom publicly opposed the King hearings on Muslim radicalization) were about to be indicted on terror finance support charges by the U.S. attorney’s office in Dallas, which had been investigating the case for most of the past decade.
But those indictments were scuttled last year at the direction of top-level political appointees within the Department of Justice (DOJ) — and possibly even the White House.
According to the Pajamas Media source in the Justice Department, the Dallas U.S. Attorneys office had mountains of evidence ready to go against high level CAIR executives terrorists as a result of the Holy Land Foundation indictments:
It was always the plan to initially go after the [Holy Land Foundation] leaders first and then go after the rest of the accomplices in a second round of prosecutions. From a purely legal point of view, the case was solid. Jim Jacks [the U.S. attorney in Dallas who prosecuted the Holy Land Foundation executives] and his team were ready to go. There’s a mountain of evidence against all of these groups that was never introduced during the Holy Land trial and it is damning. We’ve got them on wiretaps. That’s exactly why many of these leaders and groups were named unindicted co-conspirators in the first round of prosecutions.
What have we come to under the Holder Justice Department? I’ll tell you: Politically correct enforcers of the law not wanting to offend the sensibilities of Muslim-Americans who break the law. When is money “dirty”? Apparently when it’s poker money ponied up by thousands of Americans playing poker on the internet. It’s not “dirty” when those playing the game of international terror funding are Muslims protected by the White House.
Days after the fact of US involvement, and perhaps weeks after meaningful military action would have boxed in M. Qaddafi, President B. Hussein Obama took to the airwaves to give another leg-tingling, but irrelevant speech about a subject upon which he remains clueless: Foreign Policy. In his Libyan leg tingler, he specifically mentioned the town of Misratah:
In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.
Giving comfort to the besieged townspeoples of Misratah the President continued his speech, vowing to commit American assets to curtail the looming humanitarian crisis:
Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.
At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.
It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance.
Never fear, Misratahns, President Barack Hussein Obama has your back! No way he was going to let anything happen to you. He as much as looked directly into the camera at the besieged peoples of Misratah and said so. As General Douglas MacArthur had his moment: “People of the Phillipines, I have returned!”, President Obama had his Libyan moment:
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
In the intervening days since the President’s speech, his war policy has swung wildly in all directions: Bomb Qadaffi, Don’t bomb Qadaffi. Bomb the Rebels. Don’t bomb the rebels. No boots on the ground. Soft sneakers of the CIA on the ground. All the while, the innocent Libyans in Misratah have become the self-fulfilling contradiction that is the White House’s Obama Doctrine.
From Reuters dated April 4, 2011:
Gaddafi forces using tanks and snipers are carrying out a “massacre” in Misrata with corpses on the streets and hospitals full of the wounded, evacuees said, with one describing the besieged city as “hell”.
Misrata, Libya’s third city, rose up with other towns against Muammar Gaddafi’s rule in mid-February, and it is now under attack by government troops after a violent crackdown put an end to most protests elsewhere in the west of the country.
“You have to visit Misrata to see the massacre by Gaddafi,” said Omar Boubaker, a 40-year-old engineer with a bullet wound to the leg, brought to the Tunisian port of Sfax by a French aid group. “Corpses are in the street. Hospitals are overflowing.”
Stalemate on the frontline of fighting in eastern Libya, defections from Gaddafi’s circle and the plight of civilians caught in fighting or facing food and fuel shortages prompted a flurry of diplomacy to find a solution to the civil war.
But the evacuees from Misrata had more immediate concerns.
“I could live or die but I am thinking of my family and friends who are stranded in the hell of Misrata,” said tearful evacuee Abdullah Lacheeb, who had serious injuries to his pelvis and stomach and a bullet wound in his leg.
“Imagine, they use tanks against civilians. He (Gaddafi) is prepared to kill everyone there … I am thinking of my family.”
Swathed in bandages, evacuees gave some of the most detailed accounts yet of conditions in Misrata, the last major rebel-held city in western Libya which recalled sieges of town and cities in the Bosnian conflict.
As the dead are littered across the city, the Libyan citizens in Misratah are learning the hard way about the Obama Doctrine. As President Obama said two years ago: “Words. Just words.”
Was anyone else as shocked as I in seeing video footage of smoldering tanks and military vehicles in Libya? I reasonably assume that coalition pilots were wholly responsible for the carnage as the rebels lack the weaponry or firepower to take out so many assets. The declared “No Fly Zone” has become a kill zone for Libyan soldiers loyal to Moammar Qaddafi.
Part of the United Nations Resolution states:
A no-fly zone is “an important element for the protection of civilians as well as the safety of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and a decisive step for the cessation of hostilities in Libya”.
It “demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians” and “that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law … and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance”.
According to internet media, A-10 Warthogs and AC-130 Spectre Gunships are assets being used against the Libyan Army.
If, according to the Pentagon, these aircraft are “not being used in direct support of the opposition” forces, did they just sent them there on target practice? No. The Pentagon may pretend that these airplanes are not providing close air support to the rebel forces but the fact is that, when you take one of Gaddafi’s tank out of the way, you are directly supporting the opposition. Perhaps not in a coordinated way, but in a definitive way nonetheless. http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/03/why-are-spectres-and-warthogs-attacking-gaddafis-forces-now/
Not exactly in line with the UN Resolution. This begs the question: Without war being declared by the United States (or by NATO, bless Obama’s little heart), are American military personnel in danger of being charged with war crimes for acting outside the scope of UN Resolution 1973? What if a plane goes down and the crew is captured? Does Qaddafi get his show trial or summary execution of American Airmen?
I will also throw out another concern. The UN Resolution also includes verbiage to the effect that foreign troops on the ground are outside the scope of the Resolution. The coalition is authorized to “take all necessary measures … to protect civilians … under threat of attack … while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”.
If you do not believe that U.S. military personnel are on the ground in Libya as I write this, you are so, so naive. There are spotters there from ANGLICO, or special ops guys, or CIA types, or U.S. Army Rangers, or Navy Seals. ON THE GROUND IN LIBYA. Because that is the way it is done.
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Daniel Horowitz
Jake Walker
Victoria Coates
