LED BY EVIL…DESTROYED BY APATHY


OIC Erasing Free Speech toon

Danny Jeffrey wrote more detail about Kamal Saleem in promoting an awareness of the dark side of Islam while preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Incidentally exposing the dark side of Islam and sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ are both offensive to Islam. A kafir exposing Islamic Supremacism and talk about the ugly actions Mohammed is an offense that sends Muslims into apoplectic spasms of vengeful against Americans and Jews. Since sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ means telling people that Jesus was Crucified on a Cross until death, was buried and arose from the dead to bodily life reclaiming the Divine attributes He emptied to be born a human with both the nature of God and the nature of a human thus the Son of the Living God paid the price of death that a believing humanity can choose life ALSO drives Muslims into apoplectic spasms.

 

Why?

 

It is because Muslims DO NOT believe in any of the Gospel Message of Christ. Mohammed demoted Jesus the Christ to a mere human that did not die on the Cross. Sharing the Gospel Message in Muslim dominated nations is blasphemy because the Christ-act of Redemption is an insult to Mohammed. The Gospel makes Mohammed a liar.

 

Therein lay the hypocrisy of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in sponsoring the Defamation of Religions and the allegedly watered down version that is the U.N. Resolution 16/18. The OIC ONLY has Islam in mind. Muslims do not understand that Islamic Supremacism and Sharia prohibitions against public display of Christianity. You have got to know that is insulting to Christians. Thus the U.N. should be railing on the OIC nations about persecuting Christians for their faith.

 

And this is where Danny Jeffrey’s compelling thoughts come in.

 

JRH 9/18/12

Please Support NCCR

******************************

LED BY EVIL…DESTROYED BY APATHY

 

By Danny Jeffrey

September 16, 2012

Freedom Rings 1776

 

I woke up at 4:30 this morning, got a glass of iced tea and turned on my computer. It will be a while before I go back to sleep for I watched a fifteen minute video that I must write about. It was inspiring, and as I watch my beloved nation disintegrate I take inspiration anywhere I can find it.

The video in question had been posted by a Facebook friend and I decided to give it a try. It was of a repentant Islamic terrorist who loyally served Allah in his homeland and was so adept and devoted that he was sent to America as an infiltrator joining in the stealth Jihad that is bringing America to its knees. After arriving here he got to know America, its people, and the Christian faith, which he adopted and in doing so became a great American Patriot.

To be perfectly honest I almost turned the video off after a minute or two and would have had it not been so highly recommended  by one I admire tremendously. There before me I saw what many refer to as a “Bible Thumper”, but I was to soon learn that there is far more to this man than that. The following is the comment about the video that I left for my friend and others to read:

“I regard myself as spiritual but not religious. This man is extremely religious; we differ only on that premise, but if it is religion that has turned him into a great American patriot then I gladly grant him his belief and welcome him to our nation as my equal. He brought me to tears with his words and his salute to our military and again when he warned America that Hillary Clinton is in the process of implementing Resolution 16/18. The tears on this topic were for the stupid people of this nation who have no idea what Resolution 16/18 is.


It strikes me as odd how a man raised to destroy America can come to love this nation, lead in the fight to protect it, be prepared to die for it, and out patriot our “Patriots” who will not even take the time to read about what is happening to this crumbling country. So many feel that they are showing patriotism by posting patriotic pictures with catchy slogans and have no idea at all about the horrid reality we face. This man is truly awake, while half of America is brain dead, and most who claim to be awake are only sleep walking.


My friend, I welcome you to America. Love that flag as I do and I shall proudly stand and die beside you in its defense.”

This is the video.

 

There is one thing that Mister Saleem mentioned in the video that troubles me. He mentioned that Islam has two basic flag colors … Black and white, black for war, white for peace. Hillary Clinton is photographed above proudly standing beside the flag of Pakistan which is typically green with a white crescent and star. Hillary’s outfit is green, that flag is not. It is black!

Today the hottest news and the latest smoke screen has to do with the Islamic attacks on our embassies. Thanks to the internet, it has now been revealed that those attacks were well planned in advance and in response to one of our drones taking out a terrorist leader and that we had intel at least two days in advance that our embassies were to be attacked, and no preparations for additional security was initiated. That sounds suspicious and many are asking why the State Department would intentionally allow American lives to be needlessly sacrificed and the only reason they can surmise is bureaucratic incompetence.

Believe me, those people are not incompetent, but it is a good smoke screen to hide behind as their agenda is implemented. Kamal Saleem, in the video above, spelled out that agenda when he warned that somewhere between January and March, Resolution 16/18 will be brought to bear against any who dare speak ill of Islam. I have written more extensively on this resolution in my The New Gate Keepers series but a brief description of 16/18 is that it will make it illegal for anyone to say anything disrespectful about Allah or Islam, and that includes telling the absolute truth about this Cult of Death, or even quoting passages from the Qur’an that indicate what a danger it presents to the world.(More on this in The New Gate Keepers 3.0 and The New Gate Keepers 6.0)

As to their incompetence, which I deny, and their smoke screen, which I can see through: The Embassy attacks are blamed on the moronic and amateurish video put together a Coptic Christian from Egypt, now living in the U.S. and on parole following prison time for fraud. Someone should take him behind the woodshed and teach him a lesson in manners but the federal government has no right to attack his First Amendment rights, yet they do, and for their own reasons.

I am certain that you have noticed that every time there is a well publicized shooting the leftists jump into the fray advocating gun control. Our Islam supporting bureaucrats are doing the same thing using this video as an excuse to advance the goals of Resolution 16/18 and pass laws forbidding “Hate Speech” against Islam. Now, anyone who superficially reads the terms of this resolution will read that it prohibits defamation of “Religion”, but the term “Religion” is a baited trap for the unwary. To the Western mind, “Religion” is a broad all encompassing term and they would see no discrimination in the wording of that accord.

 

Oh, but there is a wicked web involved in these accords. In earlier accords/treaties Islam has put forth the foundation that Islam is the only true religion and we have signed on. Therefore 16/18 would prohibit our mentioning Islam while still allowing Islam to spread their religious beliefs, such as you see in the adjoining photo, without violating the terms of resolution 16/18, which is endorsed by the U.N., Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, the leaders of the Democratic Party and most of the GOP.

My friends, we are outnumbered, surrounded, infiltrated, and almost certain to be outvoted in November, but we have one advantage that they have not been able to take away. We are not outgunned.

Danny

 

Suggested Reading…

The New Gate Keepers Compilation

In The Hour Of Need

Obama Actually Want Israel To Attack Iran

______________________________

About Danny Jeffrey:

 

I’m sixty seven and since Ronald Reagan left office I have watched my country slowly deteriorate as freedoms are lost and the value of our currency dwindles. This has been a slow but steady decline until Barrack Obama entered the White House. I will not refer to this man as President. That is a job that deserves respect and he has earned none at all. I am convinced that were it not for the Tea Party stirring up the public we would now be living under a total dictatorship. He seeks only power and has no loyalty at all to the United States, and as long as he is in office I shall write to any who will read and speak of what he is and what he is doing to this country.

Appeasement’s Deadly Consequences /or/ Obama’s Bloody Hands


BHO Foreign Policy Failure

Justin O. Smith appropriately castigates President Barack Hussein Obama for his appeasement style Foreign Policy.

 

JRH 9/17/12

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Appeasement’s Deadly Consequences /or/ Obama’s Bloody Hands

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 9/15/2012 1:28 PM

 

Our U.S. Embassies are attacked by islamofascists in a planned coordinated assault and our State Department issues an apology for the “hurt feelings” that a movie depicting Islam unfavorably has caused Muslims. From President Obama’s anti-Israel/ pro-Muslim stance and his Qaddafi misadventure to enabling “democratic” frameworks during the Arab Winter and his reluctance to help the rebellion in Iran or now in Syria, Obama is sending  clear signals that the U.S is weak and no longer a force to be considered and respected. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma attributes the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt and the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on 9-11-2012 to “President Obama’s failure to lead and his failed foreign policy of appeasement and apology.”

The portents for trouble in these two hot-spots were readily apparent to anyone paying attention, and if State Dept spokeswoman Victoria Nuland really believes that “the security at Benghazi was appropriate for what we knew” then she did not know much and needs to be removed. Fathi Baja, a Libyan politician, described Ambassador Stevens’ four man security team as “sorely inadequate” in a country “still in transition” with extremists everywhere. And common sense alone suggested that islamofascists might see the 9/11 Anniversary as a prime opportunity for more terrorist acts.

While administration officials deny any forewarning had occurred, “The Independent” reported (9-13) that senior diplomatic sources stated that the U.S. State Dept had warnings 48 hours prior to these attacks that American missions would come under attack, but no further plans for increased security developed. Some forewarning evidently reached our Cairo U.S. Embassy, since the staff had long been evacuated prior to the “protester’s” attack and Egyptian security forces were conspicuously absent (the same security forces that swarmed protesters during the Tahrir Square uprising), as these anti-American islamofascists scaled the Embassy walls and replaced the U.S. Flag with the Al Qaeda flag… and then they tore and burned Our American Flag! One must wonder if a similar warning compelled Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens to speed to the Consulate in Benghazi that day, in an effort to save his staff.

How hard it must have been for our Marines to suffer the insult against America and not be able to repel these despicable and contemptible Sons of Allah, because one: they were restrained by bollixed rules of engagement, and two: they had no live ammunition.

With full understanding that chaos and upheaval in these two countries was far from over, why wasn’t better security and more Marines provided for the Cairo U.S. Embassy and why didn’t Ambassador Stevens have any Marines for his protection detail? Why weren’t multiple intelligence briefings, analysis and assessments undertaken by the Joint Chief of Staff and the NSA concerning the risk factors to these facilities in conjunction with the approaching 9/11 Anniversary?

These actions were not taken because America has a feckless President, Barry Soetoro…Barack Hussein Obama, at the helm of leadership in the White House these days; Obama attended only 43% of his intelligence briefings over the past 1200 days of his term, and, on the day before these attacks, Obama was absent from that briefing too. But he can damn sure get in his rounds of golf and scurry off to Las Vegas and Aurora for campaign appearances, before Ambassador Stevens’ body is even cold and in the ground!

Ambassador Chris Stevens was a highly praised career diplomat, who spoke fluent French and Arabic, and he started out with the Peace Corp as a young man; during his Libya posting, he worked with Qaddafi, but he became the main interlocutor to the rebels in Benghazi for the Obama administration.

The fact that some 200-300 armed “militants”/islamofascists with AK-47s and RPG grenade launchers surrounded the Libyan U.S. Consulate, that they were there ready for action, suggests more than a “spontaneous protest.” The “insulting movie” was nothing more than a ploy, and if it hadn’t been this, they would have fabricated another excuse for mobilization. All the evidence now points to a planned assault on the U.S. Consulate and murder of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens by Al Qaeda/ Islamic Maghreb!

Ambassador Stevens had just returned to Libya from Europe and his location was confidential, which now illuminates a security breach between Libya’s National Transition Council and the U.S. State Dept; sensitive documents are now known to be missing too. as the battle was met at the Consulate, some Libyans died fighting the murderous Sons of Allah, while other Libyan “security forces” removed Ambassador Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, Terrence Woods (ex-Navy SEAL) and Glenn Doherty  (ex-Navy SEAL) to a safe house. Shortly upon arriving, this so-called “safe house” came under mortar fire, and then came the final betrayal, as the Libyan “security” handed them over to their murderers. They died horribly but bravely!

“How could this sort of attack occur in a country we helped liberate… in a city (Benghazi) we helped save?” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked this after the reported deaths of these American patriots. It happened because Obama is out of his depth and has thrown in his lot with enemies of the United States. Does anyone really believe that Libya’s National Transition Council isn’t full of Al Qaeda, Islamic Maghreb and Muslim Brothers? It happened because they hate us and the brainwashing and indoctrination through Islam makes many Muslims view killing infidels no more serious than slaughtering a cow, thus the term “kafir”. As a whole the Islamic ummah has a pathological psychology and loves death…especially that of non-believers and Americans!

President Obama’s and Secretary of State Clinton’s Neville Chamberlain brand of diplomacy through appeasement and apologies set the stage for the Cairo and Benghazi attacks and this new rash of Embassy attacks in Yemen, Tunisia, Morocco and Sudan… no matter that a later sterner condemnation of the attacks was released. Nation after nation is falling to this grotesque, debasing ideology of Islam… Our sovereign territory was attacked! Our American Flag was burned! American lives were taken… destroyed! I don’t give a good tinker’s damn if Muslims have hurt feelings when they regularly murder with impunity in the name of their bastard god Allah! Plans at the highest levels must be made for swift, fierce retaliation and retribution in the harshest of terms… with overwhelming and extreme prejudice! Where is Obama’s outrage over these heinous murders? And now, Obama pontificates on cooperating with the islamofascist Libyan government in order to “bring the terrorists to justice”, as he assuages his conscience… But the blood of these four Americans is on his hands…Hillary’s hands! May God Rest Their Souls.

 

By Justin O Smith

_______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Muslim Nations Regime Changes a Precursor to Abandoning Israel?


Ahmadinejad & BHO on Israel

John R. Houk

© March 16, 2012

 

Danny Jeffrey wrote a post entitled “THE COMING ASSAULT ON ISRAEL…PART TWO”. The theme is that Obama instrumentality in the deposing of Mubarak of Egypt and Qaddafi of Libya are actions that will also lead to the deposing of Assad in Syria. Libya was an Obama test run to perhaps see what would happen if America became involved in Assad’s departure. Jeffrey raises Constitutional questions of Obama’s use of power without Congressional approval (which means without taxpayer/voter approval). Also that Obama’s extra-Constitutional paradigm will ultimately lead to America abandoning Israel to the fate of Jew-hating Muslim nations.

 

Danny I had mixed feelings concerning Libya. Yes, the anti-Qaddafi rebels are emerging Islamist leaders. On the other hand Qaddafi has had his hand in protecting and/or utilizing Islamic terrorists for a couple of decades. The Islamic terrorists looked for Jews and Americans. In my opinion Qaddafi had to go. Qaddafi’s departure occurred with a minimum loss of U.S. military personal.

 

Mubarak on the other hand was a staunch American ally even if he was a brutal dictator. If the Egyptians believe that government brutality will be less under a Muslim Brotherhood led government I believe they will be unpleasantly surprised. From my perspective a MB led government will even make things worse for the largest Christian population among Muslim dominated nations. Mubarak’s sell-out by Obama reeks of Carter’s sell-out of the Shah of Iran.

 

Assad of Syria is much like Qaddafi of Libya. Assad has been a patron of Islamic terrorists and a client of America’s greatest enemy in the Middle East in Iran. He has to go.

 

Again, though a problem arises with Assad’s departure, the Syrian rebels that desire to depose Assad are Sunnis that are influenced by Islamists. These rebels have already said that after a victory they would wipe Assad’s Alawite-Shias. This would be followed by returning Islamic hatred toward Israel. Whoever leads Syria will not be beneficial to Israel except perhaps in the momentary confusion that will exist as Sunnis assert government leadership for the first time in half-a-century. The Sunnis are the majority population in Syria.

 

I agree on one though. Obama will sell-out Israel if he is reelected as President of the USA. I believe Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and an Iraq without American troops will begin hostilities with Israel as Islamist ideologies begin to dominate those nations. Israel will be back in the same precarious situation it faced in its 1948 independence when it was invaded by 5 or 6 Jew-hating Muslim nations. President Barack Hussein Obama will not help Israel.

 

I have not read Part One, but I will definitely get to it. You write thought provoking essays. For the most part we agree. It is in the minor details we might see things differently. I thought Qaddafi had to go and I believe Assad has to go. Obama’s use of military power without a commitment of a troop invasion of Libya was a good thing. The question you bring up though is excellent. Was Obama’s actions Constitutional. You provide a good argument for Obama’s military aid to Libya for being unconstitutional in that neither a Declaration of War approved by Congress was forthcoming or any consultation with Congress about using Military resources against Libya. At least President Bush got the democrats on board to invade Afghanistan and Iraq even though a formal Declaration of War was not forthcoming.

 

It is disturbing that the Obama Administration through the voice of Secretary of Defense Panetta that engagement militarily in Syria would be up to NATO or some form of foreign leadership coalition agreement. This is voicing an actual intent to exclude Congress from its Constitutional duty to validate or invalidate taxpayer money for a war to be fought with American resources. If Obama proceeds with such an option it sets a precedent to invest military power into the Executive Branch that has no accountability to a voter elected Congress.

 

Such an Obama action MUST NOT stand!

 

If Danny Jeffrey is correct and the Obama extra-Constitutional paradigm leads Obama to have an excuse to abandon Israel to the fate of Jew-hating Muslim nations of both the Sunni and Shia persuasion, then Obama would have perpetrated one of the most reprehensible cowardly agendas in the history of America’s existence.

 

JRH 3/16/12

What Will be the Outcome of the Arab Spring?


John R. Houk

© April 1, 2011

 

Have heard of the Prague Spring? Unless or you are a history major in college or over 50 you probably have not heard of this grassroots uprising in old Czechoslovakia (Now divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia).

 

In 1968 Alexander Dubcek became President of Czechoslovakia after the nation hand gone through a severe recession. Czechoslovakia was a Warsaw Pact nation of the Stalinist-Communist Soviet Empire. Those were still Cold War days of the Soviet Union and Communist East European satellite nations vs. the American-NATO-European alliance.

 

The previous Czechoslovakian President was deposed by the Communist Party and was replaced by Dubcek. Dubcek was no capitalist however he was sick of Stalinist style Soviet repression. Dubcek thus instituted a freedom of conscience and press in Czechoslovakia. Dubcek’s difficulty was the Soviet Empire was governed by an old fashioned Stalinist leader. On August 20, 1968 the Soviet Union with a number of other Soviet bloc nations invaded Czechoslovakia ending a micro-moment of freedom and the deposing of Dubcek, a number of Dubcek-supporting members of the Communist Party and a number of citizens that were prominent and supported Dubcek’s Prague Spring. It was the end of a freedom revolution and a return to despotism for Czechoslovakians.

 

I don’t know what the Muslim press is calling the grassroots uprisings across North Africa and the Muslim Middle East, but the Western Press is calling these uprisings the “Arab Spring.” Will this Arab Spring bring democratic reforms across Muslim dominated lands? Will the Arab Spring end in failure for grassroots interests with a return to some kind of Islamic despotism? Will the Arab Spring exchange megalomaniac dictators for Islamist theo-political repression instituting all of the harshness of Sharia Law as espoused by Mohammed and the four following “Rightly Guided” Caliphs?

 

These are the questions the Obama Administration must ask with the American entanglement in Libya. I still believe it is an excellent idea to not only rid Libya of Moammar Qaddafi but also to rid the world of the mad dog. However, with the continuing evidence beginning to pile up that the Libyan rebels are Islamist and/or al Qaeda supporters the Obama Administration needs to find the correct answers for the difficult questions.

 

JRH 4/1/11

President Obama Protect America’s National Interest


Qaddafi Daffy Duck lg

John R. Houk

© March 25, 2011

 

I finished reading a Norma Zager post that begins with a bit of sarcasm of President Barack Hussein Obama’s decision to establish a No-Fly Zone in Libya that enables the Libyans that wish to be free of a nutcase dictator like Moammar Qaddafi to have a chance at freedom.

 

Frankly I find it a little amusing that BHO’s Leftist base and Conservatives alike are castigating BHO for this act. The Leftists are upset that Obama may have gotten America involved in a Middle War ala President George Bush. Many Conservatives who correctly do not trust the President Obama agenda rail about the abuse of the Constitution because the President neither had Congressional approval nor a Congressional declaration of war.

 

Here’s the thing for me. Libyan civilians were being fired upon by Qaddafi’s loyal contingent in the Libyan army as well as by mercenaries hired for the very purpose of killing anti-Qaddafi Libyans. The thing that became too much for Europeans, Americans and the Arab League was that Qaddafi was slaughtering Libyans with aircrafts and big guns such as tanks. It was beginning to look like genocide.

 

Now I am sure that Europeans (really the French and the British) and the U.S. government began to weigh Qaddafi’s genocide instrumentation in the light of the flow of oil to Western markets – especially Europe. Considerations were probably based on if Qaddafi quickly beat down his opposition perhaps the oil would flow. However, if the Libyans rebelling against Qaddafi’s 40 year despotism succeeded in a protracted civil war perhaps the flow of oil would be stopped up like a dam. I am guessing it was decided that if a protracted period was involved it would be ultimately profitable to get rid of Qaddafi; ergo the decision to wipe out Qaddafi’s air force and to seriously damage Qaddafi’s big guns especially land to air defenses became the politically correct consensus.

 

As a lowly no-name blogger I can’t prove the reason for America, France and the UK to defend Libyans from genocide was based on the effect of oil flow but I am betting it is a pretty good guess.

 

Regardless of a coalition of National Interests deciding to attack Qaddafi, the decision to get rid of Qaddafi is just as morally good as it was for President Bush to bring down the butcher of Bagdad Saddam Hussein. I can understand the consistency of American Leftists railing at Obama; however Conservatives should be getting behind BHO’s decision. To not do so is morally reprehensible.

 

I still regard President BHO as a deceptive Leftist with an agenda to transform America away from its Christian roots and the intentions of the Founding Fathers’ concept of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Whatever the reasoning that inspired the President to proceed with the act of attack, it is a humane action.

 

On September 25, 2001 the Deputy Counsel in the Justice Department wrote a memorandum to then President G.W. Bush that provided legal precedent, Constitutional analysis and marked events in history in which Presidents acted without a formal declaration of war. It is a quite lengthy memorandum justifying GW’s ability to launch an attack on Afghanistan to seek the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack on American soil. In full disclosure I have to admit I only read half of it.

 

The key point of that memorandum was a distinction of the Constitution’s use of Congress “declaring war” as opposed to the Executive Branch – President – “making war” without Congressional consent. The distinction being that Congress validates a war by declaring which enables the President to prepare money allocation as seen fit to make war as the Chief Executive and the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces. Of course extra funding needed would still need Congressional Approval but the declaration of war enables the President to not have to justify every dot and penny being spent in the execution of a war.

 

The memorandum also clarifies that the President has authority to defend the Homeland and American interests outside of the nation militarily without Congressional authorization. After the lengthy Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Act (WPA) with the intention of limiting the broad way in which a Chief Executive can embroil America in a war without Congressional input. However later, many critics realized that the WPA actually gave a President unbridled power to wage war for 60 days without Congressional input. This alone would empower President Obama to execute the military operation in Libya; however critics of the WPA maintain there is a Constitutional issue with the WPA not being in the Constitution ergo cannot exist without a Constitutional Amendment.

 

The memorandum in 2001 pretty much justifies the WPA act in the case of responding to attacks at home and attacks abroad of American National Interests. For example President Carter would have been well within his Executive Power to launch a military attack on Iran without Congressional approval because Iranian lackeys of Ayatollah Khomeini attacked American sovereign space provided for the U.S. Embassy in 1979. Of course Carter did not do so.

 

Carter won his 1976 election because of the bad taste of the Vietnam War and of President Nixon’s Watergate Scandal which left a huge mistrust of Presidential power in the American public’s mind. Even I voted for Carter. My vote was not based on a Leftist/Right Wing political spectrum but purely on Nixon’s criminal activities which disparaged the Office of President which had a further picture of corruption when unelected President Gerald Ford gave President Nixon a blanket Executive Pardon so that Nixon could never be prosecuted in a non-Presidential capacity.

 

With great hopes in a President Carter that would transform the Office of President into a trusted Office again, America elected him over Gerald Ford in 1976. Carter’s continuous flip-flopping on domestic and foreign policy soon became evidence of President Carter’s Presidential incompetence. The final nail in the Carter Administration came into fruition of his handling of Iranian unrest over the Shah of Iran that led to the eventual Islamic purist psycho-dictatorship of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini overcame the rivalry of Marxist revolutionaries and secular republic factions to wrest absolute control of Iran from the Shah. How did Khomeini get there?

 

The Khomeini/Marxist/Secularists received a boost from President Carter who sold out American ally Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi because the Shah used vicious police state tactics of the SAVAK secret police to get rid of anti-Shah Iranians via persecution, torture and murder. Carter was correct that the Shah’s methods were evil; however instead of slow reform Carter pushed for immediate reform which led to displeased Iranians to get behind a greater evil in Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini went on to allow the U.S. Embassy to be invaded which resulted in torture of American citizens that had diplomatic immunity for about a year until the last day of Carter’s Presidency in which President Reagan assumed Office. My evident displeasure with the Carter Presidency is a digressive story of failure. The point is Carter failed to use his power of Commander-in-Chief to plan an aggressive punitive plan to make Khomeini and his supporters suffer for a major breach of international protocol of State sovereignty. There were no contingency plans for the first use of a special force that came into existence to rescue the Embassy Hostages. When it failed Carter was left in the weak position of accepting humiliation from the psycho-Ayatollah about the release of American Embassy hostages. (Incidentally one of the leaders of the Embassy assault was none other than Iran’s current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)

 

Presidents Reagan and Clinton both used Commander-in-Chief Privilege denying the limitations of the WPA although ultimately both consulted with Congress within the 60-90 period of WPA rendering moot any Constitutional Executive-Legislative confrontations. President George H.W. Bush ultimately had Congressional approval in the First Gulf War against Iraq even though it was not a declared war. President G.W. Bush ultimately had full Congressional approval for Afghanistan and the hotly debated support for the second Iraq War.

 

In this era when communication is near instantaneous and information about genocide and slaughters are difficult to hide, it is incumbent upon the leader of the most power military in the world to demonstrate acts of military humanitarianism. In America, humanitarianism and Constitutional authority for the Chief Executive are not necessarily a compatible proposition. However, the Constitution does allow the Chief Executive to use military action Constitutionally to protect American National Interests. Arguably the Libyan civil war hampers the oil market which in turns affects everything from gas prices to Wall Street. It is easy to sell the voters on the fact it is a humanitarian military expedition in which America helped initiate but intends to transfer military operations to another military authority. To comply with the U.S. Constitution the President has to demonstrate that the psycho-Qaddafi refusal to leave Libya’s leadership position hurts the American National Interests.

 

President Obama is a Leftist transformationist in the style of Antonio Gramsci; nonetheless any effort to stop the genocide of Libyan people no matter the actual reasons is a good thing. Let us all pray that BHO does not slip back into appeasement ideology thinking things will mysteriously work itself out via negotiated diplomacy. Negotiated diplomacy rarely if ever works with insane leaders or leadership blocs.

 

JRH 3/25/11

Libya: Cyrenaica vs. Tripolitania?


Libya in 3 Regions

 

John R. Houk

© March 21, 2011

The civil war in Libya looked promising in its beginning to force the dictator Moamar Qaddafi out as leader. Then Qaddafi began his counter-offensive making serious dents of the rebel holdings in the east while cause vicious casualties among rebel soldiers and Libyan civilians. Then a coalition that is initially headed by the U.S. Military instituted a No-Fly zone which in effect has stalled at least momentarily Qaddafi’s counter-offensive.

If President Obama had acted earlier more damage may have hampered Qaddafi that would have indeed forced to him to flee; however President Obama is exactly known for his foreign policy guts that would protect American National Interests and benefit potential future allies from Libya. Nonetheless, when the President gave the go the combined coalition forces of America, France and the UK began an operation of pin-point accuracy rattling Qaddafi’s Air Force and anti-aircraft capabilities. That has to be good for the Libyan rebels to regroup and perhaps receive some military aid that could enhance a rebel counter-offensive.

I have been alerted to a STRATFOR article that offers a glimpse into the inner workings of the Libyan rebel leadership and governing apparatus. In this article I discovered that Libya like many Muslim nations is basically divided by tribal influences. In Libya those tribes seem to be divided into two regions. The western region, of which Qaddafi is from, has been known as Tripolitania and the eastern region of Libya, which most of the rebels are from, has been roughly known as Cyrenaica.

Apart from the STRATFOR emphasis on Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, there is a third region in Libya called the Fezzan. I suspect STRATFOR focuses on Tripolitania and Cyrenaica is because those regions are the most populous. The Fezzan is really a backward area of mostly the Sahara Desert. Really western part of Libya is divided into Tripolitania in the Northwest and the Fezzan in the Southwest with the Eastern half of Libya as the region of Cyrenaica. Also you should know that Cyrenaica was the dominant tribal region after Libyan independence. Moammar Qaddafi became the leader of a group of low level Officers that executed a coup against the Western installed King Idris who was deposed. A good short summary explaining the regions of Tripolitania, the Fezzan and Cyrenaica can be found at Middle East News Wire.

The picture then is somewhat of a traditional looking civil war between two sides: Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. The Cyrenaica-Libyan rebels have denied the civil war is a regional civil war but is a war to rid all Libyans of the despotism of Moammar Qaddafi.

The reality is though that there are undoubtedly some tribal elites of Tripolitania that have had a favored status that probably support their native son loony Moammar Qaddafi. If the rebels launch an effective counter-offensive to retake lost rebel territory and it is successful it will be interesting how many Tripolitania-Libyans will get behind the Cyrenaica-Libyan rebels.

JRH 3/21/11

What Might Happen to Libya’s Weapons Cache?


Libyan Rebels 3-10-11

John R. Houk

© March 10, 2011

 

STRATFOR poses some interesting thoughts concerning Libya’s civil war as it relates to weaponry. The civil war has disrupted the accountability of who possesses Qaddafi’s weapons. Early in the civil war rebels raided arms depots to possess portions of Qaddafi’s arsenal. Plus according to STRATFOR foreign nations are considering arming the rebels with weapons to bring down the Qaddafi dictatorship.

 

History has shown that aged weaponry has entered into the black market arms market that has been sold as the result of the winners trading captured arms for food, money and arming instruments of destabilization. The instruments of destabilization would be drug cartels, crime lords and terrorists usually of the Islamic type today.

 

Qaddafi has shown he is not going to lie down and flee from Libya by his efforts of getting his army to counter-attack against Libyan rebels. This is all noteworthy because Libya is an oil producing nation. Who will control that oil? Will control be in the hands of a victorious dictator not afraid to kill his own people to retain power? Will the rebels succeed and become the arbiters of Libya’s oil? Will the Libya civil war degenerate into chaos enabling destabilizing instruments to scarf-up weapons caches cheap in terms of monetary cost? If the rebels beat Qaddafi will their new government become an Islamic form of a democratic government or would they turn Libya into a theopolitical autocracy continuing to hate America and Israel and thus still arm Islamic terrorists?

 

Check out the STRATFOR analysis and tell me what you think.

 

JRH 3/10/11