Obama’s Pandering To The Muslim Brotherhood Is Certain To Bring Us Trouble In The Future

Barack Obama speech 4 SC Obama’s pandering to the Muslim Brotherhood is certain to bring us trouble in the future

In his first foreign policy speech in Egypt, President Barack Obama reached out to the Islamic community. Obama did not invite President Mubarak to attend the speech. His special guests were the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Earlier this month, political leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood were invited to the White House to meet with officials from the National Security Council. The Brotherhood is on a good-will tour of the United States to gain creditability as a legitimate organization.

The main purpose of the Brotherhood’s visit to the United States was to soften its image as a radical Islamist movement and to gain the Obama Administration’s support in its rise to power in Egypt. The only obstacle in the way of the Brotherhood’s total control of Egypt is the military. Seeking an alliance with Washington, the Brotherhood may be able to put the military under its control. Once they gain control, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups will abandon all pretence of being a democracy and create a theocracy. Under an Islamic theocracy, Democratic principles and basic human rights don’t exist; Allah doesn’t permit it.

The Caliphate

The Muslim Brotherhood’s ultimate goal is to impose Sharia law on the entire planet under control of a single Caliphate. Since its founding in 1928, as a fascist political party, the Brotherhood has worked toward taking over Egypt by crushing any opposition. Their justification will be the Quran. The Brotherhood insists it is a non-violent movement.  Its spin off groups, like al-Qaeda, are more than ready to do its dirty work. Presently, there are Muslims associated with the Brotherhood with access to President Obama. 

Peaceful?

Last year during the Arab Spring, the movement was praised by the White House and the State Department as a peaceful revolution to remove a dictator. They held up the peaceful revolution as a repudiation of al-Qaeda terrorism. What is not being reported is that al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri doesn’t care how a country becomes compliant with Islam; even “not violence is fine if it works.” The Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda are busy working on Syria and taking over Libya, but before they can attack Israel, they must take over Jordan.

Once Egypt becomes a theocracy, its people will look to the United States and remember that our government helped clear the way for them to lose their rights and be forced to “submit to Allah.”

All the while, Obama will be praising them for surrendering their free will to a central government and working with their new religious dictators in preparation for Islam’s war to subjugate the West.

Related posts:

  1. President Obama’s Myopic View Of The Muslim Brotherhood Attaining political power includes winning elections and forming a state…
  2. Will Obama Hand The Muslim Brotherhood Syria Next? by Jim Emerson On August 18, Obama called for Syrian…

U.S. Dangles Secret Data For Russia Missile Shield Approval

Russia flag SC 300x204 U.S. dangles secret data for Russia missile shield approval

Photo Credit: erjkprunczyk Creative Commons

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration is leaving open the possibility of giving Moscow certain secret data on U.S. interceptor missiles due to help protect Europe from any Iranian missile strike.

A deal is being sought by Washington that could include classified data exchange because it is in the U.S. interest to enlist Russia and its radar stations in the missile-defense effort, a Pentagon spokeswoman said Tuesday in written replies to Reuters.

No decision has been made yet on whether the United States would offer data about the interceptors’ “velocity at burnout,” or VBO, said Air Force Lieutenant Colonel April Cunningham, the spokeswoman, but it is not being ruled out.

VBO is at the heart of what Russia wants as the price for its cooperation, said Riki Ellison, head of the private Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, who has close ties to missile defense and military officials.

VBO tells how fast an interceptor is going when its rocket-booster motor fuel is spent and the motor burns out.

Read More at yahoo.com By Jim Wolf, Reuters.

Related posts:

  1. Obama Will Give Missile Tech To Russia Despite Law It appears that Barack Obama has again ignored the rule…
  2. Israel Stations Nuclear Missile Subs Off Iran Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are…

Video: Obama’s Epic Failure of Leadership

How to Defend America in the 21st Century, Part 1

Dr. Earl Tilford, FloydReports.com

In 1914, on the eve of the Great War, the Duke of Cambridge wrote, “There is a time for all things. There is even a time for change; and that is when it can no longer be avoided.”

Speaking of change, the current debt crisis could force drastic cuts in the Department of Defense budget, perhaps as high as 50 percent.

In the immediate post-Cold War era, DoD futurists envisioned a 25-year period of “strategic pause” before the nation faced a “major peer competitor” sometime between 2015 and 2020. In the 1990s, major candidates for peer-competitor status included China and a resurgent Russia. India and a nuclear-armed Iran were cast as lesser threats. In those heady days, terrorism was seen as a tactic and more the purview of law enforcement. The major emphasis was on being prepared for big wars against peer competitors—wars no world power can afford to lose. Preparing for those wars also satisfied each service’s need to perpetuate itself in familiar ways wrapped around developing and acquiring high-tech weapon systems. Programs like “The Army After Next,” “From the Sea,” and “Air Force Next” addressed future strategic paradigms focused on parochial core strengths.

To be sure, there were cuts in defense spending during the 1990s. The size of the American military shrank. The Air Force, alone among the services, reorganized its force structure from one based on strategic deterrence to power projection. Cuts were “salami slices” that, for the most part, reduced but did not reform outmoded force structures.

And then, September 11, 2001 changed everything. In the immediate aftermath, the Bush administration made a major mistake by declaring a “War on Terror” rather than specifying the enemy as Al Qaeda, associated groups, and nations that support them. With a generic “terror” as the enemy, the war easily morphed from one into two wars, with Operation Iraqi Freedom launched in March 2003. Ten years later, the fighting in Iraq continues, and what was originally a campaign to root out and destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan has become an endless struggle against the Taliban. This war has exhausted the American military, contributed to our national economic nightmare, and derailed critical thinking about the future.

This exhausted force is also outmoded. Cutting such a force by a quarter, much less half, would invite aggression by nations like Iran and North Korea. Keeping the current force at the status quo would be expensive and also leave the nation vulnerable to current threats and unable to cope with a rapidly growing Chinese threat.

The U.S. military needs massive restructuring. Its current structure originated with the reforms instituted in 1903 after the Spanish-American War. A major overhaul on the eve of World War II made it possible to fight the Axis powers. The National Security Act of 1947 institutionalized the Industrial Age force extant today. Now, the armed forces of the United States would be hard-pressed to counter a North Korean invasion of South Korea without using nuclear weapons.

In fact, war on the Korean peninsula is one of our immediate threats. Iran, soon to be a nuclear-armed state, is bent on establishing hegemony in the world’s energy epicenter. Despite a predictably forthcoming declaration of “victory” in the ill-conceived War on Terror, al Qaeda and associated groups will continue to attack U.S. interests abroad while putting the nation on the defensive at home.

An anti-American alliance between Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and possibly Cuba is not beyond the realm of possibility. If Mexico continues to descend into anarchy, that alliance could extend to our immediate and un-defended southern border; imagine the cost of trying to….

Read more.

Jon Huntsman Refuses to Rule Out Impeachment Over Libya

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

Here is a measure of both this movement’s effectiveness and Barack Obama’s stark, brazen criminality: Even the RINOs are talking impeachment.

In Rochester, New Hampshire, on Monday morning, former Utah governor and Obama’s one-time ambassador to China Jon Huntsman told a citizen that Obama’s war in Libya may be an impeachable offense. ABC News posted the following transcript of the exchange between Huntsman and the “voter”:

Voter: You mentioned Libya, and you mentioned the Constitution a couple of times. The president has decided to make Congress irrelevant, go around Congress, not — not go to Congress and ask for whether permission to go to war for — with, with Libya. He takes, what he thought, a UN resolution as his mandate to be able to go to war in Libya, do you think that’s unconstitutional in what he’s doing in Libya right now?

Huntsman: Well, last I looked the UN was not our Constitution. We ought to recognize who’s responsible for declaring war and giving the approval for these kinds of things, and get back to the basics of who should be driving these decisions.

Voter: What should Congress be doing in the fact that he went around Congress and he’s, he’s not abiding to the War Powers Act?

Huntsman: I think, I think Congress is, is in a mild uproar about it.

Voter: It’s very mild.

Huntsman: I have a fundamental problem, generally, I mean beyond this decision, just with the decision that has been made to get involved, in Libya, in a tribal country, when we have no definable interest at stake, we have no exit strategy. Look in Afghanistan, you want to get involved in tribal government? How hard it is to extricate yourself once you’ve gotten involved? Let history be your guide. Thank you.

Voter: Do you think it’s impeachable?

Huntsman: I’ll let Congress make that decision.

The mainstream media, flexing its sagging muscles, tried to turn Huntsman’s words into a bigger scandal than the president’s unconstitutional war itself. To his credit, when pushed for a clarification, Huntsman replied, “Congress should do whatever Congress chooses to do.”

As proof of Republican “extremism,” that is pretty weak stuff. Uber-Democrat Jerrold Nadler has compared Obama to a king, a dictator, and “an absolute monarch” precisely over launching an unauthorized war — not in a barbecue pit in someone’s backyard but from the floor of the House. But the media have a love affair with Huntsman, the liberal Republican who supports homosexual civil unions and the debt deal. In their skewed world, Huntsman is John McCain-lite, the “straight-talking” candidate who tells the GOP base what it does not want to hear. To media talking heads, this is a dog whistle that, if “even” Huntsman refuses to “rule out” impeachment, then far-Right Tea Party “insanity” must have infected the entire party.

Thus, the media quoted Democratic operative Ty Matsdorf, who fumed “it’s sad to see Jon Huntsman abandon his convictions for a chance to appease the rabid right-wing base by refusing to rule out impeachment.”

Of course, as a private citizen, Huntsman is not in any position to “rule out” anything. As he properly noted, that is Congress’ job. Yet this tempest-in-a-teapot is a triumph for Matsdorf’s employer, American Bridge 21st Century, which ABC News describes as a “Super PAC,” and which captured the “damning” video. This anonymously funded 501(c)(4) opposition group was founded by Media Matters head David Brock, a major recipient of George Soros’ money. The secretive group has….

Read more.