THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Consider for a minute the implications what has just taken place in the United States of America . . . S.L.

The burning of the Reichstag in 1933 was the Nazi's final step toward total power

In the Oath of Office, the President of the United States swears that he will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States to the best of his ability. That Oath was violated last night, in plain view of millions of people all over the world. That Oath was rendered meaningless. Cast aside as meaningless as a piece of confetti at a parade.

Also in the Constitution of the United States: the President of the United States shall faithfully execute, or see to it that the laws of the country are faithfully executed. That was also rendered meaningless last night. "Executive amnesty" - what President Obama actually did as a result of his executive order was to instruct law enforcement officials to ignore the law.

The law has not been changed. Congress has written no law that provides the President the power to enforce this aspect of it. Obama simply told everybody involved in law enforcement to ignore their duty. He told them to ignore crime when they come across it. He told them to not bother prosecuting violators of this particular law. Therefore, Obama is not only flouting the law, he's flouting the enforcement of the law.

The President of the United States is now demanding that these violators of our law not only be fully ignored by law enforcement, they will also be given work documents. Under existing law, they are not allowed to hold work documents, because they are here illegally. So the President of the United States is not enforcing a law; he's not changing, regulating, or otherwise. What we are witnessing is the President of the United States creating a new law out of thin air here. He is writing his own law.

There is no statutory foundation for this. The Democrats and their confederates in the Left-leaning Mainstream media are claiming that Reagan did it. Reagan did not do this. The Congress passed Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986 and Reagan signed it, and after that you've got a statute as a law. You've got a foundation, and Reagan then took some executive actions based on that statute.

Ronald Reagan didn't make up a law out of thin air. Reagan didn't create it out of whole cloth like Obama is doing. Obama, on the other hand, is actually instructing law enforcement to not enforce existing law. The President of the United States does not have the constitutional authority to do this.

Prosecutorial Discretion

The Executive Branch of our government DOES have the authority to prosecute, to determine when violators of the law are gonna be prosecuted. This is called prosecutorial discretion.

Prosecutorial discretion is exactly what it says. It's based on the fact that there's just too much law-breaking going on out there to enforce it all; there's just too much crime. We don't have the resources, we don't have the personnel, we don't have enough courts to enforce all of it, and so prosecutors determine which laws or crimes are going to be prosecuted based on severity, damage, any number of things.

But just because prosecutors choose not to enforce a law doesn't mean the law becomes legal or the act becomes legal. For example: the Treasury investigates deposits of $10,000. Therefore, just because a prosecutor somewhere might ignore you if you deposit $10,000 in cash, it doesn't mean it's legal to do it.

Just because a prosecutor chooses to ignore a particular act, just because a prosecutor decides not to go after a certain criminal, doesn't make that criminal act legal all of a sudden. What Obama is claiming is that there are too many illegals, and they're all over the place, and we can't find them. Understood; its a big situation - that doesn't make them legal, which is what he is doing. If prosecutors - and the President of the United States is the chief prosecutor - decides they're not going to prosecute particular crimes, it doesn't make the crimes legal. They are still illegal.

And yet Barack Hussein Obama has essentially said that any crime he doesn't choose to prosecute is legal now.


The President of the United States has exceeded his Legal Authority.

Under our system of government - as written in the United States Consititution - does not give that power to the President.

Article I clearly says: "The Congress shall have Power . . . to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Only Congress is vested with the power to make new laws or amend or repeal existing laws. The President does not have that authority. No President has the authority to tell law enforcement to simply ignore the enforcement of a law because he's violating that part of the Constitution - the same document that the President swears to see that ALL laws are faithfully executed. The President of the United States is not even close to having that kind of power.

Another example: marijuana. As you know, prosecutors less and less pursue marijuana crimes, but it doesn't mean that marijuana is thus legal. Just because a prosecutor decides "I got better things to do than go after" doesn't mean that the law has suddenly been changed and marijuana is legal. Well, by the same token, just because Obama says he's not going to enforce the law on illegal immigrantion, doesn't make it legal all of a sudden.

It does not make these people legal. And yet Obama has told us that his action makes them all legal. The President of the United States simply does not have the power to do that. Only Congress can do that. Obama is using smoke and mirrors to confuse the American people and have us believe that because he's choosing not to enforce the law on four or five million people, that automatically confers legality on them. According to the laws of our nation, it does not.


Smoke and Mirrors

Barack Hussein Obama simply does not have the legal ability to do what he is doing. The Constitution of the United States is being violated in a fundamental way. This is the manner of Third World dictators and absolute monarchs.

So what the President has done is try to fool everybody by claiming 'prosecutorial discretion.' What Obama claims is that he's got the power to declare which criminal acts he will pursue and which ones he will ignore. Obama is saying that illegal aliens now have a right to be here because he has chosen not to prosecute them.

Obama is saying, "Yes, they are illegal aliens, but I'm gonna turn them legal by not prosecuting them," and he doesn't have that power. Just because you choose not to prosecute somebody doesn't mean what they did to get in trouble in the first place is all of a sudden legal. Somebody is caught with a bale of marijuana - much more than realistically considered for personal use - and for some reason the local jurisdiction choose not to prosecute does not mean that possession with intent to sell has become legal. Prosecutorial discretion is standard operating procedure. It's been used for centuries because it's simply not efficient, affordable, any number of categories, to go after all crime.

And just because a particular crime is pardoned, let's say, doesn't mean that that criminal activity all of a sudden becomes legal. And yet that's what Obama is is claiming. The President of the United States is ordering the Border Patrol, ICE and the rest of Federal Law Enforcement to stand down. And because there will be no prosecutions of these people here illegally, he is stating that they are legal. No, they are not. They're still illegal, and just because the Obama Administration chooses not to prosecute does not make them legal. What President Obama doing is unconstitutional, illegal and if Congress does nothing to stop him, then they are complicit.

Welcome to the Third World, America.

STORMBRINGER SENDS

OBAMA RE-WRITES HISTORY ON BUSH AND JERUSALEM

A Soviet "nonperson" vanishes: commissar Nikolai Yezhov retouched after falling from favor and being executed in 1940.


The falsification of history via the doctoring of documents and photographs didn't begin in our modern computer era. In Stalinist Russia, it was commonplace for Soviet history to be rewritten with individuals who had somehow fallen afoul of Stalin removed from official photographs. In one noteworthy sequence, a photograph of Stalin with three revolutionary leaders is airbrushed and cropped and clipped until, one by one, those leaders disappear and only Stalin is left - conveying the message that Stalin carried the Russian Revolution by himself. Another photograph from the 1920s depicts a meeting of dozens of trade-union and Bolshevik leaders; by the late 1930s, all but a handful of them had been murdered at Stalin's orders.

For Joseph Stalin, photo retouching was a technique for controlling public perception and memory. People who vanished in real life - whether banished to the farthest reaches of the Soviet Union or eliminated by the secret police - vanished as well from photos, and even paintings. In many cases they were airbrushed out completely, in others their faces were clumsily blacked out with ink.

Now this creepy rewriting of history is being replicated by the current occupiers of our own Whitehouse; the Obama Administration; from Commentary magazine:

The Obama White House is gearing up for a Supreme Court case in which it will defend its refusal to list “Jerusalem, Israel” on the passports of Americans born in the Israeli capital. As part of its preparations the administration recently scrubbed all the captions on a White House photo gallery of Vice President Biden in the city, changing “Jerusalem, Israel” to “Jerusalem.” The optics of methodically erasing the word “Israel” from the White House webpage caused a predictable uproar.

The point of posting these two photos (above and below) is to show that, although the State Department refuses to say that Jerusalem is in Israel, even the White House website acknowledges this elementary truth. But not any more; within two hours of posting, the White House has apparently gone through its website, cleansing any reference to Jerusalem as being in Israel. Click on the photos to get a clear read on the respective captions.

They are attempting to literally "wipe Jerusalem, Israel off of the map" -S.L


. . . then, when the Washington Jewish Week’s Adam Kredo published an article claiming that the Bush administration had enforced an identical policy. Kredo cited a “search of the Bush White House’s archives” and photos of Laura Bush touring the Western Wall to conclude that the Bush White House webpage “never explicitly labeled [Jerusalem] as part of Israel.” . . . Obama’s defenders latched on to his article . . .

Elliot Abrams responded in a quote he gave to Jennifer Rubin, forcefully insisting that Kredo was “just wrong” and that the Bush White House “did not have a hard and fast rule that prohibited referring to Jerusalem” as part of Israel in documents and captions.

Basic Google searches are enough to show that Abrams is right and Obama’s defenders are flat wrong.

Sometimes Bush-era White House photos explicitly identified Jerusalem as being in Israel and sometimes they didn’t, just like sometimes they explicitly identified Tel Aviv as being in Israel and sometimes they didn’t. A naive “Jerusalem, Israel” Google search on the Bush White House archives is sufficient to turn up this 2002 photo of Vice President Cheney captioned as “a press briefing in Jerusalem, Israel.” It also turns up this photo labeled “Mrs. Laura Bush visits the Western Wall Tunnels… in Jerusalem, Israel.” That’s from the exact, precise, identical tour that Kredo linked to in order to “hammer home the point” that the Bush administration “never explicitly labeled [Jerusalem] as part of Israel.”

Getting beyond photo captions, Bush-era documents show that the previous White House was indeed able to correctly identify the city of Jerusalem as being inside the state of Israel. The record shows that the President even acknowledged that the Jerusalem consulate – the same one that won’t issue passports referencing “Jerusalem, Israel” – was located in Jerusalem, Israel. Bush’s statement nominating Jeffrey Feltman to be ambassador to Lebanon, for instance, explicitly described Feltman’s previous position as “Deputy Principal Officer at the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem, Israel.”


Read all the details of this incredible story HERE


It gets worse for Obama’s defenders, though, than merely being demonstrably wrong. It turns out that while they were insisting that the Bush administration consistently refused to reference “Jerusalem, Israel,” the Obama State Department was busy scrubbing documents in which Bush administration referenced “Jerusalem, Israel.” Straight down the memory hole. That’s kind of amazing when you pause and think about it, no?

The “Jerusalem, Israel” captions and statements from the Bush-era White House are digitally archived and frozen, and so beyond the administration’s reach. But Bush-era State Department reports are stored on the Obama State Department’s servers. Two old documents in particular – the State Department’s FY 2002 and FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Reports – come up quickly in searches. When they were originally written they both had appendices identifying the location of the Jerusalem consulate as “Jerusalem, Israel.” Some time in the last two weeks that location was changed to “Jerusalem.” Whoever made the changes even went back and scrubbed the old “hard copy” PDFs. You can do the compare and contrast yourself. Click on these links for scrubbed versions of FY 2002 HTML, FY 2003 HTML, FY 2002 PDF, FY 2003 PDF, and on these links for cached original versions of FY 2002 HTML, FY 2003 HTML, FY 2002 PDF, FY 2003 PDF.


- SEAN LINNANE SENDS


.

THE RAID - More Concepts

"The US Navy SEAL team which executed the raid on Osama bin Laden was handpicked by Barack Obama."


This gem surfaced early on in the Whitehouse disinformation campaign surrounding The Raid, and I threw out the fifteen-yard bullshit flag on this one right away.

Fact of the matter is Obama spent more time planning his Final Four picks than he did on ANYTHING remotely associated with military operations - the single subject area he is uniquely UN-qualified to say a word about, much less even pretend to know doodley-squat, even less so than free-market economics.


If you want to know the real reason SEAL Team Six got the mission was this thing had become practically a red-cycle tasking within JSOC. They've had a team on standby for the OBL hit for a decade now, and the SEALs lucked out - in that they were on stand down while everyone else was out kicking ass and taking names when word came down the pike that we actually had a fix on HVT bin Laden and The Company was requesting JSOC to go in and do the hit.

So the SEALs were the assault element and they're such publicity hogs they made sure word got out and they got all the credit - dollars to doughnuts if it was Delta the press would still be hypothesizing who did it - the CAG has a Code of Silence that even La Cosa Nostra envies. Remember a little operation involving PW Jessica Lynch?


While we're on the subject, my buddy Skullhead - of the Apache - is having a problem with the choice of codename for bin Laden, and as an honorary member of the Lakota, I must admit that I see it his way.

Skullhead writes:

i am seeing a mix reaction on the name the target was given, some native americans find it offensive. i can see the choice they made being the fact that Geronimo was hunted for many years in unfriendly terrian. he live in the back country and surived off the land. the target in this case was hunted and did the text book thing hide in plan sight. its the long hunt that would inspire the name and the enviroment. the real deal never lived better than his people, the target was living better than most of his followers. any way they could have used a better name like AID (another idiot down)

Today's Bird HERE



.

THE RAID

Up until this point in time, if you said'The Raid' within the SF community, you were referring to the Son Tay Raid. As of last Sunday evening, that has been changed forever. And as secretive and shrouded in mystery as Son Tay was, this latest thing generates more questions and quizzical aspects with each and every pronouncement of Team Obama.

OK now that the dust has settled lets go over some of the details that the Left-Leaning Mainstream Media (LLMM) invariably get wrong due to their wholesale lack of military experience - while posturing themselves as Subject Matter Experts on everything Spec Ops - combined with their slobbering love affair with the current occupier of the Whitehouse.


o Did the Presidents' team actually watch the operation unfold in real-time on the screen in the situation room?

This photo suggests they did, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's comment that it was "the most intense 38 minutes of her life" contributes to this aspect of The Raid. But on Wednesday CIA Director Leon Panetta stated that the screen went black for 25 minutes right in the middle of the operation.

o Was Hillary reacting in shock and awe at the killing of Osama bin Laden, or is she covering a cough - as she claimed - or is she overwhelmed by the beauty of it all when they switched over to a Royal Wedding rerun during those 25 minutes of blackness? You decide.


o Is Osama bin Laden REALLY dead? Where's the photo? "No body, no crime." The death of Adolf Hitler was also announced on 1 May, and yet everyone knows Hitler is still alive in Argentina - for you non-Truthyers here's video proof:






Today's Bird HERE


.

THE JOKES HAVE STARTED

A MAN WALKS INTO A BAR AND ORDERS A BIN LADEN . . .

Bartender asks, "what’s a Bin Laden?"

Man says, "2 shots with a splash of water."


- from Theo's worthy site Last of the Few

Q: How come they used Seal Team Six instead of Delta to conduct the OBL raid into Pakistan?

A: Simple. They wanted to make sure he wasn't captured alive.


(Credit for that one goes to Team STORMBRINGER charter member VA Shepherd)


Rumor is Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, and Bill Daley were the driving forces for the raid; Obama was against. Reports are that Obama "had to sleep on it" before making the call. Sleep on what???

The leak of above less than 72 hours after the raid was executed points to a high level of frustration within the Obama Administration and the National Intelligence community. Was Obama's hand in fact forced?

Obama is getting kudos for ordering a raid vs. a bombing that would have obliterated everything. The intel haul was the real coup; did this even occur to the community-organizer-in-chief beforehand???

Announcement of the raid was made in the middle of Donald Trump's "Celebrity Apprentice" show . . . a mere coincidence I'm sure . . . no way Obama would use this for political gain! The best thing a Tea Party Merry Prankster team could pull off right now would be to unveil a MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner at Obama's (already scheduled) Ground Zero appearance . . .

. . . not that there's anything wrong with that . . .


The following observations from SKULLHEAD - ex-Delta operator and Knight Chevalier of Team STORMBRINGER Sanctum Sanctorium:


This was a great op for the group (JSOC) and looks like it went of with out a hitch. Yes Seal Team 6 got the poster picture for it, however I do know that the ODD ( Operational Detachment - D a.k.a. Delta Force ) was present and most likely it split the count, enough to put the group on solid ground and timing.

I told you he was in Pakistan and living high on the hog. We also knew they were helping him; that is how they are and will always be. We should have severed ties and destroyed their nuke program a long time ago. I also believe the op was already moving and the President was told to sit and wait because it was going to happen whether he liked or not; that big a HVT (High Value Target) was not getting away.

A classic tactic for tracking an urban target: put them on the run and wait for them to hole up, let them get confortable and study their habits, then you get to remove them from the earth at a time & place of your choosing. Same thing happened to Pablo (Escobar); smells of ODD all over this - we know the true story will come out when the current regime is no longer going to be embarrassed, plus we don't exist therefore we were not there just Seal Team 6 and the CIA.

Funny how things have to be laid out for people in the news and we all know they are full of sh*t as well as the current occupiers of the Whitehouse - how long do you think it will be before this guy blows the ODD apart and screws that up? Credit should be given to the boys on the ground - they did the job. I remember a couple of over the rail disposals they did for us way back when, they should advertise free funerals at sea for terrorists, we will even pick up - no reservations needed. You get a free bath so you're fresh as a daisy for the virgins.

They will come at us again . . .

SKULLHEAD SENDS

THE ONGOING DRUMBEAT

This week's significant events:

HOMELAND SECURITY EXERCISE IN TREYNOR, IOWA

Treynor High School

School children were sent home with permission slips to participate in an exercise by the Pottawatamie County and Homeland Security with the Treynor, IA Community Schools to simulate a school shooting. The premise of the mock shooting suggested that a student, whose white, Conservative parents oppose illegal immigration, comes to school with a gun and shoots a Latino Student.

Treynor High School student made up as a roleplayer for the exercise.


This is nothing less than a thinly-disguised propaganda exercise for the Department of Homeland Security; part of the continual, deliberate campaign by Liberals to stigmatize, marginalize law-abiding citizenry - the ultimate goal being to constrain and restrict our God-given right to self-defense as inscribed in the 2d Amendment of the United States Constitution.

They cancelled this outrage after the Citizenry alerted on it; then used this opportunity to twist law-abiding citizen's concerns into "threats to their employees and buildings due to the planned 'active shooter' exercise."

Twist the truth and milk it for all it's worth - energize the mob, play upon their fears and anxieties - the doctrine of propaganda straight out of Saul Alinsky and Joseph Goebbels.



OPERATION ODDYSEY DAWN: UNITED STATES ALLIES ITSELF WITH AL QAEDA IN LIBYAN NON-WAR

Let's apply the basic beginning steps of analysis and planning:


WHO are we supporting? U.S. backed anti-government forces in Libya are being led by al-Qaeda fighters.

- Brilliant. Just brilliant.


WHAT's the plan? WHERE is this thing going?

Like many observers, I’m skeptical of how Operation Odyssey Dawn has been conceived, implemented, and explained. - James M. Lindsay, Council on Foreign Relations


WHEN do we get out? US OFFICIALS: LIBYAN OPERATIONS COULD LAST MONTHS.

I once got branded a racist for using the "tarbaby" cliche -
the term has nothing to do with race; it means violence that develops into sticky mess you can't get yourself out of.


WHY are we there?

President Barack Hussein Obama took a break from important carnival activities in Rio de Janiero to issue to following statement on 19 March 2011:

"Our consensus was strong and our resolve is clear. The people of Libya must be protected and in the absence of an immediate end to the violence against civilians our coalition is prepared to act and to act with urgency."


So why are we there and not the Darfur, Ivory Coast, or maybe even Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba?


HOW LONG will the Gadster hang in there? Gaddafi vows "Long War"

When you have secured the area, make sure to inform the enemy. - Murphy's Law of Combat #27

Gaddafi is seen here in a recent photo with a member of his elite female-suicide-sex-commando-bodyguard.(Getty Images)



MEANWHILE Hamas makes good use of that $500 million in humanitarian aid the Obama Administration threw their way:

HAMAS ROCKET ATTACKS ON ISRAEL GO PRACTICALLY UNNOTICED.




.

GENERAL JONES WAS PUSHED OUT

The official story is that National Security Adviser James Jones agreed to leave early. But a senior White House aide tells, "the time was right to bring forward his departure."

When James Jones took the job of National Security Adviser to President-elect Barack Obama, he was entering unfamiliar territory. A retired Marine general, he was no stranger to bureaucracy or politics: after all, he had held down the post of Supreme Allied Commander at the politically fraught NATO Headquarters in Brussels.

Yet Jones seemingly never fit in the Obama Whitehouse — a sentiment confirmed Friday, when he announced he was stepping down. But contrary to official reports, there was more to the timing than the ripple effects of Rahm's Emanuel's departure. "We're making a lot of changes now with Rahm leaving, and there was a sense of just, 'Let's get this done now,'" said one senior Obama aide.

Read the whole thing HERE.


I met General Jone's secretary once, years ago down in Key West. She was a good looking girl in her thirties, and a Gunnery Sergeant in the Marine Corps Reserve. The teamies pushed me in her direction because we were both in the same age group - I was the Old Man on the team, even then. We hung out for a couple of days in Key West - unfortunately it never went anywhere. That was a couple of years before the encounter in the Lesbian bar down there; the two anecdotes are unrelated.

OK, now I can see that I owe you guys the Key West Chronicles - give me a couple of days to get my story straight . . .


. . . SEAN LINNANE SENDS



.

SHARIAH A DANGER TO NATIONAL SECURITY

This is shocking . . . worse than I imagined . . . read & heed - S.L.


Shariah a Danger to US, Security Pros Say
Wednesday, 15 Sep 2010 09:04 AM

By: Bill Gertz

A panel of national security experts who worked under Republican and Democratic presidents is urging the Obama administration to abandon its stance that Islam is not linked to terrorism, arguing that radical Muslims are using Islamic law to subvert the United States. In a report set for release today, the panel states that "it is vital to the national security of the United States, and to Western civilization at large, that we do what we can to empower Islam's authentic moderates and reformers."

The study group, sponsored by the conservative-oriented Center for Security Policy, says in its report that proponents of advancing Islamic law mark the "crucial fault line" in Islam's internal divisions separating truly moderate Muslims, like the late Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid, from the large portion of the world's 1 billion Muslims who advocate imposing what they call Shariah law throughout the world. Mr. Wahid, who died in December, is a widely respected Muslim visionary who promoted pluralism in Indonesia, which has the world's largest population of Muslims.

According to the report, proponents of Shariah are "Muslim supremacists" waging "civilization jihad" along with the Islamist terrorists engaged in violent jihad, like al-Qaida. The 19-member study group was led by retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence in the George W. Bush administration, and retired Army Lt. Gen. Harry E. Soyster, Defense Intelligence Agency director from 1988 to 1991. Included in the team of former defense, law enforcement and intelligence officials were Clinton administration CIA Director R. James Woolsey and Andrew C. McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney in New York, a career counterterrorism prosecutor during the Clinton administration. Frank Gaffney, director of the Center for Security Policy, said the Obama administration's policy is based on an incorrect assumption.

L-R LTG Boykin, LTG Soyster, R. James Woolsey, Andrew McCarthy

The Team B report seeks to expose flaws in anti-terror programs, including the policy of not referring to al-Qaida and similar groups as "Islamist" to avoid offending Muslims, he said. "What if it turns out that some of the people the Obama administration has been embracing are actually promoting the same totalitarian ideology and seditious agenda as al-Qaida, only they're doing it from White House Iftar dinners?" said Mr. Gaffney, referring to the daily meal eaten by Muslims to break their fast during Ramadan.

The group of experts was modeled after the official CIA Team B, whose 1976 contrary analysis said U.S. intelligence assessments had underestimated Soviet nuclear forces. That Team B report led to the military buildup under the Reagan administration. John Brennan, deputy White House national security adviser for counterterrorism, told The Washington Times in June that he disagrees that "there is an Islamic dimension to terrorism."

The administration's policy of not using the word Islam and its derivatives to describe today's fundamentalist terrorists is aimed at "not according these individuals any religious legitimacy," he said. A White House spokesman could not be reached for comment on the report or the administration's policy on political Islam.

Mr. Gaffney said the report concludes that U.S. government programs aimed at reaching out to Muslim groups that promote Shariah law "is not political correctness, it's submission." The administration's failure to understand the Islamist nature of the terrorist threat is "inviting more violent jihad against this country," Mr. Gaffney said.

The report calls for a campaign against radical Islamists following the model used against communist ideology and activities during the Cold War, including infiltrating foreign-supported jihad groups by the FBI and other aggressive security measures. "Today, the United States faces what is, if anything, an even more insidious ideological threat: the totalitarian socio-political doctrine that Islam calls Shariah," the report says. "Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of Shariah as a 'religious' code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere — economic, social, military, legal, and political."

The Team B report calls for developing a "counter-strategy" to Islamist ideology, but notes that understanding the nature of the enemy is a critical first step. "That cannot be done by following the failed strategy of fictionalizing the state of Islam in the vain hope that reality will, at some point, catch up to the benign fable," the report says. "Empowering the condign elements of Islam requires a candid assessment, which acknowledges the strength of Shariah — just as defeat of 20th century totalitarian ideologies required an acknowledgment of, and respect for, their malevolent capabilities."

The Shariah system is "totalitarian" and incompatible with the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of democratic lawmaking, freedom of conscience, individual liberty and freedom of expression, including the right to analyze and criticize Shariah law, the report states. The report cites the 1991 document from the Muslim Brotherhood in North America describing a covert process of Islamic "settlement" in the United States.

The plan is to carry out a "grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated," the document stated. The Egyptian-origin Muslim Brotherhood is the most important entity promoting Islamic supremacism, the report says.

Republican and Democratic administrations failed to understand the ideological nature of the terrorist enemy, the report says, including its ultimate goal of reinstating a totalitarian Islamic caliphate with Shariah imposed globally.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC


.

REVERSE RACISM EXPOSED, EMBRACED

The brilliant Michelle Malkin calls it the way we see it:

Whitewashing Black Racism Team Obama and its media water-carriers are exhibiting the very racial cowardice they once purported to condemn.
July 9, 2010 4:00 A.M.

"... the only racists talking about slaughtering babies are the ones with New Black Panther Party patches on their puffed chests.

If a tea-party activist threatened to kill the babies of his political opponents, it wouldn’t just be front-page news. It would be the subject of Democrat-led congressional investigations, a series of terrified New York Times columns about the perilous “climate of hate,” a Justice Department probe by Attorney General Eric Holder, a domestic terror alert from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and another Important Teachable Moment Speech/Summit from Healer-in-Chief Barack Obama . . ."



I hate racists; white supremecists, Black Panthers, Nazis or otherwise . . . I get labelled a racist all the time by the Trolls on Frum Forum and it makes me laugh - how can I be a racist when I'm in a bi-racial marriage? I can't even stand the word "hate" - I learned the meaning of that word in the former Yugoslavia where I saw where race hatred will take us . . . throughout my military career I encountered "reverse racism" and I know every one of my military readers know exactly what I'm talking about . . . now we have the "Reverse Racists" in charge, running the country . . . this post signals the beginning of a theme: exposing Attorney General Eric Holder for the Reverse Racist he is - STORMBRINGER SENDS






.

MICHAEL CONNELLY

A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire Healthcare Bill - now voted into law. Read his stunning conclusions.



The Truth About the Health Care Bill
- by Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney


Confirmed by Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/connelly.asp


The Snopes post is an interesting read in and of itself - I recommend you go there and read it.

Regular readers of STORMBRINGER know I normally avoid politics, although I recently changed this posture due to disturbing information regarding Kevin Jennings; Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the Obama Administration's Department of Education. - S.L.



The Truth About the Health Care Bill
- by Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009 I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.






The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.

The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.






So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though.

The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly
Retired Attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas



Never heard of Michael Connelly? Neither have I; but I know who THIS guy is - as far as I'm concerned his words are as valid now as when he spoke them fifty years ago:







"If you're not part of the solution,
then you're definitely part of the problem."


This is my way to get involved - Sean Linnane




.

MEET KEVIN JENNINGS

When I became aware of this story a couple of weeks ago - about a state of affairs so shocking, so outrageous, so vile and insidious - I thought that it HAD to be some kind of scuttlebutt. When I learned it emerged late 2009, I wondered 'Where is the public outcry? Where is the outrage?'



Obama Administration Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings


Kevin Jennings is the founder, and for many years was the Executive Director, of an organization called the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).


Kevin Jennings was chosen by President Obama to be the nation's Safe Schools Czar primarily because he had founded and led GLSEN.


GLSEN's stated mission is to empower gay youth in the schools and to stop harassment by other students. It encourages the formation of Gay Student Alliances and condemns the use of hateful words. GLSEN also strives to influence the educational curriculum to include materials which the group believes will increase tolerance of gay students and decrease bullying. To that end, GLSEN maintains a recommended reading list of books that it claims "furthers our mission to ensure safe schools for all students."


Here is the list of the sicko stuff GLSEN activists are exposing our children to:


Queer 13 - Seventh Grade: You remember it, don't you? Sweet sixteen seemed impossibly far away, an elegant, unattainable future. All that we had was the doldrums of thirteen--not so sweet, and definitely queer.


Being Different - Personal narratives by 15 young people complement commentary at the beginning of each chapter on what it is like to a lesbian, gay or bisexual young person. There are chapters on sexual identity, coming out, and the pain of being LGB in high school. In addition, a chapter on religion-based attitudes toward homosexuality puts anti-LGBT rhetoric in perspective.


The Full Spectrum - includes a variety of talented writers—gay, lesbian, bisexual, straight, transitioning, and questioning . . . The result is an exciting and vital contribution to the discussion on sexuality by and for today’s teens.


Revolutionary Voices - A Multicultural Queer Youth Anthology


Reflections of a Rock Lobster - Fricke made national news when he sued his school for the right to take a male date to the prom. Here is his story of growing up gay in America.


Passages of Pride - True Stories of Lesbian and Gay Teenagers


Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian - the first literary anthology geared specifically to gay and lesbian youth . . . an essential resource for young people--and not-so-young people--seeking to understand the gay and lesbian experience.


The Order of the Poison Oak - 16-year-old Russel, now openly gay and tired of being the freak at school, tries to escape as a counselor in a rural summer camp with his two best friends . . . Russel fights with his friends, especially after discovering that he and bisexual Min are attracted to the same gorgeous counselor guy - who tries to have unprotected sex with each of them.


In Your Face - Stories From the Lives of Queer Youth by Mary L. Gray


Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son - A Memoir of Growing Up, Coming Out, and Changing America’s Schools


Love & Sex: Ten Stories of Truth - Book after book after book contains stories and anecdotes that aren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, they feature explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seem to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, one memoir even praises becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem. Above all, the books seem to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.



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




This guy's program has been active in schools since 2002.


This is not education, this is PROPAGANDA. This is INDOCTRINATION.


What I want to know is: WHEN DID THIS BECOME OKAY?




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



And just when you thought you're incapable of being shocked anymore:



Kevin Jennings' programs have introduced young children to non-conventional sexual techniques such as "fisting".

Fistgate II: High School Students Given 'Fisting Kits' At Kevin Jennings 2001 GLSEN Conference



All this, in the name of "safe education". Parents, you might want to ask your kid's school principal exactly what your children are being exposed to in their school's "health class."


Those who know me, know that I am open-minded ESPECIALLY regarding whatever goes on in private between consenting adults - I am no prude but the bedroom is where this shit belongs; not thrown out in front of the kids. Now I understand the origin of a curious remark my own daughter blurted out one evening at the dinner table, when she was in the 5th grade.


I opened a post recently; WARRIOR WOMEN with the following line: "The female of the species is more deadlier than the male . . ." That is actually only half a quote. The second part goes like this: ". . . especially when defending her young."


This whole sicko thing is a part of the agenda of the Obama Administration; they own it, they cannot distance themselves from it, they cannot rationalize this one away. They are targeting our CHILDREN . . .


. . . and they call themselves "PROGRESSIVES"



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


He who does not punish evil commands it to be done - Leonardo da Vinci

THE MEANING OF MARJAH

February 16, 2010 | 2119 GMT

By Kamran Bokhari, Peter Zeihan and Nathan Hughes

On Feb. 13, some 6,000 U.S. Marines, soldiers and Afghan National Army (ANA) troops launched a sustained assault on the town of Marjah in Helmand province. Until this latest offensive, the U.S. and NATO effort in Afghanistan had been constrained by other considerations, most notably Iraq. Western forces viewed the Afghan conflict as a matter of holding the line or pursuing targets of opportunity. But now, armed with larger forces and a new strategy, the war — the real war — has begun. The most recent offensive — dubbed Operation Moshtarak (“Moshtarak” is Dari for “together”) — is the largest joint U.S.-NATO-Afghan operation in history. It also is the first major offensive conducted by the first units deployed as part of the surge of 30,000 troops promised by U.S. President Barack Obama.

The United States originally entered Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. In those days of fear and fury, American goals could be simply stated: A non-state actor — al Qaeda — had attacked the American homeland and needed to be destroyed. Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan at the invitation of a near-state actor — the Taliban, which at the time were Afghanistan’s de facto governing force. Since the Taliban were unwilling to hand al Qaeda over, the United States attacked. By the end of the year, al Qaeda had relocated to neighboring Pakistan and the Taliban retreated into the arid, mountainous countryside in their southern heartland and began waging a guerrilla conflict. In time, American attention became split between searching for al Qaeda and clashing with the Taliban over control of Afghanistan.

But from the earliest days following 9/11, the White House was eyeing Iraq, and with the Taliban having largely declined combat in the initial invasion, the path seemed clear. The U.S. military and diplomatic focus was shifted, and as the years wore on, the conflict absorbed more and more U.S. troops, even as other issues — a resurgent Russia and a defiant Iran — began to demand American attention. All of this and more consumed American bandwidth, and the Afghan conflict melted into the background. The United States maintained its Afghan force in what could accurately be described as a holding action as the bulk of its forces operated elsewhere. That has more or less been the state of affairs for eight years.

That has changed with the series of offensive operations that most recently culminated at Marjah.



Why Marjah? The key is the geography of Afghanistan and the nature of the conflict itself. Most of Afghanistan is custom-made for a guerrilla war. Much of the country is mountainous, encouraging local identities and militias, as well as complicating the task of any foreign military force. The country’s aridity discourages dense population centers, making it very easy for irregular combatants to melt into the countryside. Afghanistan lacks navigable rivers or ports, drastically reducing the region’s likelihood of developing commerce. No commerce to tax means fewer resources to fund a meaningful government or military and encourages the smuggling of every good imaginable — and that smuggling provides the perfect funding for guerrillas.

Rooting out insurgents is no simple task. It requires three things:

1. Massively superior numbers so that occupiers can limit the zones to which the insurgents have easy access.
2. The support of the locals in order to limit the places that the guerillas can disappear into.
3. Superior intelligence so that the fight can be consistently taken to the insurgents rather than vice versa.

Without those three things — and American-led forces in Afghanistan lack all three — the insurgents can simply take the fight to the occupiers, retreat to rearm and regroup and return again shortly thereafter.

But the insurgents hardly hold all the cards. Guerrilla forces are by their very nature irregular. Their capacity to organize and strike is quite limited, and while they can turn a region into a hellish morass for an opponent, they have great difficulty holding territory — particularly territory that a regular force chooses to contest. Should they mass into a force that could achieve a major battlefield victory, a regular force — which is by definition better-funded, -trained, -organized and -armed — will almost always smash the irregulars. As such, the default guerrilla tactic is to attrit and harass the occupier into giving up and going home. The guerrillas always decline combat in the face of a superior military force only to come back and fight at a time and place of their choosing. Time is always on the guerrilla’s side if the regular force is not a local one.

But while the guerrillas don’t require basing locations that are as large or as formalized as those required by regular forces, they are still bound by basic economics. They need resources — money, men and weapons — to operate. The larger these locations are, the better economies of scale they can achieve and the more effectively they can fight their war.

Marjah is perhaps the quintessential example of a good location from which to base. It is in a region sympathetic to the Taliban; Helmand province is part of the Taliban’s heartland. Marjah is very close to Kandahar, Afghanistan’s second city, the religious center of the local brand of Islam, the birthplace of the Taliban, and due to the presence of American forces, an excellent target. Helmand alone produces more heroin than any country on the planet, and Marjah is at the center of that trade. By some estimates, this center alone supplies the Taliban with a monthly income of $200,000. And it is defensible: The farmland is crisscrossed with irrigation canals and dotted with mud-brick compounds — and, given time to prepare, a veritable plague of IEDs.

Simply put, regardless of the Taliban’s strategic or tactical goals, Marjah is a critical node in their operations.
The American Strategy

Though operations have approached Marjah in the past, it has not been something NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) ever has tried to hold. The British, Canadian and Danish troops holding the line in the country’s restive south had their hands full enough. Despite Marjah’s importance to the Taliban, ISAF forces were too few to engage the Taliban everywhere (and they remain as such). But American priorities started changing about two years ago. The surge of forces into Iraq changed the position of many a player in the country. Those changes allowed a reshaping of the Iraq conflict that laid the groundwork for the current “stability” and American withdrawal. At the same time, the Taliban began to resurge in a big way. Since then the Bush and then Obama administrations inched toward applying a similar strategy to Afghanistan, a strategy that focuses less on battlefield success and more on altering the parameters of the country itself.

As the Obama administration’s strategy has begun to take shape, it has started thinking about endgames. A decades-long occupation and pacification of Afghanistan is simply not in the cards. A withdrawal is, but only a withdrawal where the security free-for-all that allowed al Qaeda to thrive will not return. And this is where Marjah comes in.

Denying the Taliban control of poppy farming communities like Marjah and the key population centers along the Helmand River Valley — and areas like them around the country — is the first goal of the American strategy. The fewer key population centers the Taliban can count on, the more dispersed — and militarily inefficient — their forces will be. This will hardly destroy the Taliban, but destruction isn’t the goal. The Taliban are not simply a militant Islamist force. At times they are a flag of convenience for businessmen or thugs; they can even be, simply, the least-bad alternative for villagers desperate for basic security and civil services. In many parts of Afghanistan, the Taliban are not only pervasive but also the sole option for governance and civil authority.

So destruction of what is in essence part of the local cultural and political fabric is not an American goal. Instead, the goal is to prevent the Taliban from mounting large-scale operations that could overwhelm any particular location. Remember, the Americans do not wish to pacify Afghanistan; the Americans wish to leave Afghanistan in a form that will not cause the United States severe problems down the road. In effect, achieving the first goal simply aims to shape the ground for a shot at achieving the second.

That second goal is to establish a domestic authority that can stand up to the Taliban in the long run. Most of the surge of forces into Afghanistan is not designed to battle the Taliban now but to secure the population and train the Afghan security forces to battle the Taliban later. To do this, the Taliban must be weak enough in a formal military sense to be unable to launch massive or coordinated attacks. Capturing key population centers along the Helmand River Valley is the first step in a strategy designed to create the breathing room necessary to create a replacement force, preferably a replacement force that provides Afghans with a viable alternative to the Taliban.

That is no small task. In recent years, in places where the official government has been corrupt, inept or defunct, the Taliban have in many cases stepped in to provide basic governance and civil authority. And this is why even the Americans are publicly flirting with holding talks with certain factions of the Taliban in hopes that at least some of the fighters can be dissuaded from battling the Americans (assisting with the first goal) and perhaps even joining the nascent Afghan government (assisting with the second).

The bottom line is that this battle does not mark the turning of the tide of the war. Instead, it is part of the application of a new strategy that accurately takes into account Afghanistan’s geography and all the weaknesses and challenges that geography poses. Marjah marks the first time the United States has applied a plan not to hold the line, but actually to reshape the country. We are not saying that the strategy will bear fruit. Afghanistan is a corrupt mess populated by citizens who are far more comfortable thinking and acting locally and tribally than nationally. In such a place indigenous guerrillas will always hold the advantage. No one has ever attempted this sort of national restructuring in Afghanistan, and the Americans are attempting to do so in a short period on a shoestring budget.

At the time of this writing, this first step appears to be going well for American-NATO-Afghan forces. Casualties have been light and most of Marjah already has been secured. But do not read this as a massive battlefield success. The assault required weeks of obvious preparation, and very few Taliban fighters chose to remain and contest the territory against the more numerous and better armed attackers. The American challenge lies not so much in assaulting or capturing Marjah but in continuing to deny it to the Taliban. If the Americans cannot actually hold places like Marjah, then they are simply engaging in an exhausting and reactive strategy of chasing a dispersed and mobile target.

A “government-in-a-box” of civilian administrators is already poised to move into Marjah to step into the vacuum left by the Taliban. We obviously have major doubts about how effective this box government can be at building up civil authority in a town that has been governed by the Taliban for most of the last decade. Yet what happens in Marjah and places like it in the coming months will be the foundation upon which the success or failure of this effort will be built. But assessing that process is simply impossible, because the only measure that matters cannot be judged until the Afghans are left to themselves.



This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR


.