The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Celebrated By 2.1 Billion People Across the World...Isn't An "Important " Thing To Obama

You know, it's gotten to the point where Barack Hussein Obama and his administration don't even TRY to hide their disdain for Christianity. A number of months ago I saw some liberal journalists on a news show completely aghast how ANY Americans could think that Obama is a Muslim ...well, when the spokesman for the President laughs off the whole idea of Easter and what it means to the Christians in this country and literally doesn't know if a statement on the holiday was issued or not...well, I'd say that might fuel the fire for someone thinking Obama is a Muslim. After all, we Americans have only been exposed to two types of people that scoff at Christianity like this and they are atheists and Muslims.

Here's the video of Obama's press secretary yucking it up over the silliness of putting importance on the sacrifice of the Son of G_d:





I don't get it. Why was that question so funny? Why isn't that a valid question? We've seen Barack Obama go out of his way to send a message out for Muslim holidays that no one in this country even knows about, yet the most important holiday of the Christian faith is treated by this press secretary putz like it's back page story. If Obama's got the time to hop skip and jump around the White House lawn helping some little girl roll her "spring sphere" then why doesn't he have 10 minutes to record a message of devotion to his Savior?

This President of ours no longer wears a mask, people. He no longer fears any repercussions in this country. He simply feels he is encased in teflon. And he's in the process of laughing in all of our faces. One might say he's almost....daring us.

P.s. watch the video quickly because Real Clear Politics is trying to remove it everywhere - at the link at Fox, the video has been removed according to my efforts to play it there.

Here's the story from Fox:

White House Laughs Off Obama Not Giving Easter Proclamation


President Obama failed to release a statement or a proclamation recognizing the national observance of Easter Sunday, Christianity's most sacred holiday.
By comparison, the White House has released statements recognizing the observance of major Muslim holidays and released statements in 2010 on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha.

The White House also failed to release a statement marking Good Friday. However, they did release an eight-paragraph statement heralding Earth Day. Likewise, the president's weekend address mentioned neither Good Friday or Easter.

WH Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked about this today and laughed ... "Haha, you know, the President went to church yesterday, it was well covered, I'm not sure if we put out a statement or not ... "

A surprised reporter noted that Easter was the holiest of Christian holidays and asked Carney "You don't KNOW if you put out a statement?" Carney snickered again, bowed his head and retorted, "I'm glad you're asking me these important question guys."

Obama's Claim of Muslim Heritage In America

Barack Obama,
during his Cairo speech, said:
"I know, too, that Islam has always been a part
of America 's story."

AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN'S RESPONSE:


Dear Mr. Obama:

Were those
Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims
first landed? Funny, I thought they were
Native American Indians.

Were those
Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving
day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and
Native American Indians.

Can you
show me one Muslim signature on the United
States Constitution?


Declaration
of Independence ?

Bill of
Rights?


Didn't
think so.


Did
Muslims fight for this country's freedom from
England ? No.


Did
Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the
slaves in America ? No, they did
not. In fact, Muslims to this day are
still the largest traffickers in human
slavery. Your own half brother, a devout
Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even
though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black
Muslims as "pug nosed slaves." Says a lot
of what the Muslim world really thinks of your
family's "rich Islamic heritage," doesn't it Mr.
Obama?


Where were
Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this
country? Not present.


There are
no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking
side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or
helping to advance the cause of Civil
Rights.


Where were
Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage
era? Again, not present. In fact,
devout Muslims demand that women are subservient
to men in the Islamic culture. So much so,
that often they are beaten for not wearing the
'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a
direct family member or their husband.
Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights,
aren't they?


Where were
Muslims during World War II? They were
aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim
grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler,
reviewed the troops and accepted support from
the Nazi's in killing Jews.


Finally,
Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th,
2001? If they weren't flying planes into
the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field
in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on
our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle
East . No one can dispute the pictures
shown from all parts of the Muslim world
celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other
cable news networks that day. Strangely,
the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent
over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June
4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To
many Americans, their silence has meant approval
for the acts of that day.


And THAT, Mr.
Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here
in America ....


Oh, I'm sorry, I
forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates.
They were Muslim.


And now we can
add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of American
soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a
doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be
counseling soldiers returning from battle in
Iraq and Afghanistan .


That, Mr. Obama
is the "Muslim heritage" in America
.

Muslim Heritage, my ass.

(Hat tip: Henry Bowman)

The Libyan Mess: NATO Ground Troops, Civilians Killed In Airstrikes, Journalists Dead

Let's face it...everything Barack Hussein Obama touches, turns to crap. We've often joked in the world of sport in America that if Obama picks your team to win a game or championship, you're sunk. Well, when Barack Hussein Obama decided to throw America into an ill-conceived military action against Libya, most of us should have shuddered at the impending disaster. Well, those worries have been substantiated as the conflict continues to this day with little progress being made and in fact, things are getting worse by the minute.

It's amazing to me that in just one news article one can find so many things gone bad in the Libyan operation by NATO. Here's are just some of the lowlights from the story at Breitbart:

Seven civilians were killed and 18 wounded in a NATO air raid that targeted the southwestern Tripoli suburb of Khellat Al-Ferjan, official Jana news agency reported.

France and Italy joined Britain on Wednesday in sending military advisers to insurgent-held eastern Libya, as Tripoli warned that a foreign troop deployment would only prolong the conflict.

In the besieged city of Misrata, Tim Hetherington, an Oscar-nominated British film director and war photographer, was killed and three colleagues were wounded by mortar fire, the local hospital said.

Now, the Presidential election is coming up in 2012 and if you recall, in the time of the 2008 Presidential election, Barack Hussein Obama went on the offensive during his campaign and pointed out that the only action the U.S. was doing in Afghanistan was bombing villages and killing civilians. I guess what goes around comes around as in 2012, a GOP candidate could apparently say that the only action the U.S. is involved in regarding Libya is the bombing of Tripoli and killing civilians.

Right?

Civilians killed as Tripoli suburb targeted in NATO air raid


Seven civilians were killed and 18 wounded in a NATO air raid that targeted the southwestern Tripoli suburb of Khellat Al-Ferjan, official Jana news agency reported.

An earlier report by the state Allibiya television said the Khellat Al-Ferjan area where three explosions could be heard was the "target of barbarian crusaders' raids that left martyrs and wounded among the residents and destroyed their homes".

NATO warplanes carried out air raids earlier Wednesday at Bir Al-Ghanam, about 50 kilometres (30 miles) southwest of the Libyan capital, that left four people dead among the civilian population, according to Jana.

France and Italy joined Britain on Wednesday in sending military advisers to insurgent-held eastern Libya, as Tripoli warned that a foreign troop deployment would only prolong the conflict.

In the besieged city of Misrata, Tim Hetherington, an Oscar-nominated British film director and war photographer, was killed and three colleagues were wounded by mortar fire, the local hospital said.

Vanity Fair, for which Hetherington was working, confirmed the death of the 41-year-old from Liverpool, the second journalist killed covering Libya's two-month-old conflict.

A colleague seriously wounded in the same incident was named as US national Chris Hondros of photo agency Getty.

In Geneva, meanwhile, the UN human rights chief slammed the Libyan regime for the alleged use of cluster bombs in the city of Misrata, saying such attacks on densely populated urban areas could be international crimes.

Rebel leaders in Misrata desperately pleaded for foreign soldiers to help them battle Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi's forces, who have been pounding the city for more than six weeks in fighting a doctor said had claimed at least 1,000 lives.

But the three European nations committing handfuls of troops to east Libya stressed they were being sent merely to advise the rebels on technical, logistical and organisational matters and not to fight.

In Paris, France's foreign ministry spokeswoman said: "France has placed a small number of liaison officers alongside our special envoy to Benghazi who are carrying out a liaison mission with the TNC.

"The precise objective is to give the TNC essentially technical, logistical and organisational advice to reinforce the protection of civilians and to improve the distribution of humanitarian and medical aid," she said.

She was referring to the rebel Transitional National Council, which so far has publicly rejected any suggestion of foreign troops on the ground as NATO warplanes enforce a US-mandated no-fly zone designed to protect civilians.

Government spokesman Francois Baroin said "fewer than 10" officers are involved, and repeated France's position: "We are not envisaging troops on the ground, in any shape or form."

The announcement came the day after France's main ally in the drive to help rebels, Britain, said it would send advisers to help organise the stalled rebellion.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said London would send 12 military advisers to eastern Libya, but that they would not be involved in training or arming the rebels, or help in planning operations.

Italy's Defence Minister Ignazio La Russa, meanwhile, said his country would also send 10 army advisers to aid the rebels. "There is a clear understanding that the rebels have to be trained," La Russa said.

TNC head Mustafa Abdel Jalil, after meeting with President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris, said Libyan rebels expect "major strikes by the coalition" against forces loyal to Kadhafi.

"We are sure that Kadhafi will be overthrown sooner or later, but we want it to be as soon as possible," he told French television.

Asked whether the conflict would be won by force or negotiation, Jalil told France 24: "We expect there to be major strikes by the coalition, then Libyans can reach a solution."

In Washington, meanwhile, President Barack Obama's spokesman said he supports the decision by allies to send military advisers to aid Libyan rebels but has no plans to put US "boots on the ground."

A senior American diplomat, meanwhile, told lawmakers in a letter obtained by AFP on Wednesday, that Obama plans to provide the rebels with up to $25 million in urgent, non-lethal aid.

Libyan Foreign Minister Abdelati Laabidi told the BCC that the presence of any foreign troops in Libya would prolong the conflict.

"We think any military presence is a step backwards, and we are sure that if this bombing stopped and there is a real ceasefire we could have a dialogue among all Libyans about what they want -- democracy, political reform, constitution, election," Laabidi said.

"This could not be done with what is going on now," he said, adding that if the bombing stopped, after six months there could be a UN supervised election that would cover "whatever issue is raised by Libyans."

Seif al-Islam, a son of Kadhafi, said he was confident the rebellion would fail.

"I am very optimistic and we will win ... The situation changes every day in our favour," the leader's son said on his country's Allibya state television before a group of about 50 people.

Seif vowed the regime would "not seek revenge" against the rebels fighting to oust Kadhafi.

But he warned that "the use of weapons and force will only be met by force and those who cross the four red lines, set in 2007 (Kadhafi, Islam, state security and national unity) will have to bear the consequences".

The bombardment of Misrata continued on Wednesday, with loud explosions heard mid-afternoon following a night of heavy fighting.

Two French Mirage fighter jets believed to be involved in operations against Libya were forced to make emergency landings in Malta on Wednesday after running out of fuel, civil aviation sources said.

On Tuesday evening, Nuri Abdullah Abdullati, a senior member of Misrata's governing council, pleaded for help to break the nearly two-month-old Kadhafi siege of the Mediterranean port city.

Previously, he said, "we did not accept any foreign soldiers in our country, but now, as we face these crimes of Kadhafi, we are asking on the basis of humanitarian and Islamic principles for someone to come and stop the killing."

"Before we were asking for no foreign interference, but that was before Kadhafi used Grad rockets and planes. Now it's a life or death situation."

In Geneva, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay condemned the reported repeated use of cluster munitions and heavy weaponry by government forces in the siege of Misrata.

"Using imprecise weaponry such as cluster munitions, multiple rocket launchers and mortars, and other forms of heavy weaponry, in crowded urban areas will inevitably lead to civilian casualties," Pillay said.

She warned regime forces that "their orders and actions will be subject to intense scrutiny."

Report Says Syria Is Torturing Anti-Government Protesters

Once again I ask the question of President Obama...if the people of Libya were in such danger by Moammar Ghaddafi's regime that you needed to insert American warplanes into that conflict, then why haven't you done the same in Syria where MORE people have been killed by the Assad regime and now reports are floating around that protesters are being tortured after arrest?

Perhaps Obama's silence on Syria is part of his hands off policy towards Iran where the President said and did nothing during the revolution attempt in Iran last year. Perhaps Syria's Assad conforms more to what Obama feels is a "true" Islamic state than Libya. I don't know but the inconsistency is glaring.

From the report at Family Security Matters:

Syrian security and intelligence services have arbitrarily detained hundreds of protesters across the country, subjecting them to torture and ill-treatment, since anti-government demonstrations began in mid-March 2011, according to a human rights organization. Yesterday, thousands of anti-government protesters occupied the center of Syria's third largest city, Homs, insisting they will not leave until they bring down the country's leadership.

A human rights observer stated that security forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad had fired shots at the protesters, but Syria's interior ministry claims the current civil unrest amounts to armed insurrection.

Earlier, funerals were held for some of those killed in Sunday's violence in the city, with crowds calling for the end of Assad's Ba'ath Party regime.

At least eight civilian were killed in Homs on Sunday after Assad's soldiers fired on crowds protesting the death of a tribal leader while in government custody.

One other scenario for the hands off stance by the Obama administration is their emerging policy on Israel. With the changes occurring in Egypt, the pressure on Israel to succumb to a radically one-sided agreement for peace in the Middle East is increasing - if Obama wants that pressure on Israel to grow so that the Palestinians will get their state, then the Egyptian situation is good and the last thing he would want would be a change in Syria where they are committed to the fall of Israel.

You doubt that? Well, then I ask you to name one action or even one statement by Barack Hussein Obama that has come down against a single enemy of Israel. How would Israel's security situation now look if Obama had stood by Mubarak and ensured the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and now, if he were to step in and see what we could do to overthrow Assad in Syria? If that had all happened, Israel would be looking at only border threats from Hamas and Hezbollah. But no, as it seems to be turning out, Israel will now face a viable military threat on each and every one of its borders.

Syrian Government Torturing Protesters, Journalists


Syrian security and intelligence services have arbitrarily detained hundreds of protesters across the country, subjecting them to torture and ill-treatment, since anti-government demonstrations began in mid-March 2011, according to a human rights organization. Yesterday, thousands of anti-government protesters occupied the center of Syria's third largest city, Homs, insisting they will not leave until they bring down the country's leadership.

A human rights observer stated that security forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad had fired shots at the protesters, but Syria's interior ministry claims the current civil unrest amounts to armed insurrection.

Earlier, funerals were held for some of those killed in Sunday's violence in the city, with crowds calling for the end of Assad's Ba'ath Party regime.

At least eight civilian were killed in Homs on Sunday after Assad's soldiers fired on crowds protesting the death of a tribal leader while in government custody.

The protesters says the occupation of the city center will continue until their demands are met. The protesters' demands include the immediate end of the military's enforcement of Syria's longstanding emergency laws and the release of political prisoners. The security and intelligence services, commonly referred to as mukhabarat, have also arrested lawyers, activists, and journalists who endorsed or promoted the protests.

"Syrian authorities should immediately stop the use of torture and free arbitrarily detained demonstrators, activists, and journalists," Human Rights Watch said in a press statement. "The government of President Bashar al-Assad should order prompt and impartial investigations into serious abuses against detainees and ensure all those responsible are brought to justice."

"There can be no real reforms in Syria while security forces abuse people with impunity," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "President al-Assad needs to rein in his security services and hold them to account for arbitrary arrests and torture."

Most detainees interviewed by Human Rights Watch reported being forced to sign confessions without being allowed to read them, as well as pledges not to participate in future protests. Some also had to provide detailed personal information about themselves and their families, including family members' addresses and places of employment. None were allowed to have any contact with relatives or lawyers while in detention, and their families were not informed of their whereabouts.

Forced Confessions

Most of those detained following protests told Human Rights Watch that they were forced to sign and put their fingerprints on papers without being allowed to read the document. A teenager from Douma detained for two days by the mukhabarat -- he was blindfolded and so did not know which security branch -- told Human Rights Watch: I asked, "What is this paper?" and one of the security men grabbed my head, and pushed my mouth open, and the other one squeezed my tongue with something that felt like pliers and started pulling it. And when I refused to sign it, one of the interrogators took a hammer and started pounding on my toes. In the cell, they also beat me on the face with their Kalashnikovs [AK-47 assault rifles].
Another detainee, a non-Syrian Arab, told Human Rights Watch that he signed and put his fingerprints on a piece of paper after each day of interrogation: "I never saw what I signed," he said. "My eyes were blindfolded. And I was afraid so I did not even dare ask read it." A Western detainee recalled that the security services made him sign two pieces of paper but would not let him read them.

Syria's security services have also arbitrarily arrested and tortured activists, writers, and journalists who have reported on or expressed support for the anti-government protests, detaining at least seven local and international journalists since protests began on March 16.
A Syrian writer described how security services "kidnapped" him off the street in Damascus after he spoke about Syrian protests and the government response in the media. "I saw a white unmarked van on the street, and when I came directly beside it, the sliding door opened and three big men grabbed me," he told Human Rights Watch. "They did not say anything to me, just grabbed me." On the way to what he later learned was a State Security building, his captors beat and kicked him. During interrogation they also beat him: "They brought a whip and started to beat my shoulders, legs and arms. They were cursing me and accusing me of things."

A non-Syrian Arab journalist told Human Rights Watch that he was beaten during interrogation.
State Security also arrested one of the lawyers who represented the protesters detained at the March 16 demonstration calling for the release of political activists. He spent a week at the State Security detention facility in Damascus, where the security personnel on several occasions beat, threatened, and humiliated him. He spent most of his time handcuffed and hooded. Before being transferred into a cell, he was held for four days in an unheated corridor, apparently because the cells were jammed. The lawyer said that throughout his detention he heard sounds of beatings and screams of other detainees.

All former detainees interviewed by Human Rights Watch described appalling detention conditions, with grossly overcrowded cells where at times detainees could only sleep in turns and suffered various forms of humiliation and verbal abuse. One person detained at State Security in Damascus said he shared a 30-square meter cell with about 75 other people.

The Game Played by Michelle Obama

Okay, it's official that Barack Hussein Obama is running for re-election in 2012. And with that announcement, of course, comes a new campaign strategy and endless planning to ensure that a President who hasn't enjoyed much success so far is safe for his 2nd bid. The Obama strategists are smart. They realize that this time around Obama won't be given some of the free passes that were handed out in 2007 and 2008. They also know that Michelle Obama, who during the first campaign, was a relative unknown has become a political figure in this country - she has waded into policy and commented on what direction the country should take. This time around, Michelle Obama is fair game.

So, here's the game that Michelle Obama is up to. Like her husband has tried to move to the center politically from his far left persuasion in order to try and retain many votes in the middle, Michelle Obama has decided to move from her anti-American resentments to a more "patriotic" image. Perhaps you have seen Mrs. Obama's initiatives in supporting families of American troops - this all coming from the wife of a U.S. President who has even more disdain for the American military than Bill Clinton.

But, the other day on ABC's The View, Mrs. Obama took the cake. We saw the game unfolded before our eyes. We saw this woman who has a chip on her shoulder for America larger than the country itself try her best to come across as Betsy Ross. Here's what she said on the program, from Real Clear Politics:

"What we have to do in this country is remember who we are and that's the reason why I like to travel and to get out because, look no matter what people say, when they see you.. They're excited and they're proud and you know, everybody, everybody has their detractors and that's part of what the political process is all about," First Lady Michelle Obama said on ABC's "The View" today.

"I want to embrace the country that I love. The country that I know is positive and fair and there’s so much of that out there, that’s it very easy to kind of push the other stuff aside and not take it in. It's easier than you'd imagine," Michelle Obama said.

Now, with that being said by the First Lady in front of a nationwide audience, let's back up a few years and see what she said about the country that she "loves." From ABC News Blog:

Speaking in Milwaukee, Wisconsin today, would-be First Lady Michelle Obama said, "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

Then in Madison, she said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

I don't know...do YOU see a bit of a change in the way she feels there? Let me ask you this...do you REALLY think Michelle Obama has suddenly decided to embrace a country that she was not proud of just 3 short years ago?

Let's get one more reminder here of what Michelle Obama had to say that fateful day:




You know, it's enough that we have to put up with insincere, game-playing and lying politicians but when their spouses join right in, it's hard to swallow.

You'll recall in the campaign for the Presidency in 2008, there was one time that Barack Hussein Obama lost his cool. He showed his anger very clearly...he revealed his thin skin for the first time and that was when he was asked questions about what his wife said about being proud of her country for the first time. He lashed out and demanded that families be "off limits." Of course the press backed down like they had been found with a KKK sheet in their closet. Well, as we saw Mrs. Obama eating up our tax dollars on her extravagant vacations as First Lady and saw her lecturing us on issues like what we should be allowed to eat in this country....she went from "the protected" to fair game.

Believe me on one point, you will see the game play out fully with Michelle Obama. By the time of the next election we should see her on stage wrapped in an American flag cheering on the Founding Fathers. You gonna believe her?

Obama's Libyan Operation Showcases His Incompetence In Leadership

It would take me 20 some pages to go through President Obama's lame excuses for sending U.S. military forces into the Libyan conflict but the fact of the matter is this at the moment - Barack Hussein Obama approved military action in Libya, then he got up in front of the American people and made his case for that decision...depicting a hopeless scenario for the Libyan people against Moammar Ghadaffi and then....well, as Obama does on every other issue in his Presidency, he walked away. And today, the fighting in Libya continues to go the way of Ghadaffi....and the President of the United States apparently didn't mean a word of trying to protect the Libyan people.

Look at this from the latest report from Libya at DAWN:

Regime forces bombarded rebels west of Ajdabiya, forcing hundreds of residents and some fighters to flee the key crossroads town, as a refugee rescue operation in the besieged city of Misrata loomed.

The intense pounding of Ajdabiya Sunday came a day after at least eight people were killed and 27 wounded as the forces loyal to Libyan strongman Muammar Qadhafi fired rockets at rebel positions there, hospital officials said.

“Qadhafi’s forces approached the city, they bombed the western gate. The sound of the guns are coming closer, that’s why many are leaving,” said Omar Salim Mufta, a 27-year-old resident rebel supporter who has not taken up arms.

Another civilian, 48-year-old Milud Ghait, appealed for Nato to launch air strikes on the area as about a dozen pickup trucks carrying rebel fighters left the eastern town.

“Qadhafi’s forces are on the western outskirts of Ajdabiya, but Nato is doing nothing. Where is Nato? What are the French, British and Americans doing?” he asked.

Now, in case you have forgotten about how heartfelt Obama was about saving the Libyan people...I'll remind you what he said about the plight of those people. From Obama's speech:

In the face of the world’s condemnation, Qaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misurata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.

So, have you heard the President utter a peep about Libya since that speech on March 28th other than NATO was taking the lead? Have you heard the Commander-in-chief utter any concern about how the operation is going? Did he even MAKE the speech?

Let's face it - Barack Hussein Obama has never followed through on anything in his life. To put it bluntly, Barack Hussein Obama is a quitter. And as the saying goes, "Winners never quit and quitters never win." Barack Hussein Obama quit his career as an attorney, he quit his career as an educator, he quit his state senate career after becoming bored and after only a few years in the U.S. Senate where he showed up late for most of his meetings and voted "Present" he decided to quit that gig and move on. As President, this man quit on his healthcare initiative and let Nancy Pelosi do the heavy lifting...he quit on his goals of closing Gitmo and his claims to withdraw all troops from Iraq. He has quit on just about every one of his initiatives other than to lower his golf handicap by the time he leaves office.

Qadhafi forces pound Ajdabiya and Misrata


AJDABIYA: Regime forces bombarded rebels west of Ajdabiya, forcing hundreds of residents and some fighters to flee the key crossroads town, as a refugee rescue operation in the besieged city of Misrata loomed.

The intense pounding of Ajdabiya Sunday came a day after at least eight people were killed and 27 wounded as the forces loyal to Libyan strongman Muammar Qadhafi fired rockets at rebel positions there, hospital officials said.

“Qadhafi’s forces approached the city, they bombed the western gate. The sound of the guns are coming closer, that’s why many are leaving,” said Omar Salim Mufta, a 27-year-old resident rebel supporter who has not taken up arms.

Another civilian, 48-year-old Milud Ghait, appealed for Nato to launch air strikes on the area as about a dozen pickup trucks carrying rebel fighters left the eastern town.

“Qadhafi’s forces are on the western outskirts of Ajdabiya, but Nato is doing nothing. Where is Nato? What are the French, British and Americans doing?” he asked.

Also Sunday, government spokesman Musa Ibrahim claimed al Qaeda is involved in the uprising.

“We believe it’s very dangerous if these people establish themselves in this country, have control of its future, its immense wealth a footstep from Europe,” Ibrahim said.

On the political front, Britain insisted that it would not send ground forces into Libya.

“What we’ve said is there is no question of an invasion or an occupation, this is not about Britain putting boots on the ground, this is not what we are about here,” Prime Minister David Cameron told Sky News.

He stressed international forces would not go beyond the terms set by UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorises all necessary means to protect civilians in Libya but rules out a foreign occupation force.

It was not immediately clear if there were casualties from Sunday’s loyalist bombardment of Ajdabiya.

“They are about 20 kilometres away. They are firing at us with Grad rockets,” said Kemal Abdel Mohammed Abdel, 24, a rebel returning from the front.

The ragtag rebel fighters had previously appeared set to move on Brega, 80 kilometres west of Ajdabiya, with some correspondents reporting they were on the outskirts of the strategic oil town.

In the besieged western bastion of Misrata, a chartered Greek ferry arrived off the port as part of an international refugee rescue operation.

“This ship contains 500 tonnes of humanitarian aid, both medical and food, four ambulances and three doctors who are to replace colleagues,” said Jeremy Haslam, IOM operations leader on board.

The IOM was hoping to take on 1,000-plus refugees packed around the port.

“We hope to target the most vulnerable, West Africans, mostly from Chad and Niger, who are the least looked after by the local population,” Haslam said.

The IOM has identified some 10,000 non-Libyan refugees waiting to leave and who are camping out around Misrata without adequate shelter, clean water or food and no medical care.

That breaks down as 3,000-plus from Egypt, 3,000-plus from Niger, 1,000-plus from Chad, 1,000-plus from Ghana, 800 from Sudan and 75 from Bangladesh.

“This is the humanitarian priority in Libya, the fact that it keeps being shelled is grave,” Haslam said of Misrata.

A source at the city’s Hikma hospital gave the latest toll for that facility alone on Sunday as 16 dead and 71 wounded, with many casualties being brought in late in the day.

Gunfire was reported close to the hospital, and tracer fire was seen in the night sky over the city centre.

Earlier, rebels said they mounted successful raids on Qadhafi’s troops in the city.

Smoke billowed over central Misrata, which a witness said was from a destroyed regime tank, as the rebels claimed to have taken out several pro-Qadhafi snipers along the port’s main avenue, Tripoli Street.

Wailing mourners gathered outside the Hikma hospital as another victim of the fighting was brought in, doctors and mourners carrying the coffin of a man fatally wounded in the fierce fighting that has torn through the town.

As the body was loaded into the back of a pick-up truck and driven away to be buried, gunshots crackled in the air.

The sound of Nato jets could be heard overhead throughout the afternoon as gun battles raged in various districts.

The triage tent outside the hospital had seen a steady stream of victims, including a young boy receiving stitches to his head. Beside him, medics treated a man who had been hit in the head with shrapnel.

In the west, a witness reported that the insurgents hold the road from Zintan to the border with Tunisia, despite efforts by Qadhafi forces to cut the lines of communication of rebel-held towns in the area.

Loyalists were bombarding the area around the town of Nalut, 230 kilometres southwest of Tripoli and a few dozen kilometres from the border, the witness said.

Another Signal That Hillary Clinton Is Ready To Run Against Barack Hussein Obama

There has been speculation every since Barack Hussein Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primaries that Hillary would be back in the Presidential race business...sooner or later and over the past two years, people have looked for signs that Clinton would oppose Obama in the primaries for 2012.

Well, today, Hillary Clinton didn't do much to quell rumors she might seek the nomination instead of the incumbent who is seeing some rocky times, as she seemed to take a very opposite view to Obama on withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

From the report at DAWN:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday backed away from a US timeline to start pulling troops from Afghanistan in July, warning “political expediency” would benefit the Taliban.

Speaking at a NATO foreign ministers meeting in Berlin, Clinton also warned of a “violent spring fighting season” in Afghanistan as the Taliban try to exert themselves in areas where Afghan forces are due to assume control.

“We have to steel ourselves and our publics for the possibility that the Taliban will resort to the most destructive and sensational attacks we have seen,” she said.

Clinton hailed the “heroic sacrifices” by nations in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and insisted there has been progress in fighting the insurgents.

Personally, I think this is the most clear signal yet that Hillary Clinton is getting ready to run against Obama next year - she is smart enough to know that the entire American country is laughing at Obama as Commander-in-chief and in this speech, Hillary is sounding more "commanderish" than Obama has since day one.

At the same time, Hillary was behind the U.S. taking action in Libya...she saw how easily she could sway this U.S. President.

So, can you imagine how Obama is feeling right now as his Secretary of State has stood up and pointed to the incredible progress our troops have made in fighting the Taliban?

Hillary said she is going to leave the Secretary of State role probably within six months....hmmm...that leaves her with about a year before what? Lemme see....(thinking)...oh yeah, the Presidential Election of 2012. Coincidence?

Clinton warns against hasty Afghan withdrawal


BERLIN: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday backed away from a US timeline to start pulling troops from Afghanistan in July, warning “political expediency” would benefit the Taliban.

Speaking at a NATO foreign ministers meeting in Berlin, Clinton also warned of a “violent spring fighting season” in Afghanistan as the Taliban try to exert themselves in areas where Afghan forces are due to assume control.

“We have to steel ourselves and our publics for the possibility that the Taliban will resort to the most destructive and sensational attacks we have seen,” she said.

Clinton hailed the “heroic sacrifices” by nations in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and insisted there has been progress in fighting the insurgents.

“We need to ensure that these sacrifices are not overtaken by political expediency and short-term thinking,” Clinton told the NATO meeting in Berlin.

“We need to worry less about how fast we can leave and more about how we can help the Afghan people build on the gains of the past 15 months,” she said.

President Barack Obama has tripled US troops in Afghanistan to 100,000 since taking office in 2009 but had promised to begin a drawdown in July. The nearly 10-year-old war has become unpopular in the United States and allied nations.

Clinton said that Afghanistan was seeing real, but reversible, progress and pointed to President Hamid Karzai’s March announcement that Afghan forces would assume security in key areas including the southern province of Helmand.

“For the transition to be sustainable and irreversible, and for reconciliation and diplomacy to bear fruit, we must sustain our efforts,”Clinton said, according to her prepared remarks.“We need to underscore that we are transitioning, not leaving,” she said.

Despite public opposition, Obama’s Republican political foes have attacked him over the July deadline, saying it would the wrong signal to the Taliban and discourage neighbouring Pakistan from acting against insurgents.

The Obama administration has gradually de-emphasised the timeframe, instead saying that most US forces would leave in 2014 — the date set by last year’s NATO summit for putting Afghans in charge of their own country’s security.

Clinton appeared to de-emphasise that date as well, saying that the United States was committed to “building an enduring partnership with Afghanistan that will last well beyond 2014.” “The Taliban need to know that they cannot wait us out,” Clinton said.

Critics of the war, including lawmakers in Obama’s Democratic Party, scoff at assessments of progress, pointing out that last year was the deadliest in Afghanistan for both Afghan civilians and the US military.

Support for the Afghanistan war, launched in pursuit of Al-Qaeda after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, has also dwindled among US allies.

But Clinton renewed a US call for NATO nations to drum up $1 billion to help sustain the Afghan National Army.

While keeping up the military effort, the the Obama administration has also embraced efforts for reconciliation in Afghanistan, concluding that there is ultimately no political solution to the conflict.

Clinton’s robust call on Afghanistan came at a NATO meeting dominated by Libya, where France and Britain have taken the lead and sought greater support from NATO allies.

How Is Obama's New War Cabinet Going To Look?

I found this article at Family Security Matters to be fascinating with all of the reported upcoming changes in personnel regarding the defense of our country - fascinating because of the intricacies and personalities and how each fits into Obama's schemes and favor. There aren't too many that would dispute that the first two years of Barack Hussein Obama's foreign policy has been apocalyptic and now we find him in a situation where if he makes more bad decisions, it could actually get WORSE.

From the article:

Gates is retiring “soon,” sometime “this summer.” So that’s one open slot. And Mullen, the current chairman of the JCS is term-limited and must leave in September. So that makes two. If you believe the Washington insiders, you will bet that Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, will move to the Pentagon, that General David Petraeus, the current commander of the Afghanistan war effort, will replace Panetta in Langley, and that General “Hoss” Cartright, Mullen’s deputy at the moment, will move up one rung.

ndeed, one of the insiders’ favorite subplots is that Obama fears Petraeus as a political rival, whether within the system or as a Republican presidential candidate next year. If he were at JCS, the general would have a very visible podium, but if he were at CIA he’d have to be quiet. So it would make political sense for the president to send Petraeus to Langley and reward his buddy Cartright with the chairman’s seat at JCS. Furthermore, the loyal Panetta would ensure that the chiefs sing from the Obama hymnal.

If you were Petraeus, what would you do? I can’t answer that question, since I don’t know if he wants to run for public office. He’s certainly a very political animal, and a master of public relations. Does he fancy a run for the White House or some other such job? If so, he’d be ill-advised to go to the CIA, where Panetta has done a splendid job protecting Obama’s back from the sort of murderous assaults that the spooks unleashed against W. He hasn’t turned the Agency into a first-class organization, but I don’t think anyone can do that.

Like the article has stated, Obama faces a real challenge with what Obama does with Petraeus - I'm not all that sure that Petraeus is actually eyeing a run on the White House but at the same time, it is pretty apparent that Obama fears this man. You might ask why Obama then put him in charge of Afghanistan...well, it's my opinion that Obama had no choice - he had a general go rogue in McChrystal and needed some sort of stability quickly in Afghanistan ...Obama simply couldn't afford any more attention to the War in Afghanistan at the time, so he swallowed his pride and fears and inserted Petraeus.

At the same time, I think some of these men named in the article are going to be very careful with their decisions - it's my feeling that Obama will fall and fall hard. It might not happen in the next two years but it will happen and none of these men want to have a close connection to this man at that time.

The New, Improved War Cabinet


The president is going to have to make some policy decisions pretty soon. About foreign and national security policy. They will take the form of personnel changes at the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Department of Defense, but since personnel = policy, the new (or reshuffled) lineup will perhaps tell us if Mr. Obama has actually learned anything about the way the world works and America’s role in it.

Since his public statements can be used to prove most anything you wish — he’s been on virtually all sides of many crucial issues — the personnel moves will likely be enlightening, or at least helpful to those trying to figure him out.

Gates is retiring “soon,” sometime “this summer.” So that’s one open slot. And Mullen, the current chairman of the JCS is term-limited and must leave in September. So that makes two. If you believe the Washington insiders, you will bet that Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, will move to the Pentagon, that General David Petraeus, the current commander of the Afghanistan war effort, will replace Panetta in Langley, and that General “Hoss” Cartright, Mullen’s deputy at the moment, will move up one rung.

The Cartright move is the least likely, in part because there is considerable opposition within the top military ranks. Moreover, the JCS job is apparently Petraeus’s for the asking. He’s certainly qualified, and although, Washington being what it is and human nature being what IT is, there are those who are less than unqualified admirers, no one will mount a campaign against him. As against that, Petraeus doesn’t have a warm cuddly relationship with the president and with Thomas Donilon, the powerful national security adviser, while Cartright apparently does.

Indeed, one of the insiders’ favorite subplots is that Obama fears Petraeus as a political rival, whether within the system or as a Republican presidential candidate next year. If he were at JCS, the general would have a very visible podium, but if he were at CIA he’d have to be quiet. So it would make political sense for the president to send Petraeus to Langley and reward his buddy Cartright with the chairman’s seat at JCS. Furthermore, the loyal Panetta would ensure that the chiefs sing from the Obama hymnal.

If you were Petraeus, what would you do? I can’t answer that question, since I don’t know if he wants to run for public office. He’s certainly a very political animal, and a master of public relations. Does he fancy a run for the White House or some other such job? If so, he’d be ill-advised to go to the CIA, where Panetta has done a splendid job protecting Obama’s back from the sort of murderous assaults that the spooks unleashed against W. He hasn’t turned the Agency into a first-class organization, but I don’t think anyone can do that. You can find folks close to Petraeus who believe that he might make the CIA much better, and that he might take the job because it’s so important for the future of the country. If true, and if he goes to Langley, I would expect Petraeus to have a very difficult and unpleasant tenure. Those guys might not know what they’re supposed to about Iran, Syria and Libya, but they know a great deal about Washington, and they have lots of willing co-conspirators in the media.

How would Panetta do at DoD? He’s very close to Obama — which would give him at least as much leverage over policy as the cautious Gates has had — but he doesn’t seem to be a particularly vigorous policy advocate. So what would the leverage be used for? The most likely answer is that it would be used in reverse, in a campaign to cut the defense budget and weaken the services. Good for Obama, bad for the country, you might say. But he’s the president, and he’s going to head in that direction, and I would expect him to want “his guy” to manage it.

If Petraeus, acting out of character, says it’s either JCS or he’ll consider his options as a private citizen, Obama might have to find a different CIA director, and he’d likely want someone in the Panetta mold: a loyal pol. And that’s easy, those people are all over Washington, and lots of them would love to be head of CIA, even in its diminished status under the thumb of the director of national intelligence.

What does all this tell us about policy? What we knew in the first place: that there isn’t anything approaching a coherent policy in this administration, and so Obama is likely to look for a War Cabinet whose members will do his bidding, whatever that might be. There’s not a single name on the list that is associated with a definable global vision, even if you expand the list to include the likes of Senator Reed, or General Odierno. It’s all about himself, about his reelection campaign, and thus about tactical decisions with no strategic goals aside from looking cool.

Yes, they are “talented men.” They do their jobs well. But we’re at war and Obama isn’t very comfortable around warriors. Which is why he seemingly wants Petraeus in internal exile. I don’t know if he’s right about that, it’s what comes out of this little world inside the Beltway, and most of the time that stuff is wrong.

So we’ll get a bit of change, but it doesn’t look like we’re going to get reason for hope that we’re going to take the war seriously.

Citing America's Violence, Torture and Racism, China Tells the U.S. To Shut Its Yapper About Human Rights

Apparently, the People's Republic of China has had just about enough of the pot calling the kettle black so they have requested that America stop pointing any fingers at them regarding human rights.

From the story over at Reuters via Breitbart:

The United States is beset by violence, racism and torture and has no authority to condemn other governments' human rights problems, China said on Sunday, countering U.S. criticism of Beijing's crackdown.

The row between Beijing and Washington over human rights has intensified since China's ruling Communist Party extended its clampdown on dissidents and rights activists, a move which has sparked an outcry from Washington and other Western governments.

Chinese artist Ai Weiwei is the most prominent of the activists to be detained by police or held in secretive custody in the latest crackdown.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday she was "deeply concerned" about it, and cited "negative trends" including Ai's detention.

You know, you'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not notice how the entire world had caught onto the fact that Barack Hussein Obama has set up America to be the whipping post for the entire world right now. I remember a day when many countries would think twice about pissing off America - either they feared a sort of isolation economically or they feared a cut in their foreign aid or they even feared some sort of military action but not now, not with the Great Apologist at the helm of this country. No, now it's the international sport of using America as a punching bag and knowing damn well that they can get away with it.

To think that China would seriously make a claim of racism and violence and torture in the United States as a reason why the atrocities going on in that country should be ignored is almost laughable.

But you know, I guess if the Chinese are watching certain video clips of America...you know, like clips of Obama's pastor saying that G_d damns America....or Obama's friend having bombed the Pentagon in his past.....well, perhaps that is where they get these crazy notions.

We have China calling us "racist", we have the likes of Iran calling us "The Great Satan", we have Venezuela taunting us at every turn and we even have a Mexican president standing on our soil degrading our country and we wonder what in the world happened? Remember the claim that electing Barack Hussein Obama to the White House post would make all of the world like America again? Well, I guess the strategy of Obama to make America out as the bad guy in all of the world's problems has backfired....you see, none of the world's leaders have taken in those apologies and said "boy, America is really humble now, we like them"....ummm...no...they have said "the once great America is now a sniveling, weak-kneed coward so let's take this chance to pummel the shit out of them."

China tells U.S. to quit as human rights judge


(Reuters) - The United States is beset by violence, racism and torture and has no authority to condemn other governments' human rights problems, China said on Sunday, countering U.S. criticism of Beijing's crackdown.

The row between Beijing and Washington over human rights has intensified since China's ruling Communist Party extended its clampdown on dissidents and rights activists, a move which has sparked an outcry from Washington and other Western governments.

Chinese artist Ai Weiwei is the most prominent of the activists to be detained by police or held in secretive custody in the latest crackdown.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday she was "deeply concerned" about it, and cited "negative trends" including Ai's detention.

A U.S. State Department report on global human rights released on Friday said Beijing had stepped up restrictions on lawyers, activists, bloggers and journalists, and tightened controls on civil society.

It has also increased its efforts to control the press, Internet and Internet access, the report said.

But China has shown no sign of bowing to foreign pressure.

Its Foreign Ministry on Saturday dismissed the U.S. report as meddling, and its own annual report about U.S. human rights stressed Beijing's dismissive view.

"Stop the domineering behavior of exploiting human rights to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries," it said, according to excerpts published by the official Xinhua news agency.

"The United States ignores its own severe human rights problems, ardently promoting its so-called 'human rights diplomacy', treating human rights as a political tool to vilify other countries and to advance its own strategic interests," said a passage from the Chinese report

Produced by the State Council Information Office, the government's public relations arm, the report dwelled on what it said were severe deprivations and threats facing many Americans, as well as Washington's invasion of Iraq.

It also cited the United States' refusal to ratify a number of international human rights pacts, and listed poverty, hunger and homelessness as stains on the country's rights record.

"The United States is the world's worst country for violent crimes," said the report. "Citizens' lives, property and personal safety do not receive the protection they should."

"Racial discrimination is deeply rooted in the United States, permeating every aspect of social life," it said.

Criticism of China's human rights problems do not come just from foreign governments and groups.

Chinese rights lawyers and advocates have also been dismayed by a recent burst of arrests, detentions and heavy sentences against dissidents and activists.

On Sunday, hundreds of Chinese police moved to prevent a planned outdoor service by a church in Beijing that had been evicted from its former premises.

Poor Barack Hussein Obama...Every Time He Wants To Focus On Jobs, Something In the World Distracts Him!

So I'm sitting here this morning and unfortunately for my blood pressure, I have NBC's "Meet The Press" on and I notice they are having a bit of a round table discussion going so I decided to watch for a few minutes.

Well, the conversation turned towards the bloody mess in Libya and the Middle East in whole and in disbelief, I hear one of the panelists, namely Helene Cooper of the New York Times offer up this heartfelt frustration that poor President Barack Obama, whenever he really wants to focus on the issue of creating jobs in America, is confronted with all of these pesky and troublesome foreign policy matters that crop up like Libya.

Yeah, you read that right. I cannot quote Ms. Cooper as I didn't have a chance to write it down at the time but that paraphrasing is real close. Hopefully there will be a YouTube up later or the transcript from the show, but doesn't this just show a perfect example of the cheerleading for this President so apparent from the media?

You know, Ms. Cooper, being President of the United States of America is actually more difficult than being a community organizer on the south side of Chicago. I hate to break that to you. Now, I'm sure Barack Hussein Obama had some real distractions at his community organizing meetings such as running out of doughnuts or perhaps one of the audience becoming too vocal but you know, as President, sometimes you have to deal with world conflict and also, there are times when you actually have to deal with what we call "enemies."

This show this morning paints the picture perfectly - we have a liberal media that is frankly pissed off at the whole world for not cooperating with the agenda to keep Barack Hussein Obama in power. Perhaps Ms. Cooper should write a scathing article about Moammar Ghaddafi and his insensitivity towards the future of our American President. Perhaps the title could be: "Will All of You World Leaders PLEASE Just Fall In Line For Six Months So President Obama Can Try and Do His Job?!!"

Will the Obama Administration Buy Into the "Throw Israel Under the Bus" Pitch?

From all sides, Israel is being set up for a major fall....of this I am convinced. And it is going to be different this time. Different from all of the times before because of one major difference...the fact that the United States will NOT be there to stand with Israel against her enemies.

Let me ask you a simple question and it's up to you to answer it immediately...don't hesitate, just answer it: If Israel is attacked, severely attacked, by a coordinated effort of Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Egypt, will Barack Hussein Obama authorize U.S. military defense of Israel?

See? I'm guessing you hesitated. Think about that for a minute - before this man became President of the United States of America, would you have hesitated one second in answering that question? Of course not.

Well, this article at Family Security Matters deals with the latest scenario in the Middle East where Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is trying to offer up the U.S. and out for all of its past transgressions against Muslims in the Middle East...simply by the U.S. throwing Israel under the bus and walking away from that alliance.

From the article:

"In Palestine, we have people being killed, who are being subject to bombings, whose houses are being destroyed, whose farms are being destroyed, ... 11,000 detainees. In Jerusalem-Al Quds, the Islamic and Christian sancitities are under attack. Despite this, the Americans defend the killer, they defend the criminal, they defend the attacker, the aggressor, they defend those who are bombing the civilian houses in Gaza from the air, bombing [the farms] in Gaza.

As long as the American policy toward Palestine is this way, continues, any American talk about a credible approach towards defending the rights of the people of Egypt, of Libya or Yemen Bahrain or anywhere else is a lie. Any such talk is a lie.

You see, Hezbollah's Nasrallah is a clever man. He knows that Barack Hussein Obama is floundering in trying to handle the whole powderkeg that has erupted across northern Africa and the Middle East and in time, Obama will be seeking support from all over for his errors in judgement. Nasrallah is basically saying to Obama that if he denies the alliance with Israel, then Obama's efforts will be supported and lauded.

Of course, since Barack Hussein Obama is clearly the most intelligent President the United States has ever had (right? hahaha), he would never fall for the snake oil pitch from some terrorist leader in Lebanon. Ummm.....he wouldn't, would he?

Hezbollah Snakeoil: Will the Obama Administration Buy It?


The US ambassador to the UN and the commander of NATO can fight over "flickers" of al Qaeda and Hezbollah among the Libyan rebels, but it's clearly indisputable that enemy Hezbollah leader Nasrallah (along with al Qaeda's Abu Yahya al-Libi and MB's Qaradawi as noted here) is firmly in their camp. Which means "our" camp. This is clear from an hour-plus address the Iranian puppet and terror-master gave earlier this month in Beirut.

But there's more to it than that.

I listened to about 20 minutes. After Nasrallah insists neither al Qaeda nor Iran (hah) nor, for that matter, the United States, have had anything to do with unrest in the Middle East, I heard his chilling iteration of the "R2P" driver I've been working through and writing about lately: Israel as the Umma's pricetag to "reconsider the US stance." (Nasrallah's phrase.) What's chilling is that this combination devil's-fool's bargain is one our Intelligentsia (many with big jobs in the Obama administration) seem all too eager to make, despite its immorality, strategic senselessness and sheer ignorance -- as though feeding the jihad beast will make it anything but more rapacious.

Like a snakeoil salesman at the fair, Nasrallah makes his pitch: No amount of US solicitude for the human rights of Muslims will be regarded as genuine until the United States abandons our best ally Israel. Does he have any takers? I can just hear Samantha Power presenting this "opposition" argument out of "humanitarian" concern at the next National Security Council meeting.

Nasrallah, meanwhile, remains quite suspicious of the Great Satan. These suspicions about American intentions are rooted in his naive notion that the United States under the Obama administration is pursuing, or even concerned with "American" interests. But his main point is this:

Nasrallah says:

Any American talk about protecting the people of our region, or respecting the legitimate rights of the people, the civil rights ... has no credibilty whatsoever because of the permanent American policy toward the Palestinian people, who are always suffering oppression. ...

If you take a look at the tape, notice the large audience of what appears to be all men, rows of mullahs but mostly "civilians," and consider the impact on the human brain of relentless, 24/7 anti-Israel propaganda, which is like air to these people. Here's a noxious Nasrallah sample:

"In Palestine, we have people being killed, who are being subject to bombings, whose houses are being destroyed, whose farms are being destroyed, ... 11,000 detainees. In Jerusalem-Al Quds, the Islamic and Christian sancitities are under attack. Despite this, the Americans defend the killer, they defend the criminal, they defend the attacker, the aggressor, they defend those who are bombing the civilian houses in Gaza from the air, bombing [the farms] in Gaza.

As long as the American policy toward Palestine is this way, continues, any American talk about a credible approach towards defending the rights of the people of Egypt, of Libya or Yemen Bahrain or anywhere else is a lie. Any such talk is a lie.

He goes on to discuss the US's supposed ulterior motives, all related, he says, to promoting "America's Project" -- Israel -- in the Middle East. (Boy, is he out of date. It's as if all of Obama's trashing of Israel has been for naught.) Maybe the US wants to improve its image, the Hezbo-honcho says, and "guarantee suitable alternative regimes for the American Project," and ensure oil remains in "loyal, nationalistic hands." Then back he goes to his vicious trope. Doesn't matter that Obama's is a different administration:

The Arabs must always focus on Palestine. As long as this administration supports Israel -- [Israel's] destruction, its crushing of the Palestinian people and its aggressions against the people of the region -- it is lying when it speaks about anything regarding human rights in this region.

We can reconsider our stance toward the American position when we find a fundamental change in American policies toward Palestine and towards what is going [on] in Palsestine and against their people.

Only then can we reconsider the American stance.

So we must be weary of the American policies and the American game which is being played on trying to take advantage of these revolutions, trying to take advantage of the blood of its martyrs, and the attempts to falsify the real path of these popular uprisings ....

Now What President Obama? Ghaddafi's Kicking Ass In Libya

Libyan rebels sound the retreat

Isn't this typical of the Obama reign of incompetence in America? Just two days after President Barack Hussein Obama speaks to our entire nation about how critical it was in his view to stand up to Moammar Ghaddafi and see that there is a change in power in Libya, the entire situation of military control in that country has now flip flopped back in the favor of Ghaddafi's government-backed military. The "rebels" are quite simply getting their ass kicked.

So now what do you do, Mr. President? You just told us all how critical this mission is but you promised to keep it at a distance - are you willing to let the mission be a failure? Or are you going to invest MORE into the operation?

I know, I know Mr. President...being President is a lot different than being a community organizer.

Here's the latest update on Ghaddafi's surge from Breitbart.

Gadhafi's forces adapt to airstrikes, pound rebels


AJDABIYA, Libya (AP) - Moammar Gadhafi's ground forces recaptured a strategic oil town Wednesday and moved within striking distance of another major eastern city, nearly reversing the gains rebels made since international airstrikes began. Rebels pleaded for more help, while a U.S. official said government forces are making themselves harder to target by using civilian "battle wagons" with makeshift armaments instead of tanks.

Western powers kept up the pressure to force Gadhafi out with new airstrikes in other parts of Libya, hints that they may arm the opposition and intense negotiations behind the scenes to find a country to give haven to Libya's leader of more than 40 years.

Airstrikes have neutralized Gadhafi's air force and pounded his army, but his ground forces remain far better armed, trained and organized than the opposition.

The shift in momentum back to the government's side comes as NATO is in the process of taking over control of the airstrikes, which began as a U.S.-led operation. Diplomats said they have given approval for the commander of the NATO operation, Canadian Gen. Charles Bouchard, to announce a handover on Thursday.

Gadhafi's forces also have adopted a new tactic in light of the pounding airstrikes have given their tanks and armored vehicles, a senior U.S. intelligence official said. They've left those weapons behind in favor of a "gaggle" of "battle wagons": minivans, sedans and SUVs fitted with weapons, said the official, who spoke anonymously in order to discuss sensitive U.S. intelligence on the condition and capabilities of rebel and regime forces.

The change not only makes it harder to distinguish Gadhafi's forces from the rebels, it also requires less logistical support, the official said.

The official said airstrikes have degraded Gadhafi's forces since they were launched March 19, but the regime forces still outmatch those of the opposition "by far," and few members of Gadhafi's military have defected lately.

The disparity was obvious as government forces pushed back rebels about 100 miles (160 kilometers) in just two days. The rebels had been closing in on the strategic city of Sirte, Gadhafi's hometown and a bastion of support for the longtime leader, but under heavy shelling they retreated from Bin Jawwad on Tuesday and from the oil port of Ras Lanouf on Wednesday.

Gadhafi's forces were shelling Brega, another important oil city east of Ras Lanouf. East of the city in Ajdabiya, where many rebels had regrouped, Col. Abdullah Hadi said he expected the loyalists to enter Brega by Wednesday night.

"I ask NATO for just one aircraft to push them back. All we need is air cover and we could do this. They should be helping us," Hadi said.

Gadhafi's forces also have laid land mines in the eastern outskirts of Adjabiya, an area they held from March 17 until Saturday, when airstrikes drove them west, according to Human Rights Watch.

The New York-based group cited the electricity director for eastern Libya, Abdal Minam al-Shanti, who said two anti-personnel mines detonated when a truck ran over them, but no one was hurt. Al-Shanti said a civil defense team found and disarmed more than 50 mines in what Human Rights Watch described as a heavily traveled area.

NATO planes flew over the zone where the heaviest fighting was under way earlier Wednesday and an Associated Press reporter at the scene heard explosions, but it was unclear whether any airstrikes hit the area. U.S. Marine Corps Capt. Clint Gebke, a spokesman for the NATO operation aboard the USS Mount Whitney, said he could not confirm any specific strikes but Western aircraft were engaging pro-Gadhafi forces in areas including Sirte and Misrata, the rebels' last significant holdout in western Libya.

The retreat Wednesday looked like a mad scramble: Pickup trucks, with mattresses and boxes tied on, driving east at 100 mph (160 kilometers per hour).

And as the fighting approached Ajdabiya, residents there made an exodus of their own. The road to Benghazi was packed with vehicles, most of them full of families and their belongings. Streets on the western side of Ajdabiya were deserted and silent.

Rebel military spokesman Col. Ahmed Bani said the rebels had made a "tactical retreat" to Ajdabiya and will set up defensive positions there. "Even with courage and determination, the forces need power to be able to fight back," he said.

Bani said he heard from three sources, including one in Chad, that 3,200 to 3,600 heavily armed members of the Chadian presidential guard were marching from Sirte toward Ajdabiya. The report could not be independently confirmed.

As Gadhafi's forces push rebels toward their de-facto capital Benghazi, some 140 miles (220 kilometers) northeast of Brega, pressure is growing for NATO members and other supporters of the air campaign to do more.

Prime Minister David Cameron said Britain believes a legal loophole could allow nations to supply weapons to Libya's rebels—but stressed the U.K. has not decided whether it will offer assistance to the rebels.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that Washington also believes it would be legal to give the rebels weapons. Asked whether the U.S. would do so, President Barack Obama told NBC, "I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also not ruling it in."

NATO officials and diplomats said the alliance had not considered arming the rebels. Any alliance involvement would require support from all 28 members, a difficult task, and an alliance official who could not be named under standing regulations said NATO "wouldn't even consider doing anything else" without a new U.N. resolution.

China, Russia and Germany oppose supplying weapons to the rebels, and France, one of the strongest backers of international intervention in Libya, agreed with NATO that a new U.N. resolution would be required.

Under the U.N. resolution authorizing necessary measures to protect civilians, nations supplying weapons would need to be satisfied they would be used only to defend civilians—not to take the offensive to Gadhafi's forces.

Chinese President Hu Jintao said the operation already had gone too far. He called for an immediate cease-fire and admonished French President Nicolas Sarkozy at a diplomatic meeting in Beijing. Hu called for peaceful efforts to restore stability, expressed China's concern that Libya may end up divided and said force would complicate a negotiated settlement.

Diplomats were attempting to persuade Gadhafi to leave without military force.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said negotiations on securing Gadhafi's exit were being conducted with "absolute discretion" and that there were options on the table that hadn't yet been formalized.

"What is indispensable is that there be countries that are willing to welcome Gadhafi and his family, obviously to end this situation which otherwise could go on for some time," he said. But the Italian diplomat insisted immunity for Gadhafi was not an option.

Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa left Tunisia for London after a two-day visit shrouded in secrecy, Tunisia's official news agency said. The report did not say why, and a spokesman for Cameron's Downing Street office said the report was "the first I've heard of it."

Uganda appeared to be the first country to publicly offer Gadhafi refuge. The spokesman for Uganda's president, Tamale Mirundi, told the AP on Wednesday that he would be welcome there.

Gadhafi has shown no public sign he might leave power, vowing to fight until the end. His forces were continuing to besiege Misrata, the rebels' main western holdout.

An activist in Misrata said there have been power outages, and water service was cut off so residents must rely on wells, but the biggest problem was a lack of medical supplies such as anesthesia and sterilizers, along with diapers and baby formula. Four people in the town were killed Tuesday, the activist said.

Libyan officials took journalists to the home of a family who said their 18-month-old son was killed in an airstrike Tuesday morning against an ammunition dump in the mountain village of Ghiryan, 50 miles (80 kilometers) south of Tripoli. They say their home was hit by a stray missile when the dump was hit.

Their account could not be independently confirmed, but U.S. and European officials have said strikes had been carried out in the area.

British and other diplomats were involved in negotiations with the rebel leadership in Benghazi. Cameron's spokesman Steve Field said it was partly to gauge if the opposition would be trustworthy allies—"learning more about their intentions."

NATO's top commander, U.S. Navy Adm. James Stavridis, has said officials have seen "flickers" of possible al-Qaida and Hezbollah involvement with the rebel forces. Bani, the rebel military spokesman, dismissed accusations that al-Qaida elements are fighting with the rebels.

"If there are elements that were with al-Qaida in the past and they are now in Libya, they are now fighting for Libya, not for al-Qaida," he said, emphasizing the word "if."

Is Libya Hillary Clinton's War?

This is one of the best detailed accounts of the lead up to the U.S. operation going on in Libya and as you can see by the title of the blogpost and the article from Family Security Matters, it appears that this operation has Hillary Clinton's fingerprints all over it while Barack Hussein Obama appears to have been an insignificant bystander in all of it.

From the article:

“As you may know, French planes are already in the skies above Benghazi. Now, America has unique capabilities and we will bring them to bear to help our European and Canadian allies and Arab partners stop further violence against civilians, including through the effective implementation of a no-fly zone. As President Obama said, the United States will not deploy ground troops, but there should be no mistaking our commitment to this effort.”

-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

On Saturday, March 19, 2011, Hillary Clinton shuttled to Paris to meet with European allies and Arab partners to discuss the enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

Secretary Clinton was blunt:

“Colonel Gaddafi continues to defy the world. His attacks on civilians go on. Today, we have been monitoring the troubling reports of fighting around and within Benghazi itself. As President Obama also said, we have every reason to fear that, left unchecked, Gaddafi will commit unspeakable atrocities.”

Noting that Arab partners “changed the landscape” of diplomacy, Clinton recognized that the Gulf partners of the coalition were “critical to the international community’s efforts on Libya.”

Broadening the horizon of the moment to include ongoing constructive discussions on the Bahrain agitations, Secretary Clinton leveled a warning to Iran, another state facing a sanctions regime wrought from the UN Security Council. Clinton said “The United States has an abiding commitment to Gulf security and a top priority is working together with our partners on our shared concerns about Iranian behavior in the region.”

A couple of things to keep in mind here - first off, there have been numerous reports that Hillary Clinton has been shouldering an inordinate burden of responsibility during this time of chaos across the world while President Obama golfs and vacations ...which leads to the second point where Secretary of State Clinton has announced that she will not seek a second term as Secretary of State.

The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton HAD to know she would end up in this position - if anyone knew of the incompetence of Obama in the area of national security and foreign policy it was Clinton - hell, she was the one that ran the "it' 3 a.m., who do you want answering the phone call?" advertisements during the Democratic primaries. At the same time, it's my guess that Hillary Clinton knew full well just how lazy Barack Hussein Obama is - the man avoids any heavy lifting like the plague.

So, it's my estimation that an exhausted and overtaxed Hillary Clinton finally broke down under pressure from those leaders in France and Britain regarding the Libya operation - she finally caved in and committed America to a military operation which has no set of objectives.

Probably the only real question remaining is whether Clinton will make it to the end of her CURRENT term.

Hillary's War: Operation Odyssey Dawn


“As you may know, French planes are already in the skies above Benghazi. Now, America has unique capabilities and we will bring them to bear to help our European and Canadian allies and Arab partners stop further violence against civilians, including through the effective implementation of a no-fly zone. As President Obama said, the United States will not deploy ground troops, but there should be no mistaking our commitment to this effort.”

-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

On Saturday, March 19, 2011, Hillary Clinton shuttled to Paris to meet with European allies and Arab partners to discuss the enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

Just before noon in Libya, the head of the National Libyan Council, Abdul Jalil was monitoring the situation in Benghazi as Gaddafi forces surged through the Garyounis University complex into the heart of the rebel stronghold. He said:

“Now there is a bombardment by artillery and rockets on all districts of Benghazi. The international community is late in intervening to save civilians from Gaddafi’s forces. Today in Benghazi there will be a catastrophe if the international community does not implement the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. We appeal to the international community, to all of the free world, to stop this tyranny from exterminating civilians.”

With new reports of sniper fire and shelling in Misrata and Zintan and with the mounting evidence of an hours-long battle for Benghazi, the enforcers of UNSCR 1973 held summit in Paris. The cease-fire announced by Moussa Koussa was a dramatic moment. However, the mass murder in Libya continued, unabated. The deceit of the Koussa declaration aided and abetted the crimes of Muammar Gaddafi.

Gaddafi’s correspondence with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, British Prime Minister Cameron and French President Sarkozy called UNSCR 1973 “void” and declared that the enemy of his regime was al Qaeda, claiming “We can never fire a single bullet on our own people…”

Gaddafi’s letter to President Obama challenged the legitimacy of the opposition forces. Painting the rebels of Libya as armed al Qaeda terrorists, Gaddafi asked “our son” Obama “What would you do, so I can follow your example.”

The option of force was brought to the table. On March 17th, Resolution 1973 was passed. The international community, including the Arab League, demanded a cease-fire in Libya on humanitarian grounds. Gaddafi’s aggressions would guarantee military consequences. As Obama stated clearly on Friday afternoon, “…these terms are not negotiable. These terms are not subject to negotiation.”

President Sarkozy of France made a statement following the Paris Summit on Saturday:

“Together, we have decided to ensure the resolution of the Security Council demanding an immediate ceasefire and the stopping of fighting in Libya. The participants have agreed to apply all means necessary, in particular military ones, to respect the decisions of the UN Security Council.”

Less than two hours later, missiles from a French Rafale jet fighter would strike a Gaddafi military vehicle outside the city of Benghazi.

British Prime Minister David Cameron remarked,

“Colonel Gaddafi has made this happen. He has lied to the international community. He has promised a cease-fire. He has broken a cease-fire. He continues to brutalize his own people.”

In reference to Britain’s obligations to the UN, Cameron continued

“And so the time for action has come. It needs to be urgent. We have to enforce the will of the United Nations and we cannot allow the slaughter of civilians to continue.”

Secretary Clinton was blunt:

“Colonel Gaddafi continues to defy the world. His attacks on civilians go on. Today, we have been monitoring the troubling reports of fighting around and within Benghazi itself. As President Obama also said, we have every reason to fear that, left unchecked, Gaddafi will commit unspeakable atrocities.”

Noting that Arab partners “changed the landscape” of diplomacy, Clinton recognized that the Gulf partners of the coalition were “critical to the international community’s efforts on Libya.”

Broadening the horizon of the moment to include ongoing constructive discussions on the Bahrain agitations, Secretary Clinton leveled a warning to Iran, another state facing a sanctions regime wrought from the UN Security Council. Clinton said “The United States has an abiding commitment to Gulf security and a top priority is working together with our partners on our shared concerns about Iranian behavior in the region.”

With a focused aim of protecting civilians, a documented broken cease-fire, and a Chapter VII treaty requirement to enforce Resolution 1973, Operation Odyssey Dawn was launched on Saturday March 19, 2011, circa 9pm local time in Libya. Within 24 hours over 120 tomahawk missiles would be fired at 20 air defense targets of the Gaddafi regime, chiefly by American destroyers some 200 miles off the coast of Libya.

On Sunday, March 20th, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen would announce that a no-fly zone over Libya was in effect. The command and control of the Gaddafi forces was officially degraded, the aging Russian-made air defense capabilities of the regime were largely obliterated.

Muammar Gaddafi survived the initial barrage and claimed that a “long war” was in store, breaking open weapons depots and claiming to arm a million civilians.

Admiral Mullen conceded the United States might achieve its stated goals to support the enforcement of Resolution 1973’s humanitarian aims without forcing Gaddafi from power.
Respecting UNSCR 1973, Operation Odyssey Dawn’s aims are “limited” to protecting civilian life and establishing a no-fly zone over northern Libya.

Operation Odyssey Dawn

Operation Odyssey Dawn was launched at 8pm Libya time. Five U.S. ships took part in the attack on Gaddafi’s air defenses, including two destroyers, the USS Stout and USS Barry, and three submarines, USS Providence, USS Scranton and USS Florida. After an hour flight time, the first of 112 initial cruise missile launches rocked Tripoli. A British sub fired two Tomahawks as well, bringing the total to 114 strikes at the leading edge of what U.S. Vice Admiral William Gortney, Director of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, described as the first phase of a multiphase operation. At dawn on Sunday, assessments of the effectiveness of the strikes began with the help of Global Hawk reconnaissance, 10 more strikes would complete the task of opening the space necessary for a no-fly zone. The moderate threat of Gaddafi’s SA5 anti-aircraft batteries was no more.

With 11 naval vessels and 28 aircraft in the Mediterranean, the U.S. opened the way for French and British jets to conduct limited strikes after the initial Tomahawk strikes.

U.S. Air Force officials noted that three B-2 bombers out of Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo. Hit a “variety of strategic targets” in Libya. F-15E Strike Eagles and F-16CJ Fighting Falcons also launched missiles and dropped bombs. The Navy reports that Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers hit ground forces and air defenses while F/A-18G Growlers provided electronic warfare measures in support.

Denmark, Spain, Canada and Qatar are donating aircraft to the coalition cause, though their missions or usage are not yet certain as the coalition of the willing grows to near 20 countries.

Coordinating America’s naval presence in the Mediterranean under Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn is Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa, operating aboard the USS Mount Whitney, the flagship of the Navy’s 6th Fleet. The American Forces Press Service relays that the Mount Whitney joined “…24 other ships from Italy, Canada, the United Kingdom and France in launching the operation.”

According to the U.S. Navy, “All U.S. aircraft are being managed by Navy Tactical Air Control Center 21.”

The Coalition command and control is being led by U.S. Army General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command out of his base in Stuttgart, Germany.

Interestingly, Germany was one of five countries that abstained from signing on to military action through UNSCR 1973 yet they play host to the coalition command.

In Germany’s abstention circumstances are the keys to understanding Hillary’s War.

UNSCR 1970 Sanctions Regime

The unanimous sponsorship of UNSCR 1970 witnessed a world speaking with a single voice.

In Resolution 1970, the assets and movements of Libya’s core leadership were sanctioned. In addition, an arms embargo was placed into effect.

Companies from over 50 nations were involved with oil and gas production through Libya’s National Oil Corporation (NOC).

The language of the sanctions regime imposed in Resolution 1970 was not aimed at oil companies. It was aimed at those who could finance Gaddafi’s exile or strengthen his ability to remain a fugitive from the reach of the International Criminal Court.

The language of the document led the European Union to sanction the assets of one individual, Mustafa Zarti, due his special relationship with Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. Mustafa Zarti was a Board member or executive head of three organizations: the Libya Investment Authority, the National Oil Corporation, and Tamoil.

The Libya Investment Authority was essentially the pension fund of the Libyan people.

The National Oil Corporation is the financial backbone of the Libyan state and Tamoil was the commercial outlet for NOC in North Africa and throughout Europe.

Germany was tied up with the National Oil Corporation through its utilities company RWE, which was set to break through to a profitable oil industry in Libya by 2014. Germany plays host to two major oil refineries of Tamoil.

Mustafa Zarti resigned his post from the LIA and stepped down from his other positions before the UNSCR 1970 was put forward.

Following the sanctions round, Muammar Gaddafi threatened to throw all Western oil companies out of Libya on March 2nd. It was in the following days that Mustafa Zarti was targeted for sanctions, picked up by Austria authorities and questioned.

Interestingly this reality came to a head on March 19th, when NOC Chairman Shukri Ghanem said that Libya’s National Oil Corporation would honor its contracts with foreign firms operating in the country. The statement was made two days after Germany abstained from UNSCR 1973.

U.S. Secretary Hillary Clinton has been shuttling around in a frenzy of diplomatic activity since the dawn of 2011. Clinton has been attempting to chart positive pathways forward on foreign relations in the Greater Middle East in light of the massive changes taking place behind the Iron Curtain of Islamic supremacy.

The Sanctions regime of UNSCR 1970, due to Muammar Gaddafi’s wild decision to threaten Western oil interests, turned a 15 to 0 vote in February into a 10 to 0 vote with 5 abstentions in March.

This battle, combined with the determined advances of Gaddafi to knock out the rebel stronghold in Benghazi brought Hillary Clinton, William Burns and Susan Rice to a pivotal moment in world history.

The Clinton-led G8 meetings on March 15th failed to endorse a no-fly zone.

It appeared as though the opposition forces, whose exiled leaders had already been legitimized by President Sarkozy, were about to be slaughtered. The vote for a no-fly zone had been debated, but not its scope.

As March 16th gave way to the possibility of Russia and China vetoing any measure to intervene in Libyan affairs, American leaders were beside themselves with the perceived lack of leadership from the White House.

Undersecretary William Burns caught heat from both sides of the isle in a Senate Foreign Relations free for all the following day. Marco Rubio showed concern as Burns assured him that a successful vote on a no-fly zone was possible.

The fact that Russia and China did not exercise their veto power on UNSCR 1973 came as a surprise to the American political community.

Hillary Clinton had won the diplomatic chase to save Benghazi’s legitimate leadership, by salvaging the contracts of Russia’s Gazprom and China’s CNPC.

With Susan Rice lambasting Muammar Gaddafi as “delusional” and William Burns lobbying the American cause behind the scenes, Hillary Clinton rose to the challenge and cornered Russia and China.

Operation Odyssey Dawn is Hillary’s War.