Monday, December 17, 2012

Egypt arming for attack on Israel?

North Korea, China dealing missile parts to new Islamist regime

by Michael Carl WND

“It gives us the sense that the Egyptians want to attack Israel,” claims International Assessment and Strategy Center Senior Fellow Richard Fisher, on an arms deal that will send North Korean Scud missile parts through China to Egypt.

According to a story in the Washington Free Beacon, U.S. intelligence officials learned that North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un – in violation of United Nations sanctions – is sending Scud missile parts to Egypt.

“Intelligence reports from mid-November were circulated to senior officials in the State Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies,” the report said. “The shipment would be the first by the North Korean regime to the new Egyptian regime headed by Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood-backed president.”

The State Department has not responded to WND’s request for comment.

Fisher told WND that Egypt first received Scud missile technology from the Soviet Union in the 1970s before President Anwar Sadat made peace with Israel.

A former Defense Department analyst who asks not to be named, however, says that North Korea has supplied Scud missile parts to Egypt for several years and that China has been a conduit for several years, so this shipment by itself isn’t unusual.

Still, Fisher sees Egypt’s acquisition of the parts as a sign that Egypt is revving up its missile capability. If so, Fisher believes this is bad news for Israel.

“The deal makes sense if they want to attack Israel,” Fisher said. “Missiles are more able to make it through Israel’s air defense system.”

At the same time, Fisher says this arms deal is good for Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government.

“Missiles can be controlled by a small number of troops in Egypt,” Fisher explained. “This means that despite Morsi’s political problems at home, the missiles could also be controlled by troops that are loyal to Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government.”

Fisher indicates that the parts acquisition could also signal a shift in the alignment of Egypt’s military.

“It’s also likely that this is the first step of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt getting its own military force that is capable of establishing its own united command structure,” Fisher said. “This command structure can grow and potentially gain greater power over the existing command structure that in some senses may still have some loyalties to the West.

“The present military is also reluctant to take on Israel because of the results of previous campaigns against the Israelis,” Fisher said. “A force more loyal to Morsi may not be as reluctant.”

A more unified command that is more loyal to Morsi would be a political asset to the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned president.

“Morsi could use this small structure to divide and conquer the present military. If this materializes, it could even resemble the structure in Iran, where the mullahs have a military unit that is loyal to them,” Fisher said. “It might even be something like Morsi’s own Revolutionary Guard.”

The former Defense Department analyst speaking with WND disagrees, however, and says that the Egyptian military will not surrender control of the missile arsenal.

“It is in the military’s interest to keep and maintain security, which has been the backbone of the security arrangement with Israel since 1979,” the analyst said.

The Defense Department analyst adds that Egypt’s role in the recent Gaza ceasefire is evidence that Egypt may not have aggressive intentions toward Israel.

“It was the Egyptian intelligence/military conduit through which Israel negotiated the ceasefire with Hamas,” the analyst said. “Morsi never spoke directly with the Israelis, and that avenue was undertaken since Morsi realizes his own limitations of power.”

Fisher’s assessment is ultimately that China is the big winner in the deal. He says being the intermediary will increase China’s influence in Egypt.

“China is lending legitimacy to Egypt and aligning itself with the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt,” Fisher said. “The fact that the Chinese are the intermediaries means that the Chinese will become a bigger player in Egyptian politics.”

WND reported in September that Morsi’s choice of China for his first state visit signaled that both nations were pursuing closer ties.

Newly elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi apparently didn’t choose China by accident as his first state visit. According to analysts, the move was meant to send a message, especially to the United States, that Egypt remains a significant influence in the Middle East, according to a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

At the same time, Morsi is offering China a chance to expand its influence in the Middle East, which the Chinese quietly have been attempting to do for some time.

“It is essential at this juncture to forecast what China expects from the new Egypt in particular, and the greater Middle East in general,” asserted analyst Brendan O’Reilly in the Asia Times.

With China seeking to extend its influence in the Middle East, it is looking to Egypt – from which U.S. influence is receding – as it concentrates its military forces more in its own backyard in the South China Sea.

Fisher adds that North Korea will also continue to receive long-term benefits from the deal.

“For North Korea it means money and an affirmation from China,” Fisher said.

Fisher says it’s uncertain how the Obama administration will react, but added, “With the administration’s record of supporting jihadists in Egypt, Libya and Syria, it’s unlikely that they will have any reaction to this deal.”

The White House has not responded to WND’s request for comment on this story.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/egypt-arming-for-attack-on-israel/#xM2i5W5l8ei0Kplk.99

Obama cannot legally impliment gun control!

DICK ACT of 1902... CANNOT BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) Protection Against Tyrannical Government

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).

These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada.

The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.

Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states:

"The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose.

Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917
Op-ed:
And the blame game begins...
By: Diane Sori


Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."*

On a cold clear morning just three days ago evil incarnate visited a small town in Connecticut.  We all know what happened, we're all still in shock, and our nation mourns together.

But within a few hours of the unspeakable, the parade of users lined up and started marching forward led off by our president in a speech that very night that including phony crocodile tears being wiped away from dry eyes.  As he spoke, first and foremost were words about 'handling this' NOT words of compassion for the families of those who lost loved ones nor were the words one of comfort addressed to a grieving nation.

The words Barack HUSSEIN Obama spoke last Friday night were the very sort of words that Thomas Jefferson warned us about...for his words were words of tyranny in action by a man who fancies himself lord and master over us all.

Telling the nation, “And we're going to have to come together and take 'meaningful action' to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics,” we must realize these are NOT words of comfort for those hurting, but are fighting words that pits the liberal left and their anti-gun agenda against those who stand by the Constitution...all of the Constitution including the oh so important Second Amendment, which speaks of our right to bear arms.

Obama is NOT fooling us for we know that 'meaningful action to prevent more tragedies' does not mean educating young people about bullying and violence nor does it mean instructing gun owners to be more responsible with their guns. What it does mean is pushing hard for strong gun control laws...meaning taking our guns and the Second Amendment away, period.

So the blame game, or I should say the perceived blame game, has now begun and that means Obama's attacks on the NRA will be revved up a notch or two NO matter that the NRA had NOTHING to do with this attack or any of the previous attacks over this past year. Remember, the NRA is our last line of defense against the likes of Obama and the liberal left, and so they must be stopped at all costs, as per liberal twisted logic. Yet many in Obama's circle will continue to blame the NRA because of just this, and also because of the political power and clout they yield...all anti-Obama by the way.  So here's an idea, instead of blaming the NRA, shouldn't we be blaming those who create gun-free zones around schools for the fact is that armed and trained teachers, like those in Israel, could have stopped this massacre.

And shouldn't we be blaming the ACLU for their hand in tragedies like this as they're the ones who sued to open the doors of mental institutions letting the severely mentally ill out protecting their rights while ignoring our rights to be protected from them. Remember also that by doing so the ACLU has made it both financially and legally almost impossible to institutionalize a mentally ill person, someone the likes of Adam Lanza.


Lastly, but extremely important is something the left always likes to overlook, and that is that these recent mass killings all happened in states with strict gun laws...states with 'reasonable' gun laws allowing for concealed carry have NOT had mass killings. 

So while those on the left choose to bury their heads in the sand to the fact that the more guns there are in the hands of law-abiding citizens actually equates to less crime, independent research,** clear of government numbers manipulation, continues to show an 81% decrease in shootings with multiple victims when people are allowed to carry concealed weapons. 
 
Major studies have also shown that crime rates go down and go down significantly, including numbers for murder, aggravated assaults, home invasions, rapes, etc., when law abiding citizens are allowed to carry guns for protection. Yet, Obama and the left still scream for more gun control, but it seems they do so only for keeping guns out of the hands of 'We the People' who obey the law but nowhere do they speak of how they intend to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, thugs, and the mentally ill...for them guns will always be available...for if they want a gun they will surely find a way to get a gun. 
 
So while those in Connecticut continue to pick up the shattered pieces of their lives, the liberal left continues to place blame on everyone and everything but where it really belongs...on the shooter alone...the monster who did this of his own free will And while the Democrats scream for gun control discussions what really should be discussed is ways to make it easier for law abiding citizens to carry guns, because if everyone did...if even one person did...on a beautiful cold clear day in December, 26 innocent people, 20 of them mere sweet children, might still be alive today.

-----------------------------------------
*Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950 
** http://tpnn.com/study-more-guns-equal-less-crime/