Friday, May 24, 2013

Memorial Day 2013...

While we all enjoy this holiday weekend whether at the beach, having a BBQ, or whatever, please take a moment and remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice so you can do what you're doing...
 

NBC: Holder Personally OK'd Fox Reporter's Warrant

By Greg Richter
  / Newsmax
 
 
Attorney General Eric Holder personally signed off on the search warrant of Fox News reporter James Rosen's emails, NBC reports.

The warrant named Rosen a “possible co-conspirator” in violation of the Espionage Act for obtaining leaked classified information from a Pentagon source. Rosen has not been charged.

The revelation came on the same day President Barack Obama said in a speech that he had ordered Holder to review the Justice Department's standards for investigating cases that involve journalists.

"I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable," Obama said in the speech. "Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs."

A law enforcement official told NBC News of Holder's personal involvement on Thursday. Holder has previously said that he recused himself from the AP phone records investigation since he had been a witness in the initial probe, but no one had previously indicated Holder's role in the Rosen case.

"It was approved at the highest levels -- and I mean the highest," the law enforcement official told NBC, speaking on condition of anonymity. He told the news organization that he included Holder in that statement.

IRS Cover-Up Continues

by / Personal Liberty Digest
 
IRS Cover-Up Continues
PHOTOS.COM
Two days ago, Lois Lerner, the director of the Internal Revenue Service’s Exempt Organizations division, told the House committee investigating the IRS scandal that she didn’t do anything wrong. She then refused to answer any questions and invoked her Constitutional right against self-incrimination. In other words, she pleaded the 5th.

So far, both Congressmen and reporters trying to find out who knew what and when they knew it are having a mighty hard time getting anyone to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” about this spreading scandal.

We now know that White House officials were told of the accusations and a resulting internal investigation long before the news became public. But we’re supposed to believe that no one told President Barack Obama about it. Just like the rest of us, he didn’t know anything until the story made national TV. Sure.

Turns out that several other things we have been told are simply not true, either — like the fairy tale that Obama fired the acting commissioner of the IRS. Acting Commissioner Steven Miller’s appointment was going to end early next month anyway.

Nor did the commissioner in charge of the tax-exempt division get the ax. James Grant, a veteran IRS bureaucrat, quietly announced his retirement as of June 3. The IRS issued a very respectful statement about Grant’s departure, without any hint of a problem or that he had had suffered any sort of punishment or disgrace.

In other words, despite all of the claims to the contrary, not a single person in the IRS has lost his job over the scandal. In fact, the one person who was supervising those so-called “rogue” IRS employees when the infractions occurred not only wasn’t dismissed or demoted, she actually received a promotion.

In fact, Grant was made commissioner of the tax-exempt department only a little while ago. For the past three years, his boss was a woman named Sara Hall Ingram. And she didn’t get fired or demoted over the abuses by her staff; she got promoted.

That’s right. Ingram is now the director of the IRS’s Affordable Care Office. As hard as it may be to believe, the person in charge of the division at the IRS that singled out patriotic groups for special scrutiny is now the chief enforcer of Obamacare. Doesn’t that make you feel warm and cozy?

Oh, by the way, Ingram was handsomely rewarded for all of her efforts on behalf of the regime.

Check out the loot that a grateful government awarded her while her employees were putting the squeeze on Tea Party types: In addition to a six-figure salary, Ingram collected bonuses of $34,400 in 2010, $35,400 in 2011, and $26,550 in 2012.

Who says crime doesn’t pay?

When The Media Turn On Obama

Yes, I know, it’s probably too much to hope that most of the mainstream press will put down their rose-colored glasses long enough to take a hard, unvarnished look at their liberal hero, Obama.

But it doesn’t take many cracks in the dyke for the truth to start leaking out. And in the past few days, there have been several encouraging signs that many in the media are starting to look past the White House spinmeisters. When they do, no wonder they’re deeply disturbed by what they see.

I call as my first witness Bob Woodward. Along with his partner, Carl Bernstein, Woodward helped expose the Watergate scandal back in the 1970s that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

Woodward says he sees a similarity between those events and the scandals that are now embroiling the Obama Administration over events in Benghazi, Libya.

“I have to go back 40 years to Watergate, when Nixon put out his edited transcripts of the conversations,” Woodward said. “He personally went through them and said, ‘Let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’

The famed reporter says the controversy is not going to go away any time soon. “I would not dismiss Benghazi,” he said, “It’s a very serious issue. As people keep saying, four people were killed.”

Meanwhile, Bernstein said the actions of Obama Administration officials who seized the phone records of Associated Press reporters were “outrageous.” He added that even if Obama did not know about the details of the action, he was certainly aware of the policy.

Now we’ve learned that three years ago, the Justice Department labeled FOX News correspondent James Rosen as a possible co-conspirator in a criminal case involving leaked classified information.

The government lawyers did so to justify going through Rosen’s personal emails. But at no time was Rosen notified that he was a target of the probe, as the law requires.

This obvious violation of Rosen’s 1st Amendment rights should alarm every reporter and editor in the country. Heck, it should make all of us furious at the Administration’s callous disregard of our Constitutional guarantees. But, then again, when has the Obama Administration paid more than lip service to the U.S. Constitution anyway?

As more and more reporters refuse to accept the White House’s absurd explanations for events and start digging for the truth themselves, much of what they find will alarm them. Who knows what could happen as more of this Administration’s deceit is revealed?

Consider, for example, what happened when a reporter from The Washington Post talked with an IRS worker in the Cincinnati office — you know, one of those “rogue employees” who allegedly decided on their own to target conservative groups with extra scrutiny.

“We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do,” The Post quoted the indignant staffer as saying. “Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”

And even when aides do come to the Administration’s defense, sometimes they just dig the hole deeper. That’s what happened when Dan Pfeiffer, a senior adviser to Obama, made the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows five days ago. Instead of defusing questions about the three crises that have engulfed the White House, Pfeiffer only made matters worse.

His first miscalculation came when he appeared on “Fox Sunday Morning” with Chris Wallace. The reporter wanted to know where the President was, and what he was doing, the night of the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi. Was he monitoring events from the Situation Room? “That’s a largely irrelevant fact,” Pfeiffer replied.

Oh, really?

The aide seemed to like that dodge so much that he tried it again when he appeared on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos. The host pressed him about the growing IRS scandal: “What does the president believe,” he asked. “Does the president believe that [targeting conservative groups] would be illegal?”

Pfeiffer replied, “The law is irrelevant.” A visibly astonished Stephanopoulos replied, “You don’t really mean the law is irrelevant, do you?”

Yes, George, they really do. The truth is whatever they say it is. And how dare anyone question them about it.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) put it well when he said, “The president’s entire program is based on giving more and more power to the same executive branch agencies demonstrating themselves this week to either be criminally incompetent or tyrannically corrupt.”

And Lee concluded, “This is what always happens when government gets too big. The Founders knew that over time, either the people would control the government or the government would control the people. That’s why they bequeathed us a constitutionally limited government — a republic, if we could keep it.”

We’ve seen other Presidents try desperately to sweep a growing controversy under the rug. But the truth can defeat them every time, if sufficient pains are taken to bring it to light.

Let’s do our part to continue shining the spotlight where it’s needed the most. And watch the cockroaches scurry for cover.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

Obama: "The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


According to Obama in his speech today, "The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence."

The Muslim American community has consistently rejected terrorism? Four separate studies since 1998 have all found that 80% of U.S. mosques were teaching jihad, Islamic supremacism, and hatred and contempt for Jews and Christians. There are no countervailing studies that challenge these results. In 1998, Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a Sufi leader, visited 114 mosques in the United States. Then he gave testimony before a State Department Open Forum in January 1999, and asserted that 80% of American mosques taught the “extremist ideology.”

Then there was the Center for Religious Freedom’s 2005 study, and the Mapping Sharia Project’s 2008 study. Each independently showed that upwards of 80% of mosques in America were preaching hatred of Jews and Christians and the necessity ultimately to impose Islamic rule.

And in the summer of 2011 came another study showing that only 19% of mosques in U.S. don’t teach jihad violence and/or Islamic supremacism.
Specifically:
A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts.
In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshiper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite guest imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.
That means that around 1,700 mosques in the U.S. are preaching hatred of infidels and justifying violence against them.

Moreover, Hamas-linked CAIR's position is clear. They don't want people "snitching" to law enforcement about jihad activity:

DontTalkto FBI.jpgAnd a former Hamas-linked CAIR official, the thuggish Cyrus McGoldrick, has threatened "snitches":

McGoldrickSnitchesStitches.jpgHe has done this before. And so the question is inevitable: who exactly among Muslims in the U.S. does Obama think is going to help him against jihad terror?
Obama: "Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


Surprise: he wasn't referring to "right-wing extremism," but to the jihad threat -- even as he insisted that the vast majority of Muslims reject the jihad ideology, and that Muslims are its chief victims. "

Obama Drone Speech Delivered At National Defense University (FULL TRANSCRIPT)," from The Huffington Post, May 23:
Moreover, we must recognize that these threats don’t arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology – a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts.
Even though he acknowledges that Islamic jihad is the primary terror threat the U.S. faces, however, his denial of its true nature and magnitude will only lead to more intelligence failures like those that preceded and facilitated the Boston Marathon jihad bombings. Consider how ridiculous it is that the President of the United States says that most of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology, and yet Administration officials are forbidden to study that ideology. But that is the situation we are in.

The Pressing Need for a Special Prosecutor

By: Hugh Hewitt / Townhall Columnist
 
Wednesday's appearance by the Internal Revenue Service's Lois Lerner coupled with the burgeoning scandal's reach into the White House --see this post by Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau--underscores the pressing need for the appointment by the Attorney General of a special prosecutor with wide ranging and independent authority to investigate the wrongdoing connected with the targeting of Tea Party and religiously-motivated tax-exempt groups by the IRS.

More on "targetgate" will appear soon at National Review Online by Eliana Johnson and other members of the NRO team that will confirm what a string of center-left and MSM commentators --Bloomberg's Jonathan Alter and Al Hunt and the New York Times' Michael Shear-- have said on my radio show the past three days: The scandals are outrageous and the need for a special prosecutor is urgent.

Some of the journalists on the left have as their concern the salvaging of the Obama presidency before it enters into what would quickly become the longest second term in history, a prolonged drip, drip, drip of revelations and paralysis. They wish to spare the president the relentless grinding down of his office and thus of the country's ability to respond to crisis at home and abroad.

Some of us wouldn't mind paralysis of this presidency, at least with regard to the president's ambitions for domestic lawmaking, but a second and to my mind far more compelling reason for a special prosecutor than the protection of the president's political standing is the protection of the innocent within and outside the government.

From 1986 to 1989 I was the General Counsel and then Deputy Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. I was a young GC --only 30-- but was lucky to supervise a staff of 30 superb lawyers, all career professionals, who knew and did their often complex jobs with great skill and diligence. In the latter job I was the COO of an agency of 6,000 federal employees whose duties including the hiring, firing, retirement and health care of the nation's 2 million plus federal civilian workers. The vast, vast majority of these civil servants were hard-working and very competent professionals. In my previous lawyer staff jobs as a Special Assistant to the Attorney General and in the White House Counsel's Office I had worked primarily with political appointees, but the career staffs in both place --smaller in the Executive Office of the President, very large at Justice-- were of the same character and competence as those at OPM.

I bring up this experience so the reader knows I really do have a basis for believing the vast majority of IRS employees are honest, hard-working and very, very fair, and I base that assessment on having spent years inside the federal government.

Since leaving the feds I have spent a quarter century, from 1989 to right through this morning, helping private sector law clients negotiate the complicated laws administered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, as well as dozens of state and local agencies. As with almost every other administrative lawyer I know, my experience has been that the vast, vast majority of government regulators and their government lawyers are competent, ethical men and women of character. We often disagree on how a statute or regulation should be applied or how a permit or proceeding should progress, but 95%+ of these government employees do their jobs with pure professionalism and without any animus towards, and often with the desire to assist, the regulated community. They don't pass the awful laws that pour out of the dysfunctional Congress or press the expansive regulatory agendas pursued by their political appointee leadership, but they are obliged by the Constitution and their oaths to execute those laws and agendas as best they can, and almost always they try to do so in good faith.

Political appointees often capture and pervert their efforts, or issue edicts that are beyond what Congress intended, and occasionally an ideologue within the career ranks will take an agency off the lawful path, but the career folks are nearly always straight shooters.

A special prosecutor is necessary not only to do justice to the injured --and there are hundreds of injured groups with tens of thousands of members-- but also because the rapidly widening scandal at the IRS (and associated scandals involving the DOJ's snooping of journalists and the cover-up of the terrible events in Benghazi) is going to tarnish, damage and quite possibly ruin the lives and careers of many innocent, dedicated federal employees if it isn't quickly and thoroughly investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted. The pall over the various agencies is already large and rapidly spreading. It has to be ended and the only way to end it is to appoint a special prosecutor and let him or her have at the sandals, having been charged to do so with thoroughness and urgency.

This was Al Hunt's position in an interview I conducted yesterday and it ought to be the position of anyone with a friend, family member or even a professional acquaintance within the impacted agencies, and it ought also to be the demand of every taxpayer who does not want the government they pay for to grind to a halt across large swaths of the bureaucracy doing the daily work of those agencies. Foley & Lardner's Cleta Mitchell --among the Beltway's best tax exempt organizations lawyers-- said on my program yesterday that many of her clients are still waiting for their IRS rulings, applied for years ago. These are citizen-customers who deserve prompt, right responses from the IRS, and there are legions of similarly situated citizen-customers whose work is piling up undone as scandal mode sweeps through the federal alphabet agencies and the innocent dive for cover.

The Independent Counsel statute was a lousy law and no serious analyst --none-- is calling for its revival.

But special prosecutors can accomplish their ends though the abuse of their charges is also possible.

The answer to the potential for abuse isn't in carefully crafted charters but rather in the selection of an experienced prosecutor of great integrity and who enjoys bipartisan respect. There are such men and women in great numbers. Selecting a respected former United States Attorney from the Bush era in informal consultation with senior congressional leaders would work, would not be difficult to effect, and that individual's work could begin expeditiously.

No one --not the serious pundits on the left, not the Congressional committees, and most importantly not the public-- trusts Attorney General Eric Holder or his political appointees at Justice to do this job. (Al Hunt is among the growing number of liberal commentators who want Holder gone completely, and Congressional Democrats in both the House and Senate facing tough re-elections are joining their number, fully aware what 18 months of investigations will do to their campaigns.)

The job of investigation and possibly prosecution of the IRS and Treasury officials responsible for this miscarriage simply has to be done, and it has to be done soon. By a man or woman in whom the public can repose trust.


“By Allah, by the almighty Allah, we swear we will never stop fighting you.”

With those words Wednesday, the South London attacker with blood-soaked hands did us the favor of reminding us what we are up against.

Having just killed British soldier Lee Rigby in cold blood on a street in Woolwich, with his murder weapon still in hand, the latest face of jihad issued warnings to all of us on that now famous bystander video:

“Your people will never be safe,” he insists.

So: do we believe him?

This is an important question for every American, and every American president in the post-9/11 era.

We are either in a long war, fighting for enlightened civilization itself, or not. In 2008, America chose a president who believes we are not in a battle of such broad scope, and in 2012 the nation chose him again.

John McCain and Mitt Romney were not ideal candidates, but give them this: they approached global terror with a seriousness not seen since George W. Bush and Dick Cheney returned to private life.

Ah, Bush and Cheney, the much-maligned team that kept us safe for their entire remaining term after the 9/11 attacks showed us that radical Islam had been in a war with us for years and it was about time we engaged.

Unwilling to bother us with the truth of Benghazi weeks before an election, President Obama still seeks to paint us a picture of a war on terror firmly within his grasp.

Does anyone really believe that?

Yes, Osama bin Laden is dead, taken out by an Obama administration that has maintained enough Bush policies to complete the task of de-fanging al Qaeda along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

But energized by the unmistakable sound of U.S. withdrawal, terrorists have spread strongly across the rest of the Middle East, into Africa and Europe.

Which brings us back to London. If you were ever a tourist in that great city before, say, the 1980s, you would scarcely recognize it today. London, Paris and other urban areas of Europe have seen a wave of Islamic immigration, echoing the increasingly radical flavor of its main source, North African nations like Algeria, Libya and Tunisia as well as Nigeria, the apparent heritage nation of the Woolwich terrorists.

Such transformations are not limited to Europe. The Washington, DC suburb of Bailey’s Crossroads, Virginia was described in a 2007 editorial in Investor’s Business Daily as having been transformed into “Northern Virginiastan:”
“Baileys Crossroads is the heart of the Wahhabi corridor, which includes the safe houses where the hijackers stayed and the mosque where they and dozens of other terrorists have worshipped.
Another area mosque preached to members of the Virginia Jihad Network, who plotted to kill American soldiers after 9/11 and praised the space shuttle Columbia disaster as a 'good omen' for Islam.
The area also includes two luxury apartment high-rises that erupted into cheers when the World Trade Center fell on 9/11. Law enforcement has dubbed them the 'Taliban Towers.'
Investigators routinely find posters and computer screen savers celebrating Osama bin Laden as a hero.
Down the street is a Saudi charitable front for al-Qaida once run by bin Laden's nephew.
The U.S. branch of the dangerous Muslim Brotherhood is in the same office park.
Farther down in Alexandria is the Saudi madrassa that's graduated several terrorists, including the al-Qaida operative who plotted to assassinate President Bush...
In Baileys Crossroads, skinned goats are delivered daily to several halal butcher shops located in shopping centers where all the signs are in Arabic. Women shop in head-to-toe black abayas.
You'd never know this is a suburb of the nation's capital.”
Any area experiencing waves of Islamist immigration is going to get two things. Most numerous will be peace-loving, law-abiding people who happen to read the Quran and worship in mosques.

But among them will be an alarmingly high, and perhaps increasing number of current and future Islamo-fascists just biding their time to be the next street bombers, machete attackers or jet hijackers.

Bush and Cheney are gone, and so is our nation’s willingness to retain a war footing.

In the wake, we have a president whose Thursday speech on security was the usual eye-glazing combination of pretend bravado and foggy analysis.

While he explained and defended a drone program that is he has maintained to his credit, he surrounded those words with a song of surrender that surely sounded sweet to jihadists the world over.

His desire to close Guantanamo is all the evidence needed to bolster a case of nonchalance about global terror.

As former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has pointed out, the remaining Gitmo detainees are some of the most troubling. They are the ones who have not merited release in the last few years.

Those get-out-of-detention cards, by the way, have had a death toll. For all of his diligence in taking the war to the the enemy, The Bush administration prematurely released detainees who found their way back to the battlefield.

Now we face the prospect of outsourcing those detentions to countries like Yemen and Afghanistan, who can scarcely restrain the terrorist instincts of their own citizens.

This is what giving up looks like.

Even the drone program is bound for the shelf. Examine the shackles President Obama attached to it moments after coherently explaining why it deserved to be maintained:

First, we will limit its use to when Americans are in imminent danger, an undefinable term;

Second, we will not use drones when capture is possible, a likelihood virtually impossible to gauge in the heat of a pursuit;

And third, we will try to ascertain the perplexing “near certainty” that no civilians will be killed. How near is “near?” Is the possibility of one civilian okay to take out a terrorist? Two?

This is the de facto dismantling of the drone program, detested by Rand Paul and Code Pink alike.

So should we have a drone program? Should we have Guantanamo? Should we have a residual military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe other nations to follow if the need for stability warrants it?

If we are serious about fighting terror, the only answer is yes.

I know how hard that is to hear. We like our wars short. We like to win and get to a surrender ceremony and get on with our lives.

The Obama approach to war fits nicely into the mood of an unplugged, inattentive America. War is hard. We don’t like hearing about it. We’re tired.

So when he tries to sell us a story of al Qaeda under control, soft-pedaling American terrorism like the Fort Hood shootings as “workplace violence,” giving flowery speeches telling us not to worry because our flag will ever wave free, many of us say thank you and go back to sleep.

The Obama White House then goes back to focusing on the groups it considers far more threatening-- its political opponents. They are happy. And the last two elections show that we are happy. Or happy enough.

Too many of us are happy to neglect a war that our enemy is still fighting against us. The administration is happy to pursue jihad as if it were some organized crime syndicate, seeking to restrain and prosecute it in the courtrooms of our judicial system.

But the men who killed the soldier in London, and the man who killed fellow soldiers in Fort Hood, and the brothers who killed Boston Marathon spectators, are not street criminals, they are enemy combatants.

Countless allies are with them in their war against us, with a goal of crushing our way of life with the sledgehammer of a new Muslim caliphate.

We either grasp that or we do not.

If we do, we have a chance. If we do not, we are leaving ourselves and our children and our children’s children open to future terror.

Having seen actual blood on the hands of an actual terrorist this week, we should not want to see the blood of neglect on our own hands, spread there by our failure to wake up and protect ourselves.
Op-ed: 
A horrific murder in London and Obama again won't say 'muslim terrorists'
By: Diane Sori

While there is so much going on in our country right now what with the IRS scandal, the AP scandal, the FOX News reporter scandal, and of course Benghazi...the scandal all the other scandals are deflecting attention away from...we still need to understand that what happened to the British soldier (Lee Rigby, a 25 year old husband, son, brother, and father of a two-year old son) in London just a few days ago is something we must NOT sweep under the rug. Claiming it happened 'over there' NOT here is a moot point for it will happen here, and happen soon, if something is NOT done about the muslim problem ALL civilized nations face.

And we must start with the simple fact that the days of 'political correctness' are over, and that it's high time that the truth be told...a truth the bleeding heart liberals don't want to accept let alone acknowledge...the truth that we are at war with islam...ALL islam...and that means we are at war with the followers of islam, that being muslims...ALL muslims
.
Hear that Obama...we ARE at war with your brethren.

Have any muslim clerics come forward either in Britain or America to condemn the soldier's cold-blooded murder...NO. In fact, British muslim cleric Anjem Choudary, said the “soldier’s killer, Mujaheed Adabolejo, is a very nice man of impeccable character.” Sickening just sickening. And have any so-called moderate muslims in number spoken out condemning the murder...NO.

And while British Prime Minister David Cameron vowed that Britain would be "absolutely resolute" in the face of terrorism and that "We will never give in to terror or terrorism in any form," he also said "The savage beheading of our soldier is not representative of islam...Al-Qaeda linked terror group Al-Shabaab: Yes, it is!"

'NOT representative of islam'...Cameron said as he called the attack “not just an attack on Britain” but “also a betrayal of islam and of the muslim communities who give so much to our country." "There is nothing in islam that justifies this truly dreadful act,” he added.

And herein lies the problem NOT only in Britain but in America as well for this is NOT a betrayal of islam but is an accurate portrayal of islam, because this is what goes on in the muslim world on a daily basis...goes on and is accepted by the followers of islam for this is what the qur'an commands its followers to do and do it in the name of allah.

After the murder, The Muslim Council of Britain, fearing reprisals against British muslims do what all these cowards do best...they spewed the usual kumbaya, touchy-feely rhetoric urging muslims and non-muslims to love each other (gag) and "to come together in solidarity to ensure the forces of hatred do not prevail." 
 
Hate to beak the news to them but they brought the hate upon themselves with their 'allahu akbar' crap.

And Obama's response to the murder was a simple statement that still refuses to use the words 'muslim terrorists' or to condemn islam from which all modern day terrorism arises (can't upset the brethren you know).

"The United States stands resolute with the United Kingdom, our ally and friend, against violent extremism and terror...There can be absolutely no justification for such acts, and our thoughts and prayers are with the family of the victim, the police and security services responding to this horrific act and the communities they serve, and the British people" his statement said.

'NO justification'...yet NO strong condemnation...NO accepting or acknowledging that muslims were once again the perpetrators of evil came with his statement...NO NONE at all.

And as always, muslim silence both here in America and in Britain speaks volumes because if you do NOT condemn then you condone...you condone the actions of these barbaric, brutal, miserable excuses for human beings...jihadists...human garbage of the worst kind.

Human garbage that sadly lives amongst us here in our country...garbage that needs to be thrown out and sent back to the cesspools of countries they came from. They want to live like people did over a thousand years ago...let them but NOT amongst the civilized nations of the world, and most definitely NOT here in our beloved America, for islam, for muslims, are the antithesis of all America stands for, believes in, and holds dear.

Now of course let's get real here and understand that I do NOT mean every single muslim is a jihadist, a terrorist, or a murderer...to think that would make me a bigot and I am NO bigot. But, and here is the caveat, those who do silently condemn the terrorist actions must start speaking out now for their silence speaks louder than even the actions of the barbarians. And muslims who claim these actions of jihad...of terrorism...are the actions of only a few... they need to prove it by organizing their numbers and condemning...condemning in a loud and clear unified voice saying NO MORE...for only that will separate them from those who are out to kill us.

And most importantly these silent voices of condemnation must speak out against and condemn the 164 verses in the vile qur'an that commands...orders...muslims to kill the infidels...for we Christians and Jews, and any and ALL others who do NOT bow down and embrace the pseudo-religion know as islam, are the infidels they are commanded to kill.

And on the heels of this most horrific of murders our very own muslim-in-chief...ooops...I mean our president (gag) held a press conference yesterday where among other things he had the audacity to say, "muslims are an integral part of the American family."

Also saying that the core of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is no longer the greatest terrorist risk confronting the US, that the US has seen the emergence of threats from localized al-Qaeda affiliates around the world, as well as from "radicalized individuals here in the United States," Obama continues to make excuses for al-Qaeda terrorists as he placates them by claiming, "Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism."

And Obama still expects us taxpayers to continue funding these barbaric bast*rds by "supporting other (muslim) countries in their pursuit of democracy, work to promote peace abroad, and supply the necessary foreign aid to help countries modernize their economies, improve their education, and encourage business growth."

NO...I don't think so for the future of terrorism is as it has been since 9/11, and with all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda attack terrorism appeared once again, this time on the streets of London...for islam is the enemy...ALL islam...and it's treason to aid and abet the enemy in case Barack HUSSEIN Obama doesn't know...and that includes sending the enemy our taxpayer dollars.