Our government was designed to be of The People, by The People and for The People. But the Obama administration has made nothing but mortal mistakes (intentional?) and a sickening mockery of Our Nation, Her Constitution and our Liberties. These impostors in congress and the White House have won favor with the sycophantic left wing media are using Islam and our own against us. This administration supports those who hate our people, loathe our liberty and are hell bent on destroying us physically and financially. -PBN
USA. What exactly has changed since 3 years ago til now? There has been more violence, more carnage, more terror attacks plaguing the United States on US soil than ever before. Obama and his Czars and his personal Socialist/Fascist Islamic allies such as Egypt’s Morsi have only been emboldened and inspired by the lack of leadership to protect US Sovereignty, US Troops, US $$$ and US Lives. Words DO matter.-PBN
Publishers Note: Some of these links appear to have been scrubbed since the original post-PBN
The Obama administration has just announced its intent to ban all words that allude to Islam from important national security documents. Put differently, the Obama administration has just announced its intent to ban all knowledge and context necessary to confront and defeat radical Islam (news much welcomed by Islamist organizations  like CAIR ). While this move may reflect a naively therapeutic administration — an Obama advisor once suggested that Winnie the Pooh  should inform U.S foreign policy — that Obama, the one U.S. president who best knows  that politically correct niceties will have no effect on the Muslim world, is enforcing this ban is further troubling.
An Associated Press report  has the disturbing details:
President Barack Obama’s advisers plan to remove terms such as “Islamic radicalism” from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say.
First off, how, exactly, does the use of terms such as “Islamic radicalism” indicate that the U.S. views “Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism”? It is the height of oversensitivity to think that the so-called “Muslim street” can be antagonized by (ultimately accurate) words in technical U.S. documents — documents they don’t know or care about — especially since the Arabic media itself often employs such terms. Surely we can use “Islamic radicalism” to define, well, Islamic radicals, without simultaneously viewing all Muslims “through the lens of terrorism”? Just as surely as we can use words like “Nazism” to define white supremacists, without viewing all whites through the lens of racism?
The AP report continues:
Obama’s speechwriters have taken inspiration from an unlikely source: former President Ronald Reagan. Visiting communist China in 1984, Reagan spoke at Fudan University in Shanghai about education, space exploration and scientific research. He discussed freedom and liberty. He never mentioned communism or democracy.
The analogy is flawed. For starters, in Reagan’s era, the Soviet Union, not China, was America’s prime antagonist — just as today, Islamic radicals, not Muslims, are America’s prime enemy. Moreover, unlike Obama, who would have the U.S. bend over backwards — or, in his case, just bend over  — to appease Muslims, Reagan regularly lambasted the Soviet Union, dubbing it the “evil empire.” Finally, the Chinese never attacked America, unlike Islamic radicals, who not only have attacked it, but daily promise it death and destruction — all in the name of Islam.
The ultimate problem in the White House’s new “words-policy,” however, is reflected in this excerpt from the report:
The change [i.e., linguistic obfuscation] would be a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”
No doubt this important document will soon say something totally meaningless like “The struggle against extremism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.” Such changes bode ill for the future. For it is one thing to carefully choose your words when directly addressing Muslims; it is quite another to censor American analysts and policymakers from using the necessary terms that conceptualize who the enemy is and what he wants.
The situation is already dire. There is already a lamentable lack  of study concerning Muslim war doctrine in the curriculum of American military studies, including in the Pentagon  andU.S. Army War College . Obama’s more aggressive censorship program will only exacerbate matters: another recently released strategic document, the QDR , nary mentions anything remotely related to Islam — even as it stresses climate change , which it sees as an “accelerant of instability and conflict” around the world.
At any rate, as I have argued  several  times  before , the U.S. government needs to worry less about which words appease Muslims — another governmental memo  warns against “offending,” “insulting,” or being “confrontational” to Muslims — and worry more about providing its own citizenry with accurate knowledge concerning its greatest enemy.
In short, knowledge is inextricably linked to language. The more generic speech becomes, the less precise the knowledge it imparts; conversely, the more precise the language, the more precise the knowledge. In the conflict against Islamic radicalism — there, I said it — to acquire accurate knowledge, which is essential to victory, we need to begin with accurate language.
This means U.S. intelligence analysts and policymakers need to be able to use, and fully appreciate the significance of, words related to Islam — starting with the word “Islam” itself, i.e., submission.
It means the U.S. military needs to begin expounding and studying Islamic war doctrine — without fear of reprisals .
In sum, it means America’s leadership needs to take that ancient dictum  — “Know thy enemy” — seriously.
Deplorably enough, nearly a decade after the Islamist-inspired attacks of 9/11, far from knowing its enemy, the U.S. government is banning itself from merely acknowledging its enemy, which is doubly problematic, as knowledge begins with acknowledgment.
Nor is there much room for optimism: if the Obama administration can easily expose America to attack by reducing our physical defenses , surely a subversion of our intellectual safeguards — that is, a subversion of something as abstract as knowledge — will go unchecked.
URLs in this post:
 Islamist organizations: http://www.meforum.org/916/cair-islamists-fooling-the-establishment
 CAIR: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cair-welcomes-white-house-shift-on-islamic-radicalism-90122577.html
 Winnie the Pooh: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2139573/Barack-Obama-aide-Why-Winnie-the-Pooh-should-shape-US-foreign-policy.html
 best knows: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-puzzling-approach-to-the-muslim-world/
 Associated Press report: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmaKsSfPsbleEB-Hs16JlU2JCnVwD9EU2T1O0
 bend over: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-abominable-obeisance-cultural-perspectives/
 a lamentable lack: http://article.nationalreview.com/370554/studying-the-islamic-way-of-war/raymond-ibrahim
 Pentagon: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52644
 U.S. Army War College: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/strategic-collapse-at-the-army-war-college/
 QDR: http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf
 climate change: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/78855-pentagon-review-to-address-climate-change-for-the-first-time
 argued: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/words-matter-in-the-war-on-terror/?singlepage=true
 several: http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/TUTC021209/Ibrahim_Testimony021209.pdf
 times: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/428142.aspx
 before: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/would_a_jihadi_by_any_other_na.html
 governmental memo: http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/126.pdf
 fear of reprisals: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/04/inside-the-ring-83234302/
 ancient dictum: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu
 reducing our physical defenses: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/obamas-new-nuke-strategy-alarms-gop-defense-officials/
©2010 Raymond Ibrahim Originally Published April 24, 2010
Obama Tries to Eradicate Radical Islam
by Raymond Ibrahim
God Bless you Lord Monckton. You are truly lead by The Truth and can always be counted on in a time of need. Rare is a man like you indeed, and this dying world need’s more rare men like you to step up. We Love You. Your friends at PBN
DUNEDIN, New Zealand – The Boston bombers, whoever they were, do not seem to have intended to murder anyone in particular. Like the Muslim extremists who blew up the World Trade Center 12 years ago, they intended to hurt America.
They sought to maim or kill the marathon runners because those young athletes were, to them, glowingly symbolic of the vigor and virility of that great nation that one of your celebrated poets magnificently described as “the athletic democracy.”
Success has always been envied, then resented, then despised, then hated: hated especially by those who have failed. And America’s success is all the more hated because it is – on any measure – exceptional.
No other nation on Earth has given such wholehearted consent to Disraeli’s maxim: “Any man may succeed in our society who defers to the principle of that society, which is to aspire and to excel.”
In Socialist Britain, a Labor supporter who does not own a Ferrari will sneer at one if it passes in the street and try to think of ways to stop people owning Ferraris.
In free-market America, anyone who does not own a Ferrari will cheer at one as it passes in the street and try to think of ways to own one.
The dismal dictators who still govern most of the planet strive to prevent their subjects from ever getting to hear about the freedom and democracy of America. While the U.S. Constitution stands, uneasy lies the head of every tyrant.
Of Britain’s great Empire it may not unfairly be said that those who won dominion over palm and pine by what Enoch Powell used to call “the peaceful accident of trade” did so with more than half an eye to their own commercial advantage. Clive of India and Rhodes of Rhodesia were men of business, and brilliant at it.
Yet the Pax Americana that has gently but definitely supplanted the now-vanished Pax Britannica is inconspicuously but again definitely altruistic. The profit motive may sometimes be present, but the will to share with the rest of the world the merry chaos of free-market democracy is always there, though seldom noticed and still more seldom appreciated.
Let us, then, rise for a few moments above the miseries that are the price of success: the Boston bombings, the Soebarkah White House, the antimatter-filled Treasury, the near-worthless currency, the rising sea-level of uncontrolled immigration.
Let us count instead the blessings that America has unselfishly, unstintingly brought not upon herself but upon the rest of the world.
Who was it, when Churchill said “Give us the tools and we shall finish the job,” that came generously to the aid of Britain and Europe during the war for the very survival of all that is British and all that is European against the monstrous might of Hitler’s hate-filled legions? Uncle Sam.
Who was it, when Keynes besought Congress for the funds to create the first welfare state, that lent such large sums at low interest to a Britain bankrupted by war that we only repaid the last tranche of that long-outstanding debt a couple of years ago? Our Uncle across the water.
Who was it that paid – and paid for two long generations – the lion’s share of the heavy cost of maintaining forceful vigilance on Europe’s long eastern frontier with the murderous tyranny of Soviet Russia? Good old Uncle again.
Who was it that that then paid – and paid generously – to assist the newly freed nations of Eastern Europe to rebuild themselves after Ron Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had brought down the Berlin Wall? Uncle Sam.
Who was it that led – and led gallantly – the task force that expelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait and then, a decade later, expelled his hated despotism from Iraq as well? Play it again, Sam.
Who was it that led – and led courageously – the rebuilding of Kuwait, of Iraq, of Afghanistan?
Who is it that many nations across the globe have been able to thank for generous assistance – whether civil or military – that was unfailingly given whenever it was requested? Everyone’s Uncle.
Who is that still sets and exemplifies today the standards of life, liberty, prosperity and democracy to which men of goodwill everywhere aspire? It is you, Uncle.
As your nation grieves for those whose lives the bombers so wantonly and so pointlessly stole, and as it cares for those in whom serious injury has snatched away youth and strength, never apologize for being not only a successful nation but also a good nation, and a good friend to all the Earth.
Know, too, that we who admire America, and who have so many reasons for gratitude that my little list above is notable more for what it omits than for what it contains, shall always be thankful for your courage in daring to be to the world’s best friend.
We will remember your gallant men at arms who, shoulder to shoulder with our own, have given their all, time and again, on freedom’s farthest frontiers. We will remember also the innocent victims of Boston and of many more unspeakable acts of terror against your citizens.
Their deaths will not have been in vain: for they remind not only America’s many friends but also its enemies how much you have risked to keep the world safe; how much you have paid to make it prosperous; how much you have striven to give it the chance of freedom. In this and every hour of grief, God bless America!
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/usa-the-worlds-best-friend/#PHYrrDYmcjGgvBOD.99
Source USA: The world’s best friend.
The twin blasts of yesterday’s Boston Marathon bombing — now officially under investigation as a terrorist act — sent 176 wounded to area hospitals as of Tuesday morning, according to the Boston Police Department.
The number of reported fatalities remains at 3, including 8-year-old Martin Richard, whose father was running the race that day, and 29-year-old Krystle M. Campbell.
NBC News and other media outlets are describing the bombs as improvised explosive devices (IEDs) made from metal pressure cookers packed with explosives along with pellets and nails, which hospital surgeons reported finding in patients. The IEDs were placed near the finish line of the race.
In a press conference today, George Velmahos, MD, PhD, division chief of trauma, emergency surgery and surgical critical care at Massachusetts General Hospital, said that most of the wounded at his facility sustained lower-extremity injuries, which resulted in 4 patients undergoing amputations. The injuries were so grievous that amputation was a foregone conclusion, said Dr. Velmahos.
Investigators in hazmat suits examine the scene of the second bombing on Boylston Street in Boston Tuesday, April 16, 2013 near the finish line of the 2013 Boston Marathon, a day after 2 blasts killed 3 and injured more than 170 people. Source: AP Photo/Elise Amendola.
“We just completed what the bomb had done,” said Dr. Velmahos.
Other victims immediately lost their legs at the scene of the explosions.
So far, no one has claimed responsibility for the attack, and authorities have not announced any arrests or suggested a likely perpetrator. In a press briefing this morning, President Barack Obama called the bombing an “act of terror,” a label he did not use in yesterday’s remarks to the nation about the incident.
“We will find whoever harmed our citizens and we will bring them to justice,” Obama said.
The president noted the heroism displayed by a variety of individuals in what resembled a war zone yesterday. They ranged from “first responders who ran into the chaos to save lives” to “the men and women who are still treating the wounded at some of the best hospitals in the world, and the medical students who hurried to help, saying ‘When we heard, we all came in.’ ”
Obama also singled out exhausted marathon runners who, arriving at the scene of carnage, tended to the wounded. Among those runners who responded to the emergency were physicians and nurses, according to news reports.
The Complexity of Blast Injuries
As of late this morning, Massachusetts General Hospital had treated 31 bomb victims, 10 of whom had been discharged. Dr. Velmahos told Medscape Medical News that his hospital’s core trauma team has handled the majority of the injuries. Surgical specialists — among them thoracic, orthopaedic, neuro, vascular, and plastic — are called in as needed, as are trauma psychiatrists and rehabilitation physicians.
“We are so fortunate at Massachusetts General Hospital,” Dr. Velmahos said. “You name it — we have an army of physicians who are ready to serve according to the type of injury.”
His hospital, like others, has trained and drilled to deal with the aftermath of terrorist bombings. The key to readiness, he said, is understanding the complex pathophysiology of blast injuries, which was on display yesterday. Once physicians know how a bomb wreaks havoc on the human body, they can look for the damage.
So-called high-order explosives, he said, produce blast waves that cause severe trauma to gas-containing structures such as the lungs, the intestines, and the ear. Blast waves also can cause concussions. Dr. Velmahos said clinicians at Massachusetts General Hospital did not encounter such blast-wave injuries because the 2 IEDs “didn’t have overwhelming power.”
However, a “low-order explosive” can produce a superheated blast wind that hurls people against cars and walls. One hospitalized patient had been thrown to the ground from a 5-foot perch in this manner, said Dr. Velmahos.
The blast wind produced by the bombs also burned patients, some to the third degree, he said. The majority of the burns occurred on legs and feet.
Bomb fragments and flying debris that penetrate the body account for an especially devastating category of blast injury.
“Some patients had only a few pieces of shrapnel, and others had dozens,” said Dr. Velmahos. “Some of them were really peppered.”
“Not every piece of shrapnel has been removed so far,” he added. “Our first priority was saving lives.” The remaining foreign objects can come out later, although some of them could remain in patients for the rest of their lives.
The combination of shrapnel and a searing blast wind was enough to sever legs on the spot, he said. Other patients arrived at the emergency room with the distal portion of their leg macerated. “It was an amorphous mass of tissue…hanging on by shreds of muscle and skin.”
Despite the gruesome injuries, all the bomb-blast patients at Massachusetts General Hospital have survived.
“Some patients barely arrived alive,” Dr. Velmahos said. “Everybody stayed alive.”
By Robert Lowes – Medscape News
Federal, non-military agencies, noted radio host Mark Levin last week, have purchased enough ammunition recently to not only shoot every American five times, but also engage in a prolonged, domestic war.
The numbers are based on recent reports that put the total federal ammunition buy in the last 10 months at approaching two billion rounds.
“To provide some perspective,” Levin noted, “experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, the [Department of Homeland Security] is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war. A 24-year Iraq war!”
Let the president be duly warned. Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”
Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.
In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”
In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”
Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.
Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.
“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
The exchange itself can be seen below:
The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
by DREW ZAHN
Source & Complete Article Here.
|[jwplayer mediaid='32159 ']|
|Obama: The Enemy of Israel|
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama heads into his second term weighed down by an American government snarled in partisan gridlock, but also by an unproductive relationship with the leader of Israel, the bedrock U.S. ally in the tumultuous Middle East.
And the puzzle that is the U.S.-Israeli relationship under Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is only growing more complex.
“It’s troubled. It’s the greatest dysfunction between leaders that I’ve seen in my 40 years in watching and participating,” said Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center who served under six secretaries of state in both Republican and Democratic administrations. He was deeply involved in negotiations involving Israel, Jordan, Syria and the Palestinians.
“I don’t think we are headed for a showdown,” he said, “but the relationship will continue to be dysfunctional.”
Even so, the United States routinely backs Israel when much of the world is deeply critical of the Jewish state. For example the U.S. was among the few nations opposing the Palestinians’ successful bid for upgraded status at the United Nations and did not criticize Israel’s bombardment of Gaza late last year in retaliation for rocket attacks from the tiny Palestinian enclave.
Still, an array of issues muddies the alliance.
Netanyahu likely will win re-election on Jan. 22, two days after Obama is sworn in for a second term. Netanyahu is a hardliner on making peace with the Palestinians, a goal that Obama said was foremost on his foreign policy agenda at the beginning of his first term. Beyond that, Netanyahu has been pressing Washington to adopt policy specifics that would trigger a military strike if Iran does not pull back on its nuclear program — widely believed to be aimed at building an atomic bomb. Iran claims its program is for generating electricity.
A further complication is Obama’s nomination of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel as defense secretary.
Known as a maverick when he represented Nebraska in the Senate, Hagel is viewed by many in Washington and Israel as insufficiently supportive of the Jewish state. He has castigated what he called the “Jewish lobby” in the U.S., prompting some to label him anti-Semitic. While he voted for billions in aid for Israel, he has also called for engagement with its Hamas and Hezbollah enemies.
What’s more, he opposed unilateral American sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program, which the Netanyahu government believes is an existential threat to Israel.
Netanyahu’s office refused comment on Hagel when contacted by The Associated Press in Jerusalem. But Reuven Rivlin, parliament speaker and member of Netanyahu’s Likud party, told AP that Israelis are worried because of Hagel’s “statements in the past, and his stance toward Israel.”
But Ori Nir, a spokesman for Americans for Peace Now, a Jewish group that pushes for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, said fears of Hagel are wrongheaded.
“Talk of anti-Semitism is unjust and over-the-top,” Nir said.
Republican lawmakers’ opposition to Hagel is the latest in the partisan battles that have snarled the U.S. government.
Disputes over the budget almost led to major tax increases for middle class taxpayers, which neither party wanted. Other fights are pending over spending cuts and the government’s borrowing authority — both with potentially dire consequences for the economy. The newly elected Congress, with a Republican-led House of Representatives and a Democratic-led Senate, is similar to the previous one, which passed fewer laws than any Congress since the end of World War II.
While most of the partisan disputes have been on domestic issues, Republicans have continually accused Obama of not doing enough to support Netanyahu’s government.
The bad blood between Obama and Netanyahu began early.
In their first public appearance together at the White House in 2009, Netanyahu pointedly rebuffed Obama’s call for Israel to stop building Jewish housing on land the Palestinians want in a future state. Obama dropped the issue after it became obvious that it was a waste of political capital at home and that Netanyahu would not budge. Netanyahu’s government has continued to announce plans for new settlements in the Palestinian West Bank.
During the presidential campaign, Netanyahu hosted Obama opponent Mitt Romney in Israel as if he were already a world leader. Netanyahu denied backing either candidate, but his words and actions clearly showed favoritism for Romney.
On Iran, Netanyahu called at the United Nations in September for the United States to draw a “red line” on Iran’s nuclear program, beyond which Iran would face military action. Obama continues to insist there is time for diplomacy, but has said he would not countenance a nuclear-armed Iran.
“The more Netanyahu believes Obama is serious about preventing Iran from getting a bomb, the better they will manage their relations,” said David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “If not, the issue of an Israeli first strike on Iran becomes more likely.”
Miller, of the Woodrow Wilson Center, said Obama will be too consumed with battling Congress on the budget, gun control legislation and other issues to spend much time on disagreements with Netanyahu.
“Is he going to go after Israel-Palestinian peace talks or war with Iran given all his domestic challenges?” Miller asked. “He will go to extreme lengths to avoid war with Iran.”
He said the two leaders are moving further apart on the Palestinian issue, but have found some consensus on Iran. “For the next six to eight months, I don’t think the president is going to push on those issues.”
But Nir, of Peace Now, says time is running out for a peace deal with the Palestinians and Israel could face another armed uprising like the one that bloodied the region in 2000.
“There’s more and more an atmosphere among Palestinians that there is no political horizon,” he said, “a feeling that diplomacy doesn’t work.”
Associated Press writer Amy Teibel in Jerusalem contributed to this report.
Full article here.
BAMAKO/PARIS (Reuters) – French fighter jets pounded Islamist rebel strongholds deep in northern Mali on Sunday as Paris poured more troops into the capital Bamako, awaiting a West African force to dislodge al Qaeda-linked insurgents from the country’s north.
The attacks on Islamist positions near the ancient desert trading town of Timbuktu and Gao, the largest city in the north, marked a decisive intensification on the third day of the French mission, striking at the heart of the vast area seized by rebels in April.
France is determined to end Islamist domination of northern Mali, which many fear could act as a base for attacks on the West and for links with al Qaeda in Yemen, Somalia and North Africa.
Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said France’s sudden intervention on Friday had prevented the advancing rebels from seizing Bamako. He vowed that air strikes would continue.
“The president is totally determined that we must eradicate these terrorists who threaten the security of Mali, our own country and Europe,” he told French television.
Residents and rebel leaders had reported air raids early on Sunday in the towns of Lere and Douentza in central Mali, forcing Islamists to withdraw. As the day progressed, French jets struck targets further to the north, including near the town of Kidal, the epicenter of the rebellion.
In Gao, a dusty town on the banks of the Niger river where Islamists have imposed an extreme form of sharia law, residents said French jets pounded the airport and rebel positions. A huge cloud of black smoke rose from the militants’ camp in the city’s north, and pick-up trucks ferried dead and wounded to hospital.
“The planes are so fast you can only hear their sound in the sky,” resident Soumaila Maiga said by telephone. “We are happy, even though it is frightening. Soon we will be delivered.”
Paris said four Rafale jets flew from France to strike rebel training camps, logistics depots and infrastructure around Gao with the aim of weakening the rebels and preventing them from returning southward.
“We blocked the terrorists’ advance and from today what we’ve started to do is to destroy the terrorists’ bases behind the front line,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told LCI television.
France has deployed about 550 soldiers to Mali under “Operation Serval” — named after an African wildcat — split between Bamako and the town of Mopti, 500 km (300 miles) north.
In Bamako, a Reuters cameraman saw more than 100 French troops disembark on Sunday from a military cargo plane at the international airport, on the outskirts of the capital.
The city’s streets were calm, with the sun streaking through the dusty air as the seasonal Harmattan wind blew from the Sahara. Many cars had French flags draped from the windows to celebrate Paris’s intervention.
“We thank France for coming to our aid,” said resident Mariam Sidibe. “We hope it continues till the north is free.”
AFRICAN TROOPS EXPECTED
More than two decades of peaceful elections had earned Mali a reputation as a bulwark of democracy, but that image unraveled in a matter of weeks after a military coup in March which left a power vacuum for the Islamist rebellion.
France convened a U.N. Security Council meeting for Monday to discuss Mali. French President Francois Hollande’s intervention has won plaudits from leaders in Europe, Africa and the United States but it is not without risks.
It raised the threat level for eight French hostages held by al Qaeda allies in the Sahara and for the 30,000 French expatriates living in neighboring, mostly Muslim states.
Concerned about reprisals, France has tightened security at public buildings and on public transport. It advised its 6,000 citizens to leave Mali as spokesmen for Ansar Dine and al Qaeda’s north Africa wing AQIM promised to exact revenge.
In its first casualty of the campaign, Paris said a French pilot was killed on Friday when rebels shot down his helicopter.
Hours earlier, a French intelligence officer held hostage in Somalia by al Shabaab extremists linked to al Qaeda was killed in a failed commando raid to free him.
Hollande says France’s aim is simply to support a mission by West African bloc ECOWAS to retake the north, as mandated by a U.N. Security Council resolution in December.
With Paris pressing West African nations to send their troops quickly, Ivory Coast President Alassane Ouattara, who holds the rotating ECOWAS chairmanship, kick-started the operation to deploy 3,300 African soldiers.
Ouattara, installed in power with French military backing in 2011, convened a summit of the 15-nation bloc for Saturday in Ivory Coast to discuss the mission.
“The troops will start arriving in Bamako today and tomorrow,” said Ali Coulibaly, Ivory Coast’s African Integration Minister. “They will be convoyed to the front.”
The United States is considering sending a small number of unarmed surveillance drones to Mali as well as providing logistics support, a U.S. official told Reuters. Britain and Canada have also promised logistical support.
Former French colonies Senegal, Niger and Burkina Faso have all pledged to deploy 500 troops within days. In contrast, regional powerhouse Nigeria, due to lead the ECOWAS force, has suggested it would take time to train and equip the troops.
France, however, appeared to have assumed control of the operation on the ground. Its airstrikes allowed Malian troops to drive the Islamists out of the strategic town of Konna, which they had briefly seized this week in their southward advance.
Calm returned to Konna after three nights of combat as the Malian army crushed any remaining rebel fighters. A senior army official said more than 100 rebels had been killed.
“Soldiers are patrolling the streets and have encircled the town,” one resident, Madame Coulibaly, told Reuters by phone. “They are searching houses for arms or hidden Islamists.”
Analysts expressed doubt, however, that African nations would be able to mount a swift operation to retake north Mali — a harsh, sparsely populated terrain the size of France — as neither the equipment nor ground troops were prepared.
“My first impression is that this is an emergency patch in a very dangerous situation,” said Gregory Mann, associate professor of history at Columbia University, who specializes in francophone Africa and Mali in particular.
While France and its allies may be able to drive rebel fighters from large towns, they could struggle to prise them from mountain redoubts in the region of Kidal, 300 km (200 miles) northeast of Gao.
Human Rights Watch said at least 11 civilians, including three children, had been killed in the fighting. A spokesman for Doctors Without Borders in neighboring Mauritania said about 200 Malian refugees had fled across the border to a camp at Fassala and more were on their way.
In Bamako, civilians tried to contribute to the war effort.
“We are very proud and relieved that the army was able to drive the jihadists out of Konna. We hope it will not end there, that is why I’m helping in my own way,” said civil servant Ibrahima Kalossi, 32, one of over 40 people who queued to donate blood for wounded soldiers.
(Additional reporting by Adama Diarra, Tiemoko Diallo and Rainer Schwenzfeier in Bamako, Pascal Fletcher in Johannesburg, Joe Bavier in Abidjan, Catherine Bremer, Leila Aboud and John Irish in Paris and Phil Stewart in Washington; Writing by Daniel Flynn; Editing by Will Waterman and Roger Atwood)
Full article here.
Morsi in 2010: No to Negotiations with the Blood-Sucking, Warmongering “Descendants of Apes and Pigs”; Calls to Boycott U.S.
Products. The Arab Spring is brought to you by a grant from Barack Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood
At the beginning of the Arab Spring, Obama sided with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama put the muscle in place to assassinate Muammar Gaddhafi.
Obama did nothing to stop the Arab Spring as it spread across the Middle East.
Obama aided the Brotherhood in Yemen with airstrikes.
Obama convinces G8 to give Muslim Brotherhood $8 billion for Arab Spring.
The liberal media aided Obama by whole heartedly embracing the Arab Spring.
After taking over Egypt, Obama then publicly declared the US-Muslim Brotherhood partnership.
• Hezbollah’s active support of the Assad regime is one of the region’s worst kept secrets. Asharq al-Awsat sheds new light on the details.
• Panetta: US Troops Securing Syria’s Chemical Weapons Not an Option in ‘Hostile Atmosphere’
• Maan News: Egyptian security in the Sinai intercepted three trucks carrying 2.5 tons of explosives and mortar devices.
Arab Spring Winter
I studied the story’s journey and trajectory through America over the past week with Sue Radlauer, the Director of Research Services here atForbes. We gave it seven days to see if any of the so-called “mainstream media” — a pejorative phrase that too-often obscures more than it reveals — bestowed the hate speech even a few sentences of back-page ink. Nothing.
But major, seasoned reporters still need to hold Morsi’s feet to fire over such comments – if not by asking him directly about them, then at least by reporting that he uttered them. Surely, if the president of virtually any other country in the world had defamed an entire people in such a way — only a couple years before they got the top job, to boot — it would have at least gotten a few column-inches. Yet Morsi gets a free pass.
Behar’s referring to this video which Memri posted online and transcribed.
James Foley, 39, a freelance reporter covering the conflict for the French wire service Agence France Presse and the Global Post web site, is believed to have been captured at gunpoint in the northern Syrian province of Idlib on Nov. 22.
(NaturalNews) The reports are absolutely true. Facebook suspended the Natural News account earlier today after we posted an historical quote from Mohandas Gandhi. The quote reads: “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” – Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.
This historical quote was apparently too much for Facebook’s censors to bear. They suspended our account and gave us a “final warning” that one more violation of their so-called “community guidelines” would result in our account being permanently deactivated.
They then demanded we send them a color copy of a “government issued identification” in order to reactivate our account. Our account was removed from suspension just minutes before InfoWars posted its article on this Facebook censorship, and the Facebook page is now functioning at:
Logic is an enemy and history is a menace
That Facebook would choose to disable our account after we posted a Gandhi quote is incredibly shocking. The historical rise of oppressed Indian people against tyrannical British rule is apparently no longer allowed to be discussed on Facebook. The very IDEA of a free people overcoming tyrannical government rule now “violates community guidelines.” The removal of this content is akin to online book burning and the destruction of history.
This post was not in any way malicious, nor encouraging violence, nor even describing guns or the Second Amendment. It merely reflected the words of one of our world’s most celebrated rebel leaders who helped an entire nation throw off the shackles of oppression and British occupation. That Facebook would find this to “violate community guidelines” is nothing short of absolutely bewildering.
Here is the full image as originally posted on Facebook. Keep in mind that THIS is now considered unacceptable speech across the “Facebook community,” where any number of people can openly call for the murder of the NRA president and have absolutely no action taken against them:
InfoWars.com is also now reporting that Facebook is running an across-the-board PURGE of pro-gun accounts. A huge number of accounts are all being systematically disabled or suspended, with all content being wiped clean.
We have entered the era of the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell’s 1984 novel. And while Facebook assaults the First Amendment in America, Senator Feinstein is busy assaulting the Second.
Facebook declares war on human history
What’s especially alarming about all this is that Gandhi himself was of course a champion of resistance against tyranny. To banish quotes from Gandhi is much like banning quotes of freedom from Martin Luther King (who also openly supported concealed firearms, by the way, and who personally owned an entire “arsenal” of firearms).
What’s next? Will Facebook ban quotes by Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? Any and all patriots, founding fathers and liberty lovers throughout history might soon be stricken from the Facebook servers, and any who dare to post historical quotes supporting liberty, the Bill of Rights, or the Second Amendment risk having their accounts terminated and all content deleted.
Collectivist propaganda has now reached a point where you can’t even discuss liberty or anything out of history that supported the right to keep and bear arms. You are required to stay focused solely on celebrity gossip, sports stars, fashion distractions and tabloid garbage. Anyone who wishes to discuss actual American history must now go underground and speak softly in dimly-lit rooms, behind secret walls and drawn curtains.
The era of total oppression and collectivist mind control has fully arrived in America. This is not hyperbole… IT IS HERE NOW.
Memorize this quote, because it too shall soon be purged from the internet:
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson.
Dare to post that on Facebook and you risk your account being disabled or deleted.
This is a separate account from our primary Facebook account, which has nearly 250,000 followers at: