Exclusive Video: Anwar al-Awlaki’s Long-Lost U.S. Speech from September 1, 2001

Reblogged from The Counter Jihad Report

 

111002 Al-Awlaki death deals major blow to al-...

On September 1, 2001, just days before the 9/11 attacks, Awlaki gave an infamous lecture on “tolerance” at the 2001 ISNA convention, just as some of his disciples were preparing to launch the largest terrorist attack in American history.

 

One of his co-panelists in 2001, Hamza Yusuf, is one of this year’s keynote speakers. At the 1995 ISNA convention, Yusuf told the crowd that  Judaism “is a most racist religion.”

 

Video of Awlaki’s lecture has never before been viewed by the public. PJ Media has obtained a video — watch it above in its entirety.

 

At the time of the speech, Awlaki was a media darling. The New York Times hailed him as part of “a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West.” NPR contrasted Awlaki with Osama bin Laden, describing Awlaki as one of the “moderates who want to solve the problems without violence” and someone who could “build bridges between Islam and the West.” Awlaki was even featured in a November 2001 Washington Post Ramadan online chat.

The recognition of Awlaki wasn’t exclusive to the media. He was also leading prayers for congressional Muslim staffers on Capitol Hill. Post-9/11, he was lecturing on Islam inside the executive dining room of the Pentagon, still scarred from the al-Qaeda hijackers that had crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into it.

He was, according to the Wall Street Journal, even one of the instructors that taught prospective Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military.

Read the rest at The Counter Jihad Report

‘Gutsy Call’ Not So Gutsy After All – Obama and Jarrett Canceled Operation to Kill Bin Laden Three Times

As you read this article, keep in mind that Valerie Jarrett’s Iranian roots and her ties with the Muslim Brotherhood most certainly influence her decisions.  And make no mistake – they are HER decisions.  From The Ulsterman Report: Valerie Jarrett and The Muslim Brotherhood:

For most Americans Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to President Barack Obama,  remains largely an unknown.  To DC Insiders, she has positioned herself as the  true power in the Oval Office – a woman who, like the President, has direct  links to the Muslim world, both past – and present.  

 According to an American Spectator report in August of 2008, the Obama campaign  had initiated an aggressive program to hide Jarrett’s Iranian background.   This program received significant help from certain media figures who were only  too happy to comply with the Obama camp’s request that Jarrett’s Middle East  ties were not made a public matter – even as Iranian.com declared Jarrett its “Iranian of the Day” that same month of August.  Also during that same time  period, Barack Obama admitted to the New York Times that,  “I trust her  (Jarrett) to speak for me, particularly when we’re dealing with delicate  issues” and that he ran every important decision by her first.

A 2010 New York Times article cited the following regarding the Obama  administration’s ever increasing involvement with Muslim groups – led of course by Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett: Muslim and Arab-American  advocates have participated in policy discussions and received briefings from  top White House aides and other officials on health care legislation, foreign policy, the economy, immigration and  national security. They have met privately with a senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett.

‘Gutsy Call’ Not So Gutsy After All, New Book Reveals

By Rachel Hirshfeld via Israel National News

According to a new book, President Obama canceled operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions, due to instructions of aide.

At the urging of senior advisor Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission, according to a new book scheduled for release August 21, The Daily Caller (DC) reported.

In “Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors who Decide for Him,” Richard Miniter writes that Obama canceled the mission in January 2011, again in February, and a third time in March.

Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor and assistant to the president for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, reportedly persuaded Obama to hold off each time, the book reveals, according to The DC.

Miniter, a two-time New York Times best-selling author, cites an unnamed source with Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning.

Obama administration officials said after the raid that the president had delayed giving the order to kill the arch-terrorist the day before the operation was carried out, in what turned out to be his fourth moment of indecision.

At the time, the White House blamed the delay on unfavorable weather conditions near bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. However, when Miniter obtained that day’s weather reports from the U.S. Air Force Combat Meteorological Center, he said, they showed ideal conditions for the SEALs to carry out their orders.

“President Obama’s greatest success was actually his greatest failure,” Miniter told The DC. “Leading From Behind,” he said, traces six key decisions of the Obama administration, and shows how the president made them, or, in many cases, failed to make them.

The president has made the assassination of Osama bin Laden a focal point in his re-election campaign, calling it one of the “gutsiest calls of any president in recent history.”

Read more at Israel Nation News

Obama’s lost cause (WAPO – et tu???)

By Michael Gerson via The Washington Post

 

“We’re not going back. . . . We’re going forward,” President Obama said during his formal campaign kickoff in Ohio. This rallying cry was pedestrian, and appropriately so. Obama is no longer a leader on horseback. His campaign — on the evidence of its first day — will be a long, unimaginative, partisan march to the sea.

 

Gone are the vast ambitions of national progress and healing. In Ohio on Saturday, Obama made a methodical appeal to various voting blocks — college-educated women, gays, Hispanics. He waded into the culture war on abortion, something he rarely did four years ago. And he accused the GOP of trickle-down hostility to the middle class.

To every interest group, a sop. On every wedge issue, a swat. To every class enemy, a turn in the tumbrel. Obama has gone “forward” all the way to the strategy of Walter Mondale.The president may persuade voters with this message, but he apparently has given up trying to inspire them. And this is not a small thing, since the Obama brand once consisted mainly of inspiration.

The brand of the Obama reelection campaign, so far, is ruthlessness. It has accused Mitt Romney of being soft on Osama bin Laden. It has singled out some Romney donors by name for public attack. Romney, we are informed, enjoys shipping jobs abroad, which is “just what you’d expect from a guy who had a Swiss bank account.” Obama has accused Republican congressional opponents of social Darwinism and indifference to autistic children.

U.S. politics has a long history of ruthlessness, which is not always a Nixon-like negative. Franklin Roosevelt matched the ruthlessness of dictators in his defense of democracy. Lyndon Johnson ruthlessly broke filibusters in pursuit of civil rights legislation. Robert Kennedy reportedly joked about his reputation: “I am not ruthless. And if I find the man who is calling me ruthless, I shall destroy him.”

There is a political case for Obama’s early, hardball tactics. It has Democrats excited. Liberals — who have occasionally complained that Obama is not confrontational enough — are no longer complaining.

But there are downsides as well. Obama is already one of the most consistently polarizing presidents of the last 60 years. His current campaign strategy, win or lose, will deepen our national divisions. It was unreasonable to believe that Obama could reverse the long-term political trend toward polarization. But it is still sad when a leader ceases to fight the current.

Obama’s political identity is particularly vulnerable to inconsistency on this issue. More than any recent presidential candidate, his initial appeal was based on changing the political atmosphere. He would end the “partisan food fight.” There are no red or blue states, he said, just the United States.

Obama’s agenda, strategy and rhetoric are now solidly blue — perhaps for sound political reasons. But Obama’s talent for inspiration was the single most interesting thing about him as a politician. Without that aspiration, what is left of his appeal? This is the reason his Ohio speech seemed so boring, particularly in comparison to his speeches four years ago. There was little that couldn’t be said by any liberal politician, at any time. Obama has lost more than a campaign talking point; he has lost one of the main reasons for his rise.

What principle or purpose unites Obama’s initial campaign with his current reelection effort? There is little obvious continuity — apart from one, unchanging commitment. The cause that has outlasted hope and change is Obama himself.

There have always been two parts of Obama’s political persona, both of which were essential to his rapid advancement. There is the Hyde Park Obama, lecturing on constitutional law, quoting Reinhold Niebuhr and transcending old political divisions. There is also the South Side Obama, who rose in Chicago politics by doing what it takes.

This is not unusual. All politicians believe that their tenacity and competitiveness are servants to their idealism. But as the Hyde Park Obama fades, the South Side Obama becomes less appealing.

All of the atmospheric elements of politics — unity, bipartisanship and common purpose — are significantly worse than four years ago. This is not all Obama’s fault. But he is choosing — in a campaign so nasty, so early — to make it worse. At some point, ruthlessness just leaves ruins.

michaelgerson@washpost.com

For more information click here.

Our Narcissistic Leader is at it Again – Obama Officials Drafted Memo to Blame Military If OBL Mission Failed

Posted by Jim Hoft via Gateway Pundit

Leadership: Obama Administration Drafted Memo to Blame Military if OBL Mission Failed

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey told Sean Hannity tonight that the Obama Administration drafted a memo to protect the president from blame if the mission to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden would have failed. That way Obama could blame the general instead of taking the blame himself. Mukasey wrote about it this week in The Wall Street Journal.

“That was a highly lawyered memo (designed to protect the president politically)… I think there’s going to be more that’s going to be tumbling out about that escapade but so far that memo is enough.

And, of course, this surprises no one who is familiar with Obama’s leadership style.

Mukasey also contrasted Obama’s leadership style tonight to Lincoln and Eisenhower as he did in his WSJ Opinion piece earlier in the week.

Lincoln took responsibility in August 1862 for failures that had been attributed to General George McClellan—eventually sacked for incompetence—and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Lincoln told a crowd that McClellan was not at fault for seeking more than Stanton could give, and “I stand here, as justice requires me to do, to take upon myself what has been charged upon the Secretary of War.”

Dwight Eisenhower is famous for having penned a statement to be issued in anticipation of the failure of the Normandy invasion that reads in relevant part: “My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

A week later, when the success of the invasion was apparent, Eisenhower saluted the Allied Expeditionary Forces: “One week ago this morning there was established through your coordinated efforts our first foothold in northwestern Europe. High as was my preinvasion confidence in your courage, skill and effectiveness . . . your accomplishments . . . have exceeded my brightest hopes.

Eisenhower did mention himself at the end: “I truly congratulate you upon a brilliantly successful beginning. . . . Liberty loving people everywhere would today like to join me in saying to you, ‘I am proud of you.’”

Wanted: A Competent Commander-In-Chief

By Frank Gaffney, Jr. via Center for Security Policy

So, it turns out, Team Obama suddenly wants the 2012 presidential campaign to be about foreign policy, rather than the economy.  Such a pivot might not be surprising given that, by President Obama’s own test, he has not cut unemployment to the point where he deserves to be reelected.

The Democrats have – if anything – a weaker case for reelecting this president on national security grounds.  The campaign ad they unveiled on Friday, timed to take credit for the liquidation of Osama bin Laden on the first anniversary of that achievement, is a case in point.

The video used former President Bill Clinton to extol his successor’s role in the mission – and selectively quoted Republican nominee Mitt Romney to suggest he would not have done the same.

It is an act of desperation and contempt for the American people that, of all people, Mr. Clinton would be used in such a role.  Let’s recall, during his presidency, he repeatedly declined to take out bin Laden.  (So sensitive is the former president about this sorry record that his operatives insisted in 2006 that ABC excise from “Path to 9/11″ – an outstanding made-for-TV film by Cyrus Nowrasteh – a dramatized version of one such episode.  Check it out at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asw8fhpz0wA.)

More telling still is an issue inadvertently showcased by this controversy.  While the Clinton-Obama-Biden spot tries to make Gov. Romney sound as though he wouldn’t have had the courage, or at least the vision, the President exhibited in a risky bid to take out bin Laden, what the presumptive Republican nominee actually said in 2007 in context illustrates a far better grasp than President Obama has of the enemy we confront:

“I wouldn’t want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden. He’s one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He’s by no means the only leader. It’s a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world. It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. It is worth fashioning and executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that.”

Mr. Obama, by contrast, would have us believe that the problem is not only just al Qaeda but that that threat is pretty much a thing of the past, thanks to bin Laden’s elimination and the decimation primarily by drone strikes of others among its leadership and rank and file. An unnamed senior State Department official told the NationalJournal last week, “The War on Terror is over” as Muslims embrace “legitimate Islamism.”

Unfortunately, as Seth Jones observed in the Wall Street Journal on April 30, 2012, “Al Qaeda is far from dead.  Acting as if it were will not make it so.”

Even if al Qaeda actually had been defeated, however, we are – as Mitt Romney said five years ago – confronting a host of other jihadist enemies who seek the same goals as bin Laden’s al Qaeda and its franchises: the triumph of the totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine of shariah and a global government, known as a caliphate, to govern according to it.

Unfortunately, as demonstrated conclusively in a free, web-based video course entitled “Muslim Brotherhood in America: the Enemy Within” released last week by the Center for Security Policy (www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), far from understanding the danger posed by the rest of the jihadist enterprise, the Obama administration is actually making it stronger.

The evidence presented in this course suggests that could be due, at least in part, to the six Muslim Brotherhood-associated individuals the Center has identified who are either on the government’s payroll, advising it and/or being used for outreach to the American Muslim community.  (See Part 8 for the details on the Obama Six.)

Whatever the motivation, consider how Team Obama has managed the three other groups Gov. Romney mentioned.  The administration made no effort to impede the take-over of Lebanon by the Iranian foreign legion, the designated terrorist organization known as Hezbollah.  It has actively helped bring to power, recognized and effectively turned over $1.5 billion to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  Worse yet, it has, as noted above, embraced its operatives and front groups here.  And President Obama personally directed last week that $170 million in U.S. foreign aid be given to a Palestinian Authority “unity government” which includes another designated terrorist organization, Hamas – incredibly on the grounds tthat “U.S. national security interests” required it.

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, fundamentally misconstruing the nature of the enemy is just part of this president’s ominous legacy with respect to his Commander-in-Chief portfolio.   The wrecking operation he is engaged in with respect to our military’s capability to project power, its unilateral cuts to the U.S. nuclear deterrent and weakening our missile defenses may not be fully evident between now and the election.  But the impact will be felt for generations to come.  That will be true in spades of the war on the culture of the armed forces being waged inpursuit the radical left’s efforts to make-over American social norms and mores, starting with its most esteemed institution: the United States military.

Getting bin Laden isn’t the issue.  The issue is whether President Obama is getting right the rest of his job as Commander-in-Chief.  And, regrettably, he is not.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

For more information click here.

Navy SEALs Are Hammering Obama For Taking Credit For Their Work

By Brett LoGiurato via Business Insider

It’s been a year to the day since President Obama announced the heroic mission  of the Navy SEAL Team Six that killed Osama bin Laden. But Navy SEALs aren’t  taking too kindly to Obama reminding everyone about it in the past few  days.

Surprise, surprise: Today is all about politics.

Current serving and ex-Navy SEALs spoke with The Daily Mail for a story published last night,  and boy did they have a lot to say. A sampling: Some said the mission was a  no-brainer for any president. Some accused Obama of taking credit for their  work. Some said it was an attempt to use them as “ammunition” for his  re-election campaign.

Here’s Ryan Zinke, a former 23-year SEAL that is now a Republican state  Senator from Montana:

“The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him  for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right  call. I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in  saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice — it was a broader  team effort.”

For someone not currently engulfed in politics on the other side, let’s go  to Clint Bruce, who “gave up the chance of an NFL  career to serve as a SEAL officer,” according to the Mail:

“We were extremely surprised and discouraged  by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to  operate. It’s a waste of time to speculate about who would and wouldn’t  have made that decision. It was a symphony of opportunity and intelligence that  allowed this administration to give the green light. We want to acknowledge that  they made that decision.

“Politicians should let the public know where  they stand on national security but not in the play-by-play, detailed way that  has been done recently. The intricacies of national security should not become  part of stump speeches.”

The debate continues to rage over Obama’s campaign ad, in which Bill Clinton  voices over the narrative that Obama made the tough decision that led to the  death of the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

Here is the mistake Obama made, though, which makes it so  controversial and ripe for attack: The speculation over whether Mitt Romney  would have made the same call.

It’s a delicate balance: On one hand, Romney is on record saying that it was  not “worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just  trying to catch one person.” On the other, how much credit does a  politician — even a President — get for the operation?

Romney, for his part, said yesterday that “any thinking American” would have ordered the killing.  Today, he issued a statement:

“Today marks the one year anniversary of the  mission that brought Osama bin Laden to justice. That mission was the  culmination of nearly a decade of hard work and sacrifice by our men and women  in the military and intelligence communities. I commend all those who planned  and conducted the bin Laden raid, and I applaud President Obama for giving the  go ahead for the mission.

Expect this political back-and-forth to continue as part of the foreign  policy debate up through the final days leading up to the election.

For more information click here.

Obama lets more of our secrets slide away!

By Judson Phillips via Tea Party Nation

Well, there is more good news on the Iranian front.  They have reverse engineered the stealth drone that Obama let fall into their hands back in December.

From the Blaze:

Iran claimed Sunday that it had reverse-engineered an American spy drone captured by its armed forces last year and has begun building a copy.

Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, chief of the aerospace division of the powerful Revolutionary Guards, related what he said were details of the aircraft‘s operational history to prove his claim that Tehran’s military experts had extracted data from the U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel captured in December in eastern Iran, state television reported.

Among the drone’s past missions, he said, was surveillance of the compound in northwest Pakistan in which Osama Bin Laden lived and was killed.

Tehran has flaunted the capture of the Sentinel, a top-secret surveillance drone with stealth technology, as a victory for Iran and a defeat for the United States in a complicated intelligence and technological battle. A report from the country’s official Fars News Agency mocked President Barack Obama, saying he had begged the country “to give him back his toy plane.”

U.S. officials have acknowledged losing the drone. They have said Iran will find it hard to exploit any data and technology aboard it because of measures taken to limit the intelligence value of drones operating over hostile territory.

Hajizadeh told state television that the captured surveillance drone is a “national asset” for Iran and that he could not reveal full technical details. But he did provide some samples of the data that he claimed Iranian experts had recovered.

Back in December, Obama had a chance to avoid this disaster.  He had the chance to order a missile strike or an air strike to destroy the stealth drone before the Iranians captured it but refused to do so.

Obama seems to have this weird idea that if America has secrets, we should make sure that our enemies know what they are.  The Obama Regime publicized our techniques for interrogation so that our enemies would know how to prepare for them.  They released information about Israel using bases in Azerbaijan for a possible strike against Iran and Obama has talked about giving the Russians access to classified information about our missile interceptors.

Odds are, within hours of the drone being recovered by the Iranians, the Russians and Chinese were getting a look at some of our most sophisticated technology.

Good job Obama.

As Iran, the Russians and the Chinese now use the information we allowed to fall into their hands, perhaps real Americans can use the information we are learning about the Obama Regime to throw him out of office in November.

For more information click here.

The Vetting, Part I: Barack’s Love Song To Alinsky

By Andrew Breitbart

Prior to his passing, Andrew Breitbart said that the mission of the Breitbart empire was to exemplify the free and fearless press that our Constitution protects–but which, increasingly, the mainstream media denies us.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” – “Who guards the guardians?” Andrew saw himself in that role—as a guardian protecting Americans from the left’s “objective” loyal scribes. 

Andrew wanted to do what the mainstream media would not. First and foremost: Andrew pledged to vet President Barack H. Obama

Andrew did not want to re-litigate the 2008 election. Nor did he want to let Republicans off the hook. Instead, he wanted to show that the media had failed in its most basic duty: to uncover the truth, and hold those in power accountable, regardless of party.

From today through Election Day, November 6, 2012, we will vet this president–and his rivals. 

We begin with a column Andrew wrote last week in preparation for today’s Big relaunch–a story that should swing the first hammer against the glass wall the mainstream media has built around Barack Obama.

***

In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama claims that he worried after 9/11 that his name, so similar to that of Osama bin Laden, might harm his political career.

But Obama was not always so worried about misspellings and radical resemblances. He may even have cultivated them as he cast himself as Chicago’s radical champion.

In 1998, a small Chicago theater company staged a play titled The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the life and politics of the radical community organizer whose methods Obama had practiced and taught on Chicago’s South Side.

Obama was not only in the audience, but also took the stage after one performance, participating in a panel discussion that was advertised in the poster for the play.

Recently, veteran Chicago journalist Michael Miner mocked emerging conservative curiosity about the play, along with enduring suspicions about the links between Alinsky and Obama. Writing in the Chicago Reader, Miner described the poster:

Let’s take a look at this poster.

It’s red—and that right there, like the darkening water that swirls down Janet Leigh’s drain [in Psycho’s famous shower scene], is plenty suggestive. It touts a play called The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, Alinsky being the notorious community organizer from Chicago who wrote books with titles like Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals. On it, fists are raised—meaning insurrection is in the air.

And down at the very bottom, crawling across the poster in small print, it mentions the panel discussions that will follow the Sunday performances. The panelists are that era’s usual “progressive” suspects: Leon Despres, Monsignor Jack Egan, Studs Terkel . . .

And state senator Barack Obama.

Miner obscured the truth. His article only reveals only a small portion of the poster.

Here’s the whole poster:

AlinskyPosterFullRez http://www.docstoc.com/docs/115371673/AlinskyPosterFullRez

And here’s the press release:
So, what’s in the play? It truly is a love song to Alinsky. In the first few minutes of the play, Alinsky plays Moses – yes, the Biblical Moses – talking to God. The play glorifies Alinsky stealing food from restaurants and organizing others to do the same, explaining, “I saw it as a practical use of social ecology: you had members of the intellectual community, the hope of the future, eating regularly for six months, staying alive till they could make their contributions to society.”

In an introspective moment, Alinsky rips America: “My country … ‘tis of whatthehell / And justice up a tree … How much can you sell / What’s in it for me.” He grins about manipulating the Christian community to back his programs. He talks in glowing terms about engaging in Chicago politics with former Mayor Kelly. He rips the McCarthy committee, mocking, “Everyone was there, when you think back – Cotton Mather, Hester Prynn, Anne Hutchinson, Tom Paine, Tom Jefferson … Brandeis, Holmes … Gene Debs and the socialists … Huey Long … Imperial Wizards of all stripes … Father Coughlin and his money machine … Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd … and a kicking chorus of sterilized reactionaries singing O Come, All Ye Faithful …”

And Alinsky talks about being the first occupier – shutting down the O’Hare Airport by occupying all the toilet stalls, using chewing gum to “tie up the city, stop all traffic, and the shopping, in the Loop, and let everyone at City Hall know attention must be paid, and maybe we should talk about it.” As Alinsky says, “Students of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your juicy fruit.”

The play finishes with Alinsky announcing he’d rather go to Hell than Heaven. Why? “More comfortable there. You see, all my life I’ve been with the Have-Nots: here you’re a Have-Not if you’re short of money, there you’re a Have-Not if you’re short of virtue. I’d be asking more questions, organizing them. They’re my kind of people – Hell would be Heaven for me.”

That’s The Love Song of Saul Alinsky. It’s radical leftist stuff, and it revels in its radical leftism.

And that’s Barack Obama, our president, on the poster.

This is who Barack Obama was. This was before Barack Obama ran for Congress in 2000—challenging former Black Panther Bobby L. Rush from the left in a daring but unsuccessful bid.

This was also the period just before Barack Obama served with Bill Ayers, from 1999 through 2002 on the board of the Woods Foundation. They gave capital to support the Midwest Academy, a leftist training institute steeped in the doctrines of — you guessed it! — Saul Alinsky, and whose alumni now dominate the Obama administration and its top political allies inside and out of Congress.
Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief, described the Midwest Academy as a “crypto-socialist organization.” Yet almost no one has heard of Midwest Academy, because the media does not want you to know that the president is a radical’s radical whose presidency itself is a love song to a socialist “community organizer.”
The reason Newt Gingrich surged in the Republican primary contest in January is that he was attempting to do the press’s job by finding out who the current occupant of the White House actually is. Millions also want to know, but the mainstream media is clearly not planning to vet the President anytime soon. Quite the opposite.

For example, Miner tries to turn Obama’s appearance on the Alinsky panel into a plus for the president:

Obama was on the panel that talked about Alinsky the last Sunday of the play’s run at the Blue Rider Theatre in Pilsen. Neither Pam Dickler, who directed the Terrapin Theatre production, nor Gary Houston, who played Alinsky, can remember a word Obama said. But he impressed them. “You never would have known he was a politician,” says Dickler. “He never said anything at all about himself. He came alone, watched the play, and during the panel discussion was entirely on point and brilliant. That evening I called my father, who’s a political junkie, and told him to watch out for this man, he’s going places.” Houston was just as taken by Obama—though he remembers him arriving in a group.

But is it a good thing to impress the sort of people who show up to laud The Love Song of Saul Alinsky? Here are the other members of the Obama panel:

Leon Despres: Despres knew Saul Alinsky for nearly 50 years, and together they established the modern concept of “community organizing.” Despres worked with secret Communist and Soviet spy Lee Pressman to support strikers at Republic Steel in Chicago in 1937; the strike ended in tragedy when 14 rioting strikers were killed and many wounded in a hail of police bullets.  Despres worked with another Communist Party front, the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, but eventually left because of the “Stalinism” of its leaders.

Also in 1937, Despres and his wife delivered a suitcase of “clothing” to Leon Trotsky, then hiding out from Stalin’s assassins in Mexico City. Despres and his wife not only met with the exiled Russian Communist, but Despres’s wife sat for a portrait with Trotsky pal and Marxist muralist Diego Rivera while Leon took Rivera’s wife Frida Kahlo to the movies.

Quentin Young: From 1970 until at least 1992, Quentin Young was active in the Communist Party front organization, the Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights – a group dedicated to outlawing government surveillance of radical organizations.  He was also a member of the Young Communist League. Young, a confidante and physician to Barack Obama, is credited with having heavily influenced the President’s views on healthcare policy.

Timuel Black: An icon of the Chicago left, Black was originally denied officer training because military intelligence claimed he had secretly joined the Communist Party. Black also worked closely with the Socialist Party in the 1950s, becoming president of the local chapter of the Negro American Labor Council, a organization founded by Socialist Party leader A. Phillip Randolph.

In the early ‘60s Black was a leader of the Hyde Park Community Peace Center, where he worked alongside former radical Trotskyist Sydney Lens and the aforementioned Communist Dr. Quentin Young.  Black served as a contributing editor to the Hyde Park/Kenwood Voices, a newspaper run by Communist Party member David S. Canter. By 1970, Timuel Black was serving on the advisory council of the Communist Party controlled Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights.

Timuel Black says he has been friends with domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, “going back to 1968, since long before I knew Barack.” In April 2002, Black, Dohrn and Democratic Socialists of America member Richard Rorty spoke together on a panel entitled “Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?” The panel was the first of two in a public gathering jointly sponsored by The Center for Public Intellectuals and the University of Illinois, Chicago. Bill Ayers and Barack Obama spoke together on in the second panel at that gathering. Communist academic Harold Rogers chaired Timuel Black’s unsuccessful campaign for Illinois State Representative.

Studs Terkel: A sponsor of the Scientific and Cultural Conference for World Peace in 1949, which was arranged by a Communist Party USA front organization known as the National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions.

Roberta Lynch: A leading member of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and a leader of the radical Marxist New American Movement (NAM).

Are we expected to believe that “Baraka Obama” was a countervailing voice of reason on a panel of radicals?

The reason that Obama’s Alinskyite past, and his many appearances in political photography and video from the 1990s, are conspicuously missing from the national dialogue is that State Senator Barack Obama’s reinvention as a reasonable and moderate Democratic politician could not withstand scrutiny of his political life.

Because the mainstream media did not explore his roots, the American public remains largely ignorant of the degree to which Obama’s work with ACORN and his love of Alinsky were symbolic of his true political will.

If any of the candidates can resist the media, and parlay Newt’s strategy into a nomination, we’ll have the choice between an imperfect but well-known Republican and the real “Baraka” Obama, not the manufactured one the media prefers.

Rep. King to probe suspected White House security leaks

By Jim Kouri via the Examiner

Official portrait of Congressman .

On Friday, U.S. Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security,  released a list of issues that will be priorities for the Committee during the  second session of the 112th Congress.

 

King plans to investigate alleged leaks of classified  information regarding sensitive counterterrorism operations  to Hollywood and Guantanamo Bay that could endanger the lives of  intelligence officers and special operators, their families, and the  homeland.

Recently, news stories broke regarding the White House allegedly giving  access to classified military and intelligence documents to Oscar-winning motion  picture director Kathryn Bigalow for her film  project about America’s war against Osama bin Laden.

A number of U.S. lawmakers and counterterrorism officials became angry when  it was discovered Bigalow’s film would open in theaters just weeks before the  2012 presidential election. Since then, the movie’s premiere was switched to  after the election.

But members of the House Homeland Security Committee still wish to  investigate the Bigalow-White House information exchange as well as numerous  other subjects.

In addition, copies of classified government documents were discovered in  the possession of Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Some observers  allege the documents may have been smuggled into the detention center by  attorneys representing the prisoners at Gitmo.

King said:  “In 2012, we will continue the Committee’s focus on  critical counterterrorism issues, just as I promised to do when I was selected  as Chairman.  The series of radicalization hearings I convened last March  has been very productive, and I will definitely continue the hearings in  2012.  The Committee will also examine a number of additional homeland  security issues and will move legislation necessary to secure our homeland from  the terrorists who continue to plot attacks against us.”

King’s priorities will include:

*Continuing to investigate radicalization within the Muslim-American  community;

*Studying the presence and activities in the United States of Iran’s  intelligence services, proxies such as Hezbollah, and its ally of convenience,  al-Qaeda; and the looming Iranian terror threat to the homeland;

*Probing overseas Islamist money coming into the United States;

*Obtaining for the military victims of the 2009 Islamist terror attacks on  the homeland, at Little Rock, Arkansas and Fort Hood, Texas, the Purple Heart  Medals they deserve;

*Investigating the possible roles that the deceased al-Qaeda leader Anwar  al-Awlaki and his at-large associates, Daoud Chehazeh and Eyad al-Rababah, may  have played in facilitating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001;

*Studying security preparations for the 2012 Summer Olympics in London;

*Assessing whether enemy veterans of conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan,  Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia pose dangers to the homeland;

*Ensuring the protection of U.S. security contractors in Afghanistan and  Iraq (many of whom are veterans, reservists, or National Guardsmen) who  have been illegally detained by the governments in Kabul and Baghdad;

*Monitoring emerging threats to the homeland;

*Continuing close examination of the Department of Homeland Security’s  operations, policies, and programs.

On Wednesday, February 15, the Committee will convene the first Full Committee hearing of 2012, during which Homeland  Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will testify on President Obama’s 2013  budget request due out next Monday.

Missing George W. Bush

By Alan Caruba in Tea Party Nation

English: Official photograph portrait of forme...

It’s not fashionable to speak well of Obama’s predecessor, but it grows more difficult by the day to find anything good to say about the incumbent President who recently opined that Americans are “lazy” and have “lost our ambition.” As I recall he spent his first year in office going around the world apologizing for what he deemed America’s past sins and exceptualism.

No, I am talking about George W. Bush, often referred to as Bush 43. I think historians are going to treat him more kindly than might seem likely to some at this point almost three years since the current President took the oath of office in January 2009. Bush 43, with Trumanesque self-discipline and modesty, went home and has not spoken out about his successor’s decisions in office, neither to criticize nor praise. That’s how presidents are expected to behave.

Bush43, however, did begin writing a memoir of his eight years in office called “Decision Points” and, when it was first published, it became a bestseller. It is available now in a softcover edition from Broadway Books at $18.00, but already discounted to an affordable twelve dollars and change on Amazon.com. As a longtime book reviewer, I received the softcover edition and have been reading it in lieu of watching the horrid stuff that passes for television these days.

I begin with a confession that, throughout his two terms, I had a good opinion of George W. Bush. I disagreed with his No Child Left Behind approach to education and I thought that adding a prescription benefit to an already broke Medicare was unwise. I had some qualms about the creation of the super agency, Homeland Security, and the Patriot Act. By the time the “surge” in Iraq arrived, I thought it was a bad idea to have invaded even though I understood the threat that Saddam Hussein posed in the region. As it turned out, other Middle East dictators began to fall like dominoes in the wake of the U.S. action.

Bush’s book surprised me. I had no idea of the depth of his religious faith and how it sustained him through the trial of 9/11 and other difficult times such as the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. This is a man who begins his day by reading the Bible. Frankly, I found that comforting.

I looked upon his presidency as being part of the “family business.” His grandfather, Prescott Bush had been a U.S. Senator from Connecticut. His father, George H.W. Bush had served as Ronald Reagan’s Vice President before being elected President in his own right. What comes through George W’s memoir is his deep love for his parents, his brothers, and his own family, wife Laura and his twin girls.

The memoir is not some coldly intellectual analysis, but rather is infused with his own emotions as he dealt with crisis, the greatest of which—9/11—turned him into a wartime president. I think he met the challenge of the first attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor and one that took the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans, including first responders.

When Bush visited the site of Ground Zero in New York amidst the still smoking ruins, a soot-covered firefighter “looked me in square in the eye and said, ‘George, find the bastards who did this and kill them.’ It’s not often that people call the president by his first name. But that was fine with me. This was personal.”

What distinguishes “Decision Points” is the fact that it is devoted to explaining why he did what he did during his two terms. We need to remind ourselves of the times in which those decisions were occurring and, perhaps, to remember how frightened the nation was in the wake of 9/11.

That fear gave way quickly to the leadership Bush provided; his decision to invade Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban and al Qaeda, the creation of “Gitmo” as a place to hold non-state combatants and the reorganization of government intelligence and law enforcement agencies to better coordinate their ability to share information. In the eight years that followed, no further attacks were successful.

That stands in contrast with President Obama’s announcement that Osama bin Laden had been killed. It was filled with “I did this” and “I did that” and never once mentioned that it was possible only because of the machinery that George W. Bush had put in place. Indeed, Obama had wanted to close Gitmo and try the planner of 9/11 in a civil court with all the protections the U.S. Constitution provides Americans. Both proposals were abandoned after widespread opposition.

Bush’s second term ended under a cloud from the housing mortgage crisis that required extraordinary efforts to avoid the collapse of the nation’s financial system. It obscured Bush’s tax cut, signed into law in May 2003, that led to economic growth for 46 consecutive months and resulted in an unemployment rate that averaged only 5.3 percent during his presidency.

There is much more that can and will be credited to George W. Bush for his two terms and, given the failure of the present administration to reverse the recession, to turn the tide on unemployment, to have increased the national debt to a level that exceeds all previous presidents in just three years, and to have been the first to see the nation’s credit rating downgraded, the contrast is too great to ignore.

Elections do have consequences. In both cases, the elections of George W. Bush were “squeakers” that might have put Al Gore or John Kerry in the White House. I think America dodged a bullet, but then forgot how important it is to put someone in office who will protect the nation and grow its economy. 2012 will give us another opportunity to do that.