Holder – Obama 2012, promises to keep, Bush policies in force

SUA Staff – While America is focused on Republican candidates, debates, primaries, and caucuses, the Fast and Furious Scandal, much higher gas prices then ever before, and the conflicts in Syria, we are being distracted from what Eric Holder and his associates are really spending their time on.

Rather than producing documents pertaining to the Fast and Furious scandal, the Solyndra debacle, the sentencing of the Holyland trial convictions, or prosecuting the New Black Panther polling place thugs, he is an integral part of the Obama re-election team. The team leader in achieving Obama promises concerning the Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) detention center.

As part of that campaign, it seems they are working quietly to empty Gitmo; a ploy that will shore up their base and create a great set of campaign ‘talking points’. This all despite the fact that the Obama administration has continued the Bush era wire-tap policies. A fact that will be easily hidden behind Gitmo moves.

Meanwhile, Obama is under fire for secret detentions of Somali terror suspects, a subject the left railed about during the Bush years that are still in force:

The militant Somali group al-Shabab is one of the organisations Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame is said to have joined. Photograph: AP

The Obama administration approved the secret detention of a Somali terror suspect on board a US navy ship, where for two months he was subjected to military interrogation in the absence of a lawyer and without charge.

The capture and treatment of Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame has rekindled the debate within the US about the appropriate handling of terror suspects. Republicans in Congress have objected to Warsame being brought to New York this week to be tried in a criminal court – an attempt by the Obama administration to avoid sending the prisoner to Guantánamo Bay, which it has promised to close.

Soon, probably close to voting day in November, we will find that Gitmo is empty. Holder is feverishly working on a deal to transfer five of the top leaders of the Taliban now, trying to send them to a new home in Qatar, where a new Taliban headquarters has been erected paid for by your tax dollars. Five of the worst of the worst.

We all remember the release of Uighur detainees who were sent to live the life on the wonderful islands of Palau.

Of these detainees slated for transfer, Majid Khan, has a very nasty history and has even nastier lawyers that come from the Center for Constitutional Rights. (Videos available here.) These friends and associates act as Eric Holder’s silent law partners from both his time at Covington & Burling and now at the Department of Justice. Majid has three lawyers, Gitanjali Gutierrez, Wells Dixon, and Shayana Kadidal. Another of these worst of the worst is Ammar al Baluchi.

But what about the true picture of what Gitmo really is, ask the Belgians:

Gitmo Better Than Belgian Prisons

Real Clear Politics

Well, well:

Inmates at Guantanamo Bay prison are treated better than in Belgian jails, an expert for Europe’s biggest security organization said on Monday after a visit to the controversial U.S. detention center. [snip]Grignard told a news conference that prisoners’ right to practice their religion, food, clothes and medical care were better than in Belgian prisons.

“I know no Belgian prison where each inmate receives its Muslim kit,” Grignard said.

This is certainly not the impression we get from any media accounts of Gitmo. On FridayTime Magazine made national headlines with the story that Mohammad al-Qahtani, the so-called “20th hijacker,” was recanting all of his previous testimony, claiming he made everything up because he was being tortured.

Lost amid the sensational headlines is that Qahtani’s reversal came after two recent visits with a newly appointed lawyer, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, from the ultra-liberal Center For Constitutional Rights. Gutierrez is part of CCR’s “Guantánamo Global Justice Initiative” designed to “expand CCR’s defense of human rights and the rule of law to combat abuses of Executive power by the U.S. throughout the world.”

I sifted through the log of Qahtani’s interrogation that accompanied Time’s report and from what I read it seems as if he was treated perfectly within bounds. The full interrogation log (pdf) is here, so go read it and decide for yourself whether Qahtani was tortured or not.

Also last Friday the BBC ran a story headlined, “Guantanamo man tells of ‘torture’.” Here is an excerpt from the BBC’s interview with Fawzi al-Odah, a Kuwaiti citizen currently being held at Gitmo:

Through his lawyer, Mr Odah described his treatment during his hunger strike.”First they took my comfort items away from me. You know, my blanket, my towel, my long pants, then my shoes. I was put in isolation for 10 days.

“They came in and read out an order. It said if you refuse to eat, we will put you on the chair [for force feeding].”

Remember, these people are trying to starve themselves to death. Imagine the reaction of human rights organizations if the United States military stood by and allowed two dozen or more prisoners to die of starvation.

The idea that force feeding prisoners to keep them alive constitutes “torture” borders on the insane. These men are are being offered food and adequate care, but they are refusing. As a result the United States military is put in an impossible situation; force them to eat or let them die. The goal of critics, of course, is to make either of these choices such a public relations nightmare for the United States that the Pentagon is forced to go with the only other option: close Gitmo down altogether.


Also, watch this video about Obama’s continued use of Bush policies here:

More at The Real News


Obama plays "Sim-City" on his Virtual Economy

Editor’s Note – SUA has been pointing out for years that the President’s messages just do not make sense. Playing by the same rules, everyone doing their fair share, taxing the rich, improving economy, and many more catch phrases meant to sway your vote, yet each is easily dismantled. Why? Because they are not true.

When almost 50% of wage earners pay zero income taxes, when the combined total of all the rich people’s money cannot pay for one year of the budget, when job statistics and reports do not include a very large portion of the out-of-work, work force – and so on, his numbers must be from an alternate universe. A “Sim-City” universe he created that is painfully untrue, and irrationally twisted, is not the cure for what ails America, but he knows many will believe him, after all, they did in 2008!

Obama’s Virtual Economy

It’s endless fun, fiddling with the dials on the real world.

By Daniel Henninger

WSJ Online

If you were a president who for three years presided over an economy with more than 13 million unemployed, a growth rate gasping around 2%, an historic credit downgrade and underwater home mortgages drifting like icebergs toward the American Titanic, what would you do?

You’d do what Barack Obama’s done: Reboot.

With his recently announced campaign platform—An Economy Built to Last—President Obama has essentially constructed a virtual economy. Instead of the economy we all live in, he’s making one up and inviting us to pretend we are living in it. Welcome to the Sim City Economy.

Sim City, one of the most popular products ever in the imaginary world of video games, lets players bring to life towns of their own devising in great detail. It’s endless fun, fiddling with the dials on the real world.

In his State of the Union Address, Mr. Obama described what will be a major claim of his re-election campaign—that he renewed the American dream by bailing out General Motors. About the defensibility of this policy we can argue. But as is his wont, Mr. Obama erected a generalized theory of social betterment atop this one event. “What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries.” Mr. Obama announced. “It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh.”

It can?

What’s interesting about this claim is that the corridor between Cleveland and Pittsburgh, much of it economically moribund for years, is experiencing a rebirth thanks to real economic forces, not a president who types in the name of another beleaguered city and hits Ctrl-Shift-Enter to solve its problems.

Most of this revival is taking place around the godforsaken city of Youngstown, Ohio, and the formerly dying steel towns west of Pittsburgh, an area better known today as the Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Field. Last summer, a French steel company, Vallourec & Mannesmann Holdings Inc., began construction on a new $650 million plant to make steel tubes for the hydraulic fracking industry. About 400 workers are building it. Nothing Barack Obama has done in three years—not the $800 billion stimulus or anything in his four, $3 trillion-plus budgets—is remotely related to the better times in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

But other than grudging acknowledgment of the private entrepreneurs’ natural-gas success, don’t expect to hear the carbon-based word “fracking” much in the president’s stump speech when he paints in the numbers of the American economy as he imagines it. That pitch will run more toward the ideas in the Presidential Memorandum released this Tuesday, directing the Department of Agriculture to put in motion a program called “Promoting a Bioeconomy.”

The Obama Bioeconomy will come to life after the Ag Department “increases the purchase of biobased products” under a program that originated in the 2002 farm bill. After mandating a 50% increase in products designated as biobased, “items like paints, soaps and detergents . . . are developed from farm grown plants, rather than chemicals or petroleum bases.” This, the president says, “will drive innovation and economic growth and create jobs at marginal cost to the American public.”

You can’t make this up. On the other hand, that’s the point: You can make this up, and then sell it, or try to sell it, as An Economy Built to Last.

The announcement Tuesday of the impending Bioeconomy was of course overwhelmed that day by the president’s White House speech celebrating Congress’s one-year extension of his payroll tax cut. This was the biggest economic policy event in Washington the past two months. The president himself announced the payoff for the American people: “It means $40 extra in their paycheck.” Sounds real, but barely.

Moments later, he drew attention to an initiative “we passed” that will “create jobs by expanding wireless broadband and ensuring that first responders have access to the latest lifesaving technologies.” When Newt makes claims like this, he’s nuts; with Barack Obama, it’s a vision.

A cynic might argue that none of these pretend ideas for reviving a $15 trillion economy in the second term matters much because the lasting damage was done in the first term, with ObamaCare’s redo of the health sector—16% of the economy—and Dodd-Frank, which even the bureaucrats asked to write things like the Volcker Rule admit they can’t figure out.

A cynic might say further that much of what Mr. Obama is outputting from his laptop for the next four years are pop-gun ideas or phantom tax policy. The Buffett Rule will never become a real law. On Wednesday Mr. Obama proposed an array of corporate tax changes—some up, some down—but as the reporting noted repeatedly, with virtually “no specifics.” Ctrl-Alt-Delete. The scheme to revive manufacturing—taxes overseas that are reprogrammed into domestic hires—would challenge even Sim City’s programmers.

Cynical resignation and a president living in a videogame economy aren’t what the U.S. needs at this turn in history. The biggest burden on this week’s two Republican front-runners, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, will be to describe—in detail—what really happened to the U.S. economy the past three years. Against that reality, Mr. Obama will repeat until November that he wants an economy “where everyone plays by the same set of rules.” If he’s writing them, it may not compute.

America's Full-Blown Dhimmitude – Diana West

Diana West asks why in the world U.S. apologized for burning Qurans

By Diana West


I’ve got it.

Diana West

After all these years of official stumbling over what to call the mission the United States has spearheaded in the Islamic world in response to the 9/11 attacks, I’ve come up with a name – not to brag or anything – that I believe brings much-needed clarity to our cause.

We’ve come a long way since the days of the Global War on Terror. Frankly, the GWOT – whatever that was supposed to mean (how do you fight against a tactic?) – is so 10 years ago. “Terror,” meanwhile, has morphed into “extremism,” but that’s only made things more unclear. We still don’t know what it’s all supposed to be about.

Until today.

Mr. and Mrs. America, boys and girls, welcome to the Global War on Quran-Burning, as led by the United States Masochists To Make the World Safe for Shariah (Islamic law).

If a column could have special effects, this is where piercing beams of sunlight would dispel clouds of confusion as pink bunnies jump up and down, squeaking, “That’s it, that’s it!” And a sigh of relief would spread across the happy valley …

Or would it? If my title for the war our country has engaged us in is apt, have I described a cause most Americans support? I don’t think so, but, of course, I don’t claim to know the answer. That’s partly because I see no upset in the land over the latest and greatest display of American dhimmitude – the subservient state of Jews and Christians in thrall to Islamic law – that we have witnessed in Afghanistan all week. Afghan Muslims have convulsed in rioting and killing (among other fatalities, two U.S. military personnel have been murdered by an Afghan army member) on word that Qurans and other religious materials were disposed of on a U.S. military base after authorities discovered the books were being used at Parwan prison in what the BBC said may have been “a secret Taliban message system.”

You didn’t hear about that last part? I’m not surprised. This crucial piece of the story – the logical reason for the books’ destruction – is treated by the media, and also by the U.S. government, as secondary material. At least one unnamed “U.S. official” imparted this part of the story to the press (Reuters and AFP); unnamed “Afghan officials” have told the BBC the same thing. Judging by the gingerly way this news is being handled, it almost seems as if the perfectly logical rationale for the disposal of these materials is regarded as an embarrassment.

Not so the outrageous, primitive response of rioting Muslims. In our state of abject apology, we have, in effect, condoned this murderous behavior according to the Islamic rules governing treatment of the Quran. This isn’t just political correctness run amok; it’s open submission to Islamic law. After all, the Quran is an inanimate object, a thing, cheaply printed and distributed by the gazillion, often by Saudi Arabia. We – if by “we” I may still refer to the Judeo-Christian-humanist world – do not rampage and shoot people when an inanimate object, a thing, even a Bible, is torn, written on or thrown away. In fact, we have constitutional rights to do all of those things as a matter of free speech.

Nonetheless, we as a nation – spilling blood for the “noble people of Afghanistan,” as top commander Marine Gen. John R. Allen says in his prostration video – have deemed it vital to accommodate, apologize, slurp and scrape to those who do. Equally as tragic, in the frenzy to apologize, the logic behind throwing the stuff away has been sacrificed. Reason itself has been discarded in a shameful and irrational act of fealty. This isn’t just dysfunctional behavior. This is full-blown dhimmitude.

Sorry to disappoint the pink bunnies.

Syria ‘ordered murder of western journalists’

By Gordon Rayner, Nabila Ramdani and Richard Spencer


President Bashar al-Assad’s army was so determined to silence reporters who were telling the world about the relentless killing of civilians in the besieged city of Homs that they pledged to “kill any journalist who set foot on Syrian soil”.

Colvin, 56, the Sunday Times correspondent, died with a French photographer, 28-year-old Remi Ochlik, when they were fired on as they tried to flee a makeshift press centre that had suffered a direct hit from a shell.

Witnesses said they were killed by a rocket-propelled grenade as they emerged from the ruins of the press centre, which was next door to a hospital. Frederic Mitterrand, the French culture minister, said they had been “pursued as they tried to flee the bombardment”.

Before the building was attacked, Syrian army officers were allegedly intercepted by intelligence staff in neighbouring Lebanon discussing how they would claim journalists had been killed in crossfire with “terrorist groups”.

The deaths of the two journalists prompted an international outcry. William Hague, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, said governments around the world had to “redouble our efforts to stop the Assad regime’s despicable campaign of terror”, while Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, said: “Enough is enough. This regime must go.”

Jean-Pierre Perrin

Hours before she died, Colvin had given interviews to several broadcasters including the BBC, Channel 4 and CNN in which she described the bloodshed as “absolutely sickening”.

She also accused Mr Assad’s forces of “murder” and said it was “a complete and utter lie that they are only targeting terrorists…the Syrian army is simply shelling a city of cold, starving civilians”.

Sources in Damascus confirmed that Syrians, including Mr Assad, would have been able to watch Colvin’s broadcasts – a fact that could have sealed her fate.

Jean-Pierre Perrin, a journalist for the Paris-based Liberation newspaper who was with Colvin in Homs last week, said they had been told the Syrian Army was deliberately going to shell their media centre, which had a limited electricity supply and internet access thanks to a generator.

Mr Perrin said: “A few days ago we were advised to leave the city urgently and we were told ‘if they [the Syrian army] find you they will kill you’.

“I then left the city with [Colvin] but she wanted to go back when she saw that the major offensive had not yet taken place.”

Mr Perrin, who went to Beirut from Homs, said the Syrians were “fully aware” that the press centre was broadcasting direct evidence of crimes against humanity, including the murdering of women and children. He said: “The Syrian army issued orders to ‘kill any journalist that set foot on Syrian soil’.”

In Beirut, he was told about the intercepted radio traffic and said it was clear that Mr Assad’s forces knew that there would be “no more information coming out of Homs” if they destroyed the press centre. A video posted on YouTube by opposition fighters purported to show the aftermath of the attack, with two unidentified bodies lying in a pile of rubble.

Reporters working in Homs, which has been under siege since February 4, had become concerned in recent days that Syrian forces had “locked on” to their satellite phone signals and attacked the buildings from which they were coming.

Undated photo of French photojournalist Remi Ochlik, who died with Colvin. Photo: AP

Abu Abdu al-Homsi, an opposition activist, said the Syrian army had cut phone lines into the city and was bombing any buildings where they detected mobile phone signals.

Two other Western journalists, the British photographer Paul Conroy, who was on an assignment with Colvin, and the French reporter Edith Bouvier were wounded in the attack.

Colvin, who had worn a black eye patch since losing an eye to a shrapnel wound while working in Sri Lanka in 2001, was the only journalist from a British newspaper in Homs.

Her editor, John Witherow, spoke of his “great shock” at her death, describing her as “an extraordinary figure in the life of the Sunday Times” who would be “sorely missed”.

He said she “believed profoundly that reporting could curtail the excesses of brutal regimes and make the international community take notice”.

Colvin’s mother Rosemarie said her daughter had been due to leave Syria yesterday after the Sunday Times ordered her to leave because it was so dangerous. “She had to stay. She wanted to finish one more story,” she said. “Her legacy is: Be passionate and be involved in what you believe in. And do it as thoroughly and honestly and fearlessly as you can.”

Rupert Murdoch, who owns the Sunday Times, described Colvin as “one of the most outstanding foreign correspondents of her generation” with a “determination that the misdeeds of tyrants and the suffering of the victims did not go unreported”.

David Cameron said her death was “a desperately sad reminder of the risks that journalists take to inform the world of what is happening and the dreadful events in Syria”. Ed Miliband described her as “an inspiration to women in her profession” and Mr Hague said Colvin was “utterly dedicated to her work, admired by all of us who encountered her, and respected and revered by her peers”.

Colvin, who was from New York but lived in London, was married three times but never had children. She had worked for the Sunday Times for 20 years and twice won the British Press Award for Foreign Correspondent of the Year.

In a report published in the Sunday Times over the weekend, Colvin spoke of the citizens of Homs “waiting for a massacre”. She wrote: “The scale of human tragedy in the city is immense. The inhabitants are living in terror. Almost every family seems to have suffered the death or injury of a loved one.”

In 2010, Colvin spoke about the dangers of reporting on war zones at a Fleet Street ceremony honouring fallen journalists, at which she was introduced to the Duchess of Cornwall.

She said: “We always have to ask ourselves whether the level of risk is worth the story. What is bravery, and what is bravado? Journalists covering combat shoulder great responsibilities and face difficult choices. Sometimes they pay the ultimate price.”



‘Anonymous’ Threat – Take down the whole internet!

From WebProNews

Anonymous just keeps on making grander threats, but they have finally made the greatest threat possible – shutting down the entire Internet.

In a pastebin post that we won’t link to for obvious reasons, a member of Anonymous posted a document called “Operation Global Blackout.” You may remember #OpGlobalBlackout from a previous Anonymous video that promised the take down of major Web sites, but this threat is a lot bigger.

Anonymous claims that they are going to take down the 13 root DNS servers that power the entirety of the Internet on March 31. They even list the IP addresses for the 13 servers to let other members join in on the attack.

They say that by cutting off these DNS servers, they will essentially disable the HTTP Internet. Anybody looking up something as simple as http://www.google.com will be met with an error page. They want to remind citizens, however, that they are not trying to kill the Internet, they just want to hit where it hurts most.

They outline the new tool that will be used to accomplish this goal. It’s called the Reflective DNS Amplification Tool. It will attack the root servers with static IP addresses that will allow them to keep on attacking the servers while the Internet is down.

They end the post with these words:

We know you wont’ listen. We know you won’t change. We know it’s because
you don’t want to. We know it’s because you like it how it is. You bullied us into your delusion. We have seen you brutalize harmless old womans who were protesting for peace. We do not forget because we know you will only use that to start again. We know your true face. We know you will never stop. Neither are we. We know.

We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not Forgive.
We do not Forget.
You know who you are, Expect us.

It’s hard to really tell if this is a true threat due to the decentralized nature of Anonymous. It could just be a baseless threat. We’ve reached out to one of the few confirmed Anonymous sources for comment, but have yet to hear back. If we do, we will update this story.