Obama Administration calls Jihad a legitimate struggle

Brennan who called Hezbollah "moderate" now says that Jihad is  legitimate tenet of Islam

Obama Administration calls Jihad a legitimate struggle

Obama Changes National Security Document

In an attempt to be politically correct and appease his liberal base, Obama  has now rejected the term "Radical Islam" as being the cause of worldwide terrorism.

A national security document created during the Bush Administration read "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century." Now, Obama is changing the national security document which is the premier document that determines U.S. national security strategy.

Who knows what will Obama put in place of radical Islam?

I know. Global warming. Or rather, the lack of nationalized health care. How about a bunch of Eskimos in Northern Alaska?  Did you see the igloos that brought down the Towers on 9/11?

Unfortunately, Obama continues his famous doublespeak. On the one hand, he talks up a big deal that nuke terrorism is the number one threat facing the nation and how he remains committed to the security of the U.S.

But, when it comes to actually take a stand against terrorism in action rather than rhetoric, Obama fails miserably and hides behind his politically correct appeasing advisers in the White House.

If Obama can not even properly identify the very enemy that threatens the U.S. which is radical Islam, what makes anyone seriously think that  Obama will have the courage to confront Iran or launch a military strike if the U.S. is attacked again Gdforbid.

How can anyone seriously believe that Obama is protecting the U.S. from daily threats against the country when he strikes a deal with the Russians to reduce the United States' nuclear arms supply in a time when Iran or North Korea or a terrorist group could launch a bio terror attack on the U.S.? (Obama heads to Prague to sign the U.S.-Russian Treaty which will reduce nuclear warheads to 1,550 over 7 years)

If someone out there has confidence in Obama's national security credentials, please tell me where you derive such a level of confidence in a President who is working actively to appease the enemy rather than weaken them.

Obama Changes National Security Document

Al Qaeda Months Away From Another Attack

CIA Director Leon Panetta believes that Al Qaeda could attack America within the next three to six months.  Very scary prediction. But its reality. America in its vast amount of territory is exposed to the threat of terrorism every day. Panetta told the Senate Intelligence Committee "the biggest threat is not so much that we face an attack like 9/11. It is that Al Qaeda is adapting its methods in ways that often times make it difficult to detect."

He further elaborated that  the terrorist organization is recruiting in-country recruits or homegrown terrorists to carry out attacks as well.  The Director of the National Intelligence  Dennis Blair has also warned that  the terrorists could launch cyber computer-related attacks on the U.S. which could cripple the economy since technology has become the epicenter of business production. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has requested that funding to combat cyber attacks be decreased.

The major concern is that with the focus on the economy and health care, people are forgetting that terrorism is still a very dominant force in the world and a very real threat. Thankfully, we have not had a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 which is a relief but also a deficit at the same time because when everything is going well people let their guard down. I am afraid that an overwhelming amount of the American people do not fully realize how serious is the threat of terrorism.

Obama and the Democrats  have a propensity to speak in localized instead of widespread regional terms when describing how Al Qaeda is the only organization that attacked the U.S. on 9/11 and therefore is the main entity that poses a threat to U.S. security. (This gives people the incorrect impression that the threat to the U.S. is based in Afghanistan when it extends way beyond a single country)  Yes, Al Qaeda is leading worldwide Jihad attacks. But, Al Qaeda is hardly alone. ( Hamas is now debating whether to attack Israelis and Jews outside of Israel).  In fact, the threat largely emanates from a vast radical Islamic network spread all over the world in many different countries, in the Middle East, in Europe, even in America. This radical network composed of various terrorist organizations fervently  believes that the "Infidel" (anyone who does not believe in their radical ideology which includes Jews, Christians and moderate Muslims)  must be killed. They will fight until the end of days until every last "Infidel" is annihilated.

This demented philosophy largely  means that Western civilization will have to engage in an embattled conflict with radical Islam for many years to come perhaps until the end of time and that's not an exaggeration by any stretch of the imagination.   It also means that people can not expect that the focus on preserving national security will disappear or become less important simply because our political leaders attend to domestic matters. Even though we have a lot of legitimate highly significant needs and concerns that must be attended to, (i.e. the economy, employment, health care) national security must remain our top priority requiring our foremost attention.

If we forget that we are still fighting a war on terror as serious as in the days after 9/11 and instead shift gears to focusing on the economy for example, we will not have to worry about the economy because we the "Infidels" will not be here to have an economy.

Al Qaeda Months Away From Another Attack

David Axelrod criticizes Justice Alito

President Obama's Senior Adviser, David Axelrod, said he was not surprised by Justice Alito's response to Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court's recent decision that permits donations from corporations to political candidates essentially torpedoing campaign finance reform. Axelrod asserted that we have been accustomed to all kinds of "unusual outbursts." (Axelrod was also referring to Congressman Joe Wilson's "you lie" comment during Obama's last Congressional address) Because of this trend of "unusual outbursts," Axelrod maintains that it is no longer surprising when a politician reacts negatively to the President's speech.

Obama issued his criticism of the Supreme Court decision during his State of the Union Speech in the presence of the Supreme Court justices who were only a few yards away from him.

Obama stated:
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.  (Applause.)  I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.  (Applause.)  They should be decided by the American people.  And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

Apparently, Justice Alito who disagreed with the President's analysis of the decision, mouthed the words "not true" and appeared to be visibly upset by Obama's reference to the decision. Justice Alito took issue with Obama's statement that foreign corporations will now be allowed to donate to political candidates in the U.S.

Of course, the media including David Axelrod, are only  focusing on Justice Alito's response to Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court decision.  Axerlod is incorrectly insinuating that Alito's response is an unusual outburst in the same category as Joe Wilson's "you lie" comment. The truth is that Alito probably was so shocked that a President would criticize a Supreme Court decision in his State of the Union Speech.  Even so, he merely shook his head and did not interrupt the President's speech like Wilson did. The two instances are not comparable.

Regardless of how you feel about Justice Alito or the Supreme Court decision,  it was completely unprofessional and downright condescending for President Obama to criticize a Supreme Court decision in the presence of Supreme Court Justices.  Talking about an "unusual outburst." It was most unusual and unprecedented for a President to engage in such a course of action in a State of Union Speech. No other President has ever done such a thing before and the media has the audacity to focus on Alito's response and largely ignore whether it was appropriate for a President to attack Supreme Court Justices in their presence.

President Obama should issue an apology to the Supreme Court Justices and take responsibility for his actions.

David Axelrod criticizes Justice Alito