Faisal Shahzad Warns America ... Alan Caruba

Faisal Shahzad Warns America
By Alan Caruba

Faisal Shahzad was sentenced to life in prison on October 6th for trying to kill a lot of innocent Americans in Times Square on May 1, 2010. He was completely unrepentant and we need to understand the funhouse-mirror mentality of Muslims who believe that Allah, through the Koran, has granted them, not just the right, but the duty to kill infidels who offer any defense against their outrages.

There is no question that the U.S. has had to be active militarily in the Middle East ever since the former Iraq dictator, Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait on President George H.W. Bush’s watch.

The former director of the CIA, ambassador to China, and then leader of the free world understood that, if no action was taken, Saddam would be into Saudi Arabia next. Saddam had previously spent eight fruitless years in a war with Iran. It is one of history’s ironies that his son, George W. Bush was president on September 11, 2001 when the homeland was attacked by Muslim terrorists.

According to Iran’s president, Mamoud Ahmadinejad, and most of the people in the Middle East, 9/11 was an “inside job”, staged by the CIA or even the White House for the sole purpose of justifying the invasion of Afghanistan and later Iraq. You have to be able to believe the unbelievable to be a Muslim and the more absurd the better.

That’s the background to the story of Shahzad who was born in Pakistan in 1979 and, on December 22, 1998, was issued a student visa in Islamabad to come to America. In a stunning article by Jessica Vaughan, “Faisal Shahzad: So Easy, Anyone Can Do It”, the author spells out why America, before and ever since 9/11, has been allowing Middle Easterners to come here and plot to kill us.

Vaughan, a former U.S. consulate officer who dealt with the issuance and denial of visas, spelled out why Shahzad was a poor candidate for the bounties America would bestow upon him. To begin with, he failed to demonstrate that he had the academic qualifications to study here.

“He was applying as a transfer student, and his transcript from his correspondence course with Southeastern University, a now defunct fourth-rate academic program, show a GPA of 2.78, including several D’s and an F in basic statistics.” Moreover, there has been no information released regarding how Shahzad claimed he would pay for his education, “another common deal-buster for student visa application.”

Vaughn speculates that since Shahzad’s father was “supposedly a prominent military officer” the consulate did not want to deal with his or his government’s complaints if his son was refused a visa. Oddly, the visa was for four years when two would have sufficed for him to complete his degree requirements.

What emerged was a pattern of behavior that should have gotten Shahzad on the next plane home to Pakistan, but did not. In 2001 he began working for a temporary staffing agency even though his student visa did not include permission to work. A year later he was issued a H-1B visa. This particular visa is intended to bring in the best and the brightest to work here, not some middling, ordinary worker.

For reasons unknown, in 2004, Shahzad came under the scrutiny of the local Joint Terrorism Task Force. Despite this, his U.S. born wife filed a green card petition for him and it was approved in January 2006 even though the marriage was quite sudden, a red flag as some foreigners marry to establish grounds to stay.

Vaughn notes that “the green card application process is firmly rigged in the alien’s favor, with few applications refused or challenged, especially those involving marriage to a U.S. citizen.” In October 2008, Shahzad applied for U.S. citizenship. The fact that most immigrants wait six to ten years before applying didn’t raise any suspicions seven years after 9/11. And this one was from Pakistan, a hotbed of jihadist activity.

The U.S. is in a virtual state of war with Pakistan. It is blocking a major supply route to ours and NATO troops in Afghanistan and it is harboring the Taliban. It is a nuclear state so the stakes are quite high.

On April 17, 2009 Shahzad was sworn in as a U.S. citizen. In the vast bureaucracy of the immigration process, the fact that he had earlier aroused some suspicion was lost.

After that, it gets very dicey. On June 2, 2009, Shahzad left for Pakistan and did not return until February 3, 2010. Three months later, he attempted to kill Americans in Times Square.

At his sentencing, he told the court, “Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun. Consider me the first droplet of the blood that will follow. We are only Muslims trying to defend our religion, people, homes and land, but if you call us terrorists, then we are proud terrorists and we will keep on terrorizing you until you leave our lands and people at peace.”

This does not, of course, explain why Muslims have been committing acts of terror worldwide in London, in Madrid, in Mumbai, in Bali, and everywhere else they seize the opportunity to use terror to advance their ultimate goal of global domination. Claiming to be victims is bizarre.

Every step of the way, the U.S. made it easy for Shahzad to betray a nation that offered him an opportunity that countless thousands around the world want; the chance to become an American.
We need to pay attention to the warning Shahzad gave us. Somewhere in the huge bureaucracy of our immigration, our homeland security, and our intelligence services, those issuing visas and those charged with protecting us need to make it far more difficult to permit anyone from the Middle East to arrive, to blend in, and to plot the next terrorist act.

We are all just that much more vulnerable because in 2008 we elected a president who has made it clear that one of his objectives is to “reach out” to the Middle East in order to convince Muslims we are their friends. They are not our friends, nor even friends to one another.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

Karzai in Talks with Taliban to end Afghanistan War?

Karzai in Talks With Taliban To End Afghanistan War?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

We have seen AP reports in the past few days that report the Afghanistan government is talking with Taliban leaders to end the war in Afghanistan.

The top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus is reported to have said: "There are very high-level Taliban leaders who have sought to reach out to the highest levels of the Afghan government and indeed have done that … "

Petraeus is also reported to have said: “Reconciling with Taliban leaders is being "pursued by the Afghan leadership at the very highest levels.”

(You may read the entire AP Staff Report at CNSNEWS.COM (HERE).)

OK! So now, the obvious question(s): What the hell are we fighting for in Afghanistan?? And: Is the Obama Regime behind the Karzai/Taliban talks as a desperation move on Obama’s part to cut and run from Afghanistan?
I have seen very little reporting on this in the press and I must tell you I find that appalling!
BOTH these questions are extremely important.

Look, too many American lives have been lost in that that woefully backwards land for the Obama Regime to command our troops to cut and run and effectively hand the country, lock, stock, barrel, and government to the very forces we have been fighting and shedding American blood to squash.

I am no diplomat (obviously), but it seems clear to me that Karzai’s very life is dependent upon US forces remaining in Afghanistan and finally defeating the Taliban. Inviting the Taliban to become a part of the government of Afghanistan amounts to handing over control of the government to them (the Taliban).

If the Obama regime stands by and allows this to happen, then the lives of all the military service personnel (Americans and others) killed since that war began will have been lost in vain. That is unacceptable. At least it OUGHT to be.

“Waheed Omar, a spokesman for Karzai, denied that President Barack Obama's stated goal of beginning to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan in July 2011, if conditions allow, spurred the Afghan government to set up the council or reach out to the Taliban.” (SOURCE).

Sorry, but I am not buying it. The whole things smacks of exactly the type scenario that fits, “to a tee” the way the democrats would slink off a battlefield.

What happened to the democrats “Good War?” What happened to the democrats (and Obama’s) “The RIGHT war?” Remember when George W. Bush was President and Obama was a candidate -- that was the way the democrats described the war in Afghanistan?

The limp-wristed liberal democrats have no clue how to run a war. They do not understand the military and the certainly do not understand the application of military force. They don’t have an inkling what it does to a proud military force when their Commander-in-Chief declares victory and yanks them from a battlefield in the middle of a war.

Ask a Vietnam combat veteran about winning every battle but losing the war in Vietnam. Go ahead. Ask them. Let them tell you about the stigma they carry with them the remainder of their days on this earth.

Consider what this will do for the morale of the Islamofacists we are fighting around the globe. It will reinforce their belief that America is a “Paper Tiger.” They will be emboldened to escalate their terrorist war on Americans costing more and more American lives.

Look, when a nation confronts evil in it’s purist form, that nation cannot turn its back on the fight. Evil will not back down. To defeat it, it must be destroyed – and destroyed completely.

Obama either does not know, or does not care that backing down from the enemy in Iraq and in Afghanistan is an open invitation to the Islamofacists to bring the war to the American homeland. Make no mistake about it. They will do exactly that.

Remember this when a suitcase nuke is detonated in Washington, DC, or New York, or some other major US city.
THIS is why, my non-American readers, the American people do not trust a democrat president during wartime. Somehow, America forgot, as they were caught up in the mad rush to elect the first black President of the United States.

American voters need to remember this when they head to the polls on November 2nd, too. The US desperately needs to relieve the democrats of power in our government and replace them with conservatives who understand that America is in a fight for its very life with the Islamofacists. Americans need to understand; too, this fight will go on and on and on as long as there is one single nutcase terrorist left alive on this planet. Dropping our guard for a single instant invites disaster of biblical proportions.

Dear reader, all of this simply underscores the importance of the November 2nd, Mid-Term Election. It is too important to overestimate. The lives of thousands of Americans are at stake. The freedom of the country is under attack by the liberal-socialist democrats who subscribe, some unashamedly, to the teachings of Marx and myriads of other communists.

I cannot stress enough that the American constitutional republic is facing its most dire threat ever. President Obama has proven he is not up to the task of President. He has certainly proven he is not up to the task of commanding our military as the Commander-in-Chief. Our current Congress, both the Senate and the House of Representatives, has proven it is not up to the task of protecting the country and insuring its continued existence. Why, they won’t agree to even construct a measly fence to provide a small measure of security along our southern border with Mexico. THEY MUST GO – or America will go!

I have avoided broaching the subject of the impeachment of President Obama but, I must tell you, if we learn Obama’s Regime, in any way, encouraged the talks between the Afghanistan government and the Taliban, then we strongly suggest an incoming GOP controlled Congress has a duty, I repeat, HAS A DUTY, to the American people to begin such proceedings immediately after the swearing-in ceremonies.

The insult to the American military by the Obama Regime must not be allowed to pass unchallenged.

We urge you to “Remember in November” and vote accordingly.

J. D. Longstreet

Obama Making Room For Hillary At The Top?

Obama Making Room For Hillary At The Top?
Hillary Clinton for President in 2012?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

On August 10th, 2010 we suggested that Hillary Clinton would be the democrat's nominee for President in 2012. You may read the entire article HERE.

In the article we said: “I believe Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s candidate for US President in 2012. Over the past -- little more than a year and a half -- I have watched Obama going through the motions while his handlers pull the strings. (The Shadow Government, remember?) As we approach the Mid-Term election in November, I believe the Obama puppeteers know they have accomplished nearly all they can hope for with Obama, and they are very near to cutting his strings.”

We went on to say: “Let’s face it. Obama is a joke! A costly joke, but a joke, nevertheless. His own fellow democrats are distancing themselves from him as far as they can get -- and that includes hardcore democrats.”

We continued: “All this while, Hillary’s troops have been polishing her image while watching and evaluating the voter’s reactions to Obama’s agenda. They have been planning accordingly. When the time is right, in their estimation, Hillary will step from the wings and offer herself as the voice of reason, sounding, for all the world like a Ronald Reagan conservative– at least, when compared to Obama!”

And finally we stuck our neck out even more by predicting the following: “It is my opinion, that if Obama does not change his angle of attack very soon now, he will not get the Democratic nomination for President. Hillary will.”

I thought at the time that piece was published there would be a lot of challenges to my less than stunning attempt at punditry. I was surprized when there were far less than I expected.

As I mentioned in the original article – I am not a pundit. I am just an old southern, conservative, country boy who finds national and international politics fascinating and have for at least 50 years.

So I was not surprised --gratified, mind you-- but not surprised, by an article written by Julie Mason at the Washington Examiner, entitled: “Biden - Clinton job swap?! The article was published October 5th, 2010.

In the article Ms. Mason says: “Remember the 2008 so-called "Dream Ticket" with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? Bob Woodward went on CNN today and said there is discussion inside the White House about swapping out Joe Biden for Clinton ahead of 2012. "It's on the table," Woodward said.

Now you talk to Hillary Clinton or her advisers and they say 'no, no there's not a political consideration here,'" Woodward continued. "Of course the answer is, you point out to them that her clout around the world when she goes to Europe, Asia, anywhere is in part, not just because she's Secretary of State or because she was married to President Clinton, that people see a potential future president in her." (SOURCE).

Interesting, what?

I would challenge Mr. Woodward on his choice of 2016 as the year Hillary runs, again, for President. I stand by my earlier prediction that she will run in 2012 because, I believe, the Democratic Party will lean on her to do so in order to relieve themselves of the millstone around their necks known as Obama.

The left-wing democrats (which is practically ALL of them now) have become kamikaze adherents. Their ideology is so strong they will do whatever it takes to get their Socialist/Marxists agenda passed through the Congress and signed by a fellow Socialist/Marxist -- the President. They placed the survival of their liberal-socialist Democratic Party, as well as their own political survival, on the line to force socialized medicine on the American public. They are true socialist/marxists.

Now that the façade, behind which they have been hiding, has been blown away by their fanatical ideology, Americans are seeing the Democratic Party for what it really is. Some are shocked, some are genuinely surprised, and others, most, actually, are mad as heck and would really love to indulge in a little tarring and feathering, but will settle for purging the Congress of as many of the Democratic Party socialist/marxists as they possible can -- in a little over three weeks.

So far as whether Biden and Clinton will swap positions, soon, in the administration, well, if that happens, we will interpret that as the Democratic Party forcing Obama to allow the positioning of Hillary in the office of Vice-President in order to afford her an optimal launching pad for her campaign for the office of President in 2012.

All of this leads one to wonder just how humiliating such a shuffling of chairs in the Obama Regime must be to Obama, himself. We know he is a leftist ideologue. Humiliating, or not, it follows then that he would willingly throw himself on his own sword to further the party’s socialist/marxist agenda.

But something is troubling me. The Democratic Party is in such disarray these days it is difficult to believe they would force their own President to toss his Vice President overboard in order to provide a launching pad for his number one opposition in 2012. But, could it be the so-called “Shadow Party” issuing the orders? Now – THAT would NOT be a surprise!

Of course, denials are flying. But that is par for the course in Washington. The truth is anybody’s guess.

If the November election goes as expected, there are bound to be a number of changes in the Obama Regime. Power players will be seeking more permissive environs within which to exercise their talents. And that will be good for the American people’s government.

J. D. Longstreet

The EPA’s Long War on Chemicals ... Alan Caruba

The EPA’s Long War on Chemicals
By Alan Caruba

One of the shows I enjoy watching on the Science Channel is “How It’s Made.” All manner of things we use to enhance our lives start out as raw materials and the process of manufacture is a miracle of transformation.

Virtually all forms of manufacturing require some chemical element, often several. Given the indispensability of chemicals in society and commerce, does it strike anyone as odd that, if you were born after 1960, there’s a high likelihood that you grew up being told that “chemicals” are bad?

In 1962 Rachel Carson kicked off this bizarre notion with her bestselling book, “Silent Spring” and environmental groups have maintained a steady drumbeat of scare campaigns to drive home the message that chemicals are dangerous. However, it is rarely noted that most of the claims she made in her iconic book have long since been disproved by science.

One branch of science is called toxicology. Among its most honored truths, attributed to Paracelsus (1493-1541) is that “All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison.” This has been shortened to the statement that “The dose makes the poison.” The truth of this is obvious to most people and perhaps best illustrated vaccines. By introducing a minute element of a disease into our bodies, our immune systems can build resistance to it.

But problems arise when an ill-informed media latches on to the latest junk science craze and splashes misleading stories across newspapers and TV. Missing from virtually all of these stories are key facts – that a bunch of laboratory rats have been exposed to some chemical in doses far higher than would normally occur, for instance, or in ways that would never happen in real life, and then calling it a threat. But humans are not rats and this kind of sloppy science and extrapolation comes with serious issues of data interpretation.

This is one way in which the Environmental Protection Agency’s long war on chemicals is perpetuated. Much of the EPA’s abuse of power comes in the form of chemical action plans, which involve little oversight, even less transparency and little-to-no public accountability. However their power to over-regulate, remove valuable products from the market, and hobble commerce is almost unparalleled.

Currently in the EPA’s chemical action plan crosshairs are siloxanes, a type of silicone which, in turn, comes mostly from sand. Siloxanes are inert, non-allergenic, odorless and colorless. They’ve been safely used for decades in thousands of consumer and industrial products – everything from medical cream and sunscreen to automobile tires, high-efficiency insulation and spacecraft.

There are a wide variety of siloxanes, but the EPA isn’t saying which ones have been targeted making it almost impossible for outside parties to provide any sort of meaningful input to the process. If you wanted to stack the deck against something, that would be a great way to do it.

Another aspect of this latest EPA caper is that the agency draws much of its power from the Toxic Substances Control Act, otherwise known as TSCA. But TSCA is in the process of a congressional overhaul which will probably spill over into next year when a new and possibly Republican-controlled Congress returns in January. Why would EPA want to rush through a chemical action plan for siloxanes when it knows that Congress is still working on TSCA reform?

An unduly harsh chemical action plan for siloxanes could have devastating effects on our limping economic recovery. There is no single substitute for siloxanes that performs as well so industry would be faced with costly reformulations for their products and their manufacturing processes. If a particular business found this too expensive, they’d have to shut down, throwing more Americans out of work. If they can afford it, those costs would undoubtedly be passed along to consumers. And for what? No amount of research has shown any environmental benefit to banning siloxanes.

Since its establishment by an executive order in 1970, the EPA has become the master of misinformation and disinformation intended to drive all manner of beneficial chemicals out of the marketplace and to maintain a level of public fear concerning anything that involves chemicals. Siloxanes and the people who depend on them are merely in line to become the latest victims of the EPA.

It should be renamed the Ministry of Propaganda.

Alan Caruba

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

Obama's Wars

Obama’s Wars
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Remember how Obama continually stated how the war in Iraq was “The Wrong War.”

Remember how Obama remarked that President George W. Bush made a mistake by moving much of our war fighting capability from Afghanistan to Iraq?

Remember how Obama leaned on Bush for concentrating on Iraq instead of Afghanistan… over and over and over, ad infinitum?

Now: Remember how we told you that these wars would become Obama’s wars?

We remind you of all this because, just as we suspected, Obama has no clue how to run a war -- or how to relate neither to his generals nor to the military in general.

I have thought for sometime that the President of the United States, of a necessity, ought to have had military service in one branch, or the other, of the US Military. I still do. I think it ought to be a requirement, one of the qualifications for a would-be candidate seeking the office of the US Presidency.

So few members of the US government, these days, have had military service, of any kind, that there is only a weak connection between the government overall and the military.

When “The Brass,” the generals and admirals, begin to mock, criticize, or correct the Commander-in-Chief, even in public, that is evidence of a serious breakdown between the war fighters and their Commander-in-Chief. That is NEVER good.

When a Commander-in-Chief’s main objective is to withdraw the troops from a war, which is still raging, and concede defeat of the American military, that demonstrates a deep disrespect for the men and women in the ranks, in the foxholes, in the line of fire, in harm’s way. The men and women who have volunteered to put their lives on the line for America’s freedom all around the globe deserve more than that – MUCH more. They deserve a Commander-in-Chief who, even if he does not have their courage, at least respects them FOR their courage and their efforts for their fellow countrymen.

To put it bluntly, the US military deserves a much better Commander-in-Chief than Obama has been, is, or ever will be.

The revelation (in a recent publication) that Obama was seeking a way out of Afghanistan came as no surprise to this scribe. We have a leftist President and that is what leftists do when someone challenges his or her right to be free on a battlefield. They immediately head for the exits. They run.

The left, Obama among them, has no concept of military honor.” Having never served a single day in uniform, he cannot relate to those brave people who protect you and me with their lives. He simple doesn’t understand his soldiers, he doesn’t understand his generals, and he does not understand the war planners and war fighters. At some level, I suspect he fears them.

Obama’s ineptness in foreign affairs, as a whole, is staggering. Obama’s joyful visit with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, a fellow socialist, told Americans all they needed to know about Obama’s distaste for our constitutional republic. Many conservatives understood immediately that he was on a mission to transform America into another Venezuela.

So what does this have to do with Obama and his wars? Practically everything. He is dealing with a part of the US government that is hugely politically conservative. I have come to believe that Obama fears the US military.

The US Military is filled with conservatives. A whopping portion of the US Military is made up of Southerners who are born with “Warrior” stamped, indelibly, on their heels. An important part of their DNA is “honor.” They don’t have to learn what honor is; they know from birth what is expected of them -- to protect the honor of their family, their country, their fellow soldiers, and finally, themselves. Too, they understand the oath they take when entering the military is a solemn and sacred oath to protect the constitution and everything they love and care from ALL enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. They also understand there is no expiration date on that oath.

It is no small thing when the leader of those military men and women places their honor in jeopardy by seeking a way to “cut and run” in the face of the enemy!

An army MUST respect its leader. It must trust his leadership. It is his command that may cost a soldier his or her life. When the troops lose respect for their leader it is a sad and a dangerous thing. Oh, they will obey his commands, but they will do so grudgingly. Evidence of that can be seen even in the US military’s top brass today.

When that lack of respect for their leadership infiltrates the troops on the frontlines, casualties begin to go up. We see that today in Afghanistan.

NO SOLDIER WANTS TO BE THE LAST SOLDIER KILLED IN ANY WAR! Now that Obama has set a date for withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan, the enemy feels emboldened because they know that US troops will psychologically go into a defensive mode. Suddenly, the advantage in the war swings to the enemy’s side. We see that, today in Afghanistan, as well.

Obama’s Wars are not going well. In Iraq, just about everyone outside the Obama White House understands that as soon as US troops finally leave Iraq, it will be taken over by another strongman dictator and revert back to its former repressive totalitarian condition. In Afghanistan, we know the Taliban will move, almost instantly, to re-establish their control of the Afghanis and the drug trade.

Frankly, I do not believe the Obama Regime cares, one way or the other. All the evidence tells us Obama just wants out of both theatres of war. As Commander-in-Chief he is demoralizing our troops. As President, he is emboldening our enemies and demoralizing our allies.

As a wartime president Obama is pitifully lacking. But, then again, that can be said of all other aspects of his presidency, as well. Pitiful.

J. D. Longstreet