Post Scripts

Posted by Jack

6:13a ET April 23, 2013 (Benzinga)

by Tina Grazier

We learn this morning that the terrorist, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, will be treated as a civil criminal and not an enemy combatant. This decision is explained away with the usual mangling of the meaning of words and thin excuses. This is no way to defend America.

Bill Gertz, Free Beacon informs on the subtle difference between the terrorism of an enemy combatant and violent extremism perpetrated by a criminal:

A 2008 FBI report called “Counterterrorism Analytical Lexicon” contains no mention of Islam or jihad. Instead, FBI analysts are required to state that jihad be called “violent extremism.”

Violent extremism is defined as an ideology that “encourages, endorses, condones, justifies, or supports the commission of a violent act or crime against the United States, its government, citizens, or allies in order to achieve political, social, or economic changes, or against individuals or groups who hold contrary opinions.”

Terrorism is defined as activity that is “the unlawful use or threat of violence in furtherance of political, religious, ideological, or social goals.”

Tsnarnaev is a petty criminal, rather than terrorists, in the double speak employed by this administration because his ideology justifies what he has done. He was motivated because of a philosophical disagreement, doncha know, and we can always simply agree to disagree in these matters. This allows the government to treat this man as misguided youth, a young man that has simply partied a little too hard in terms of his faith. Sure, he must pay for his enthusiasm about his chosen religion but it isn’t necessary to treat him like a terrorist. He may have broken a few eggs but his actions were not “unlawful” in the way that al Qaeda operations are considered unlawful. Our malleable media is dutifully compliant, running old photos that feature the fresh face of an innocent “angel”. Guest speakers are brought on to indulge in serious discussion about the psychological problems that might have afflicted these boys.

The depth and breadth of this failure to construct policy and security mechanisms in defense of this nation is impossible to measure. The damage inflicted on the nation’s legal understanding is impossible to measure. But both will have severe consequences. The people in Boston have already suffered consequences perpetrated by the overly enthusiastic Tsnarnaev brothers. Must we inflict the added consequence if a failure to seek justice and prevention of future attacks. There will be many more events before this administration leaves office, including the decimation of our military readiness.

It isn’t at all comforting to be reminded that President Obama, in his book, “The Audacity of Hope” wrote: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in any ugly direction.” It is also discomfiting that he would tell Bob Woodward America could “absorb” another “terrorist attack”.

Should the people touched directly by the Boston Marathon terror attack, whose lives will be forever changed, be assured by the empty language and approach our President has taken? He is absically telling them that they are victims of excessive youthful enthusiasm in the name of a religious profit…no big deal.

I can’t speak for the real victims of this terror attack and I wouldn’t try to do so. I do know I am embarrassed by this decree of innocence. I am not assured or confident that President Obama intends to honor his sworn duty to defend our country. In fact I am appalled and offended by the pretender who plays Commander-in-Chief in the White House.

Posted by Jack

This just in…

CAIRO — The explosion of a car parked outside the French Embassy in Tripoli, Libya, wounded two French guards on Tuesday in what appeared to be the first major terrorist attack on a diplomatic compound in the capital since the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011.

Two men were arrested and charged with plotting a terrorist attack against a Canadian passenger train with support from al-Qaida elements in Iran, police said Monday. The case bolstered allegations by some governments and experts of a relationship of convenience between Shiite-led Iran and the predominantly Sunni Arab terrorist network.

Chiheb Esseghaier, 30, and Raed Jaser, 35, had “direction and guidance” from al-Qaida members in Iran, though there was no reason to think the planned attacks were state-sponsored, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner James Malizia said. Police said the men did not get financial support from al-Qaida, but declined to provide more details.

“This is the first known al-Qaida planned attack that we’ve experienced in Canada,” Superintendent Doug Best told a news conference. Officials in Washington and Toronto said it had no connections to last week’s bombings at the Boston Marathon finish line.

Posted by Tina

I just love the way things come together at times to create an unexpected, surprising, or humorous result. This has just happened in Little Rock, where the good citizens have chosen to honor Bill and Hillary Clinton by naming a brand new airport in their names. The Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport dedication ceremony is slated to take place in early May with expansion plans to eventually make it an international airport…the locals have dubbed it Hillbilly Airport.

See the story here.

We’re going through a period in US history that requires a steady hand and reasoned thought to keep us safe and on course.   We at PS encourage dialog on the most compelling issues of the day and while we appreciate the many thousands of you that read us every month, PS works best when you weigh in.  We want you to comment and you don’t have to give up your name or email.  Just say what’s on your mind.  Don’t hold back…your opinion is valuable.  Let’s talk.  You have the floor…

by Atlas Shrugs

The ongoing jihad in Nigeria by the Muslim group Boko Haram (Western Education is Sinful) is escalating as Islamic supremacism spreads across the Middle East, Africa and Europe.

Muslim soldiers used locals as human shields while soldiers set residential quarters on fire. The streets of Baga were strewn with the corpses of dead humans and animals and about 2,000 private houses and several markets were burnt down in fighting, reported local officials when they returned to the town on Sunday.

The jihadists found refuge in a ……. mosque.

Obama sanctions this group as he has refused to designate Boko Haram a terrorist group despite their savagery and slaughter.

Snip:

The streets of Baga were strewn with the corpses of dead humans and animals and about 2,000 private houses and several markets were burnt down in fighting, reported local officials when they returned to the town on Sunday.

Most bodies were burnt beyond recognition as fire raged through the town. According to Muslim tradition the bodies were buried the same day, AP reports.

This new stage of the conflict started on Friday after Islamic extremists of the ‘Congregation of the People of Tradition for Proselytism’, widely known as Boko Haram (‘Western education is sinful’ in the western African Hausa language), insurgency murdered an army officer. In return government troops blocked a mosque where they believed the militants found refuge, but very soon more militants armed with automatic weapons, heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades became engaged. Heavy gunfire and explosions of the battle sent civilians fleeing into the bushland around the town.

by Jack

Right after Post Scripts took on Brian Levin (shown left), a professor at California State University at San Bernardino and director of its Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, Comedian Bill invited him to his late-night show.  Mahr took issue with comparing Islamic extremism with all fundamentalism as being on an equal basis and I found this very interesting considering Mahr’s politics.

Speaking of those other religions Mahr said, “You know what — that’s liberal bull shi* right there … they’re not as dangerous!  I mean there’s only one faith, for example, that kills you or wants to kill you if you draw a bad cartoon of the Prophet. There’s only one faith that kills you or wants to kill you if you renounce the faith. An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing. Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam. So you know, I’m just saying, let’s keep it real.”

“All religious are not alike,” he continued. “As many people have pointed out — ‘The Book of Mormon,’ did you see the show? … OK, can you imagine if they did ‘The Book of Islam’? Could they do that? There’s only one religion that threatens violence and carries it out for things like that. Could they do “The Book of Islam” on Broadway?”

The guest responded in typical liberal fashion by saying, ”possibly so.” Maher dismissed this as being intellectually dishonest, and further he became visibly irritated when Levin suggested he was promoting “Islamic hatred.”  Only the race card tactic didn’t work this time.

“You’re wrong about that, and you’re wrong about your facts,” said Maher. “Now, obviously, most Muslim people are not terrorists. But ask most Muslim people in the world — if you insult the Prophet, do you have what’s coming to you? It’s more than just a fringe element.”

Mahr is coming a little late to the parade compared to most of us, but at least he gets it.  This has to be  a serious blow to those head-in-the clouds liberals and that’s good, because they’re part the problem that’s holding back a serious dialog.

I’m now convinced that anyone objectively looking at this religion that still does not agree that Islam is a violence prone religion more than any other, is either extremely ignorant or they are being deliberately dishonest, as Mahr inferred of Levin.

There should be no safe shelter for the today’s Islamic apologists who point out the evil transgression of Christendom in 11th century.  We’re not living in the 11th century, we’re living in 2013 and thankfully most of have evolved our sense of humanity and responsibility as civilized people and we left the morals of the 11th century where they belong.   So that duck won’t fly anymore, we’ve heard it over and over and the consensus is it’s absurd and wrong, there’s no justification for equating that vi0lence with today’s violence.

To make another serious point, let me take it to an illogical extreme:  Imagine for the moment, if past violence (terrorism) done in the name of Islam were instead done by members of the American Cancer Society.  Okay, I know absurd…by go with me for a moment.  So, lets say, every time there is bombing in a market place, on a bus, or in a hotel lobby or it’s a beheading for adultery, apostasy or family honor, it was connected to members of the American Cancer Society.   And when maniacal plots are broken up just before the attacks… its members of the American Cancer Society that are involved.  And imagine all that and more as this list of violence grows and grows.   Eventually we’re going to arrive at a point when a rational person has to say,  I’m not so sure it’s a good idea to let armed members of the American Cancer Society into our military, because you never know which way they’re going to shoot!   That rational person is going to say, it’s probably not wise to let American Cancer Society members be in charge of top secret information, they might sell us out.  And it will be just as prudent for that person to think, maybe we should rethink letting them into Congress too?   Because when push comes to shove they have divided loyalties and it’s a high risk gamble to say which side they’re on.  We don’t need to take that extreme risk in dangerous times like these, under the guise of freedom of religion – our founders never intended us to do that and I’ll prove it.

We know that you can’t join the military if you are a present of past member of certain groups, be it a drug cartel, Hell’s Angles, Nazi Party or KKK.  We’ve said they are a high risk element that we don’t need to accommodate.   It’s been past practice upheld by the Supreme Court that sometimes (although rarely) its necessary to protect freedom by not allowing groups to abuse it and turn it into a weapon to be used against us.   This is nothing new, like I said, we’ve been there before and we’ve established limits on many freedoms.  Most recently we’ve held that it’s not an encroachment on the 2nd amendment to prevent certain classes of people from owning firearms.  In other cases we’ve limited what one can say under protection of the 1st amendment.  There are also limits on the 3rd and 5th amendments and they are all limited by exceptions allowed for national security and the protection of life, which is our highest moral duty.