Conservative Rumblings

“Go on out there get those boys down off the fence, they’re packing their bags.”

According to the Dear Leader, Comrade Obama, and his Glorious Administration For the Good Of Amerika, we are no longer at war with jihadists, we are no longer fighting a global war on terror, and hell, terrorism doesn’t even really exist.

After all, we’re no longer allowed to use those words since they aren’t accurate to our current situation, per the Department of Homeland Insecurity.

It’s official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a “war on terrorism.” Neither is it fighting “jihadists” or in a “global war.”

President Obama’s top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

“The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism,’” said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a “new way of seeing” the fight against terrorism.

So let me get this straight…we’re no longer “at war” with terrorism, and we’re outlining a “new way of seeing” our “fight” against terrorism. Sounds like surrender to me. We’re letting the terrorists win by no longer acknowledging that we are actually fighting them. Does Obama think if he ignores them they’ll just got away?

Those 3000 people that died on 9/11? Yeah, that was just some sort of domestic dispute by one disgruntled group. We don’t need to be at war with ALL terrorists, you see, since it’s just this one little group, Al Qaeda, that has grievances with us. Hezbollah, Hamas, PLO…all those are really irrelevant now, according to the DHS. Nevermind the fact that all of these groups are officially recognized terrorist organizations. I guess we’re just on a live and let live policy with all of those evil people.

There are NO legitimate reasons to remove these terms, other than capitulation to the far left and the idea that if we are “nice” to terrorists, they’ll be “nice” to us. Who, honestly, is offended by these terms? Jihadists? Terrorists? Are we really THAT concerned with the feelings of people who, if given the chance, would kill any of of us without a moment’s hesitation, sure in the fact that their slaughter of an “infidel” would assure them a place in their version of heaven.

Mr. Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting “jihadists” is wrongheaded because it is using “a legitimate term, ‘jihad,’ meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal” which “risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.”

“Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself,” Mr. Brennan said.

As for the “war on terrorism,” Mr. Brennan said the administration is not going to say that “because ‘terrorism’ is but a tactic — a means to an end, which in al Qaedas case is global domination by an Islamic caliphate.”

Terrorism is just a “tactic?” Then I guess a “suicide bombing” is just an “action” and cutting off the head of an infidel on video is a “statement.” I’m glad that the DHS has shown an understanding of the English language, but in this case, this “tactic” is being used across the world to kill Americans (and countless others). It deserves to be treated as the greatest threat to life and liberty in the world right now, not kicked under the stairs like the crazy cousin you hide when the family comes over.

Failing to recognize terrorism, radical jihad and Islamofacists as the huge threat they represent is a massively stupid gesture on the Obama administration’s part.

After raising the hackles of many folks with their “protests = terrorism” stunt, the Pentagon has backtracked and removed the question from the training test.

Yesterday’s post on the topic: here.

Apparently, once news got out that the Pentagon was referring to protests as terrorism, it displeased quite a few people…including the ACLU and other left-wing “freedom of expression” groups.

God I love when the left eats its own.

The Pentagon has removed a controversial question from its anti-terrorism training exam that labeled “protests” a form of “low-level terrorism,” calling the question “poorly worded.”

A Pentagon spokesman said the question failed to make clear the difference between illegal violent demonstrations and constitutionally protected peaceful protests.

Civil libertarians and activist groups, interviewed by FOXNews.com for a story that appeared on Wednesday, had objected strongly to the exam question, which a Department of Defense employee had printed and given to the American Civil Liberties Union.

So, since I attended the Chicago Tea Party on April 15, does this now mean that they consider me a terrorist?

I guess it’s good news that Obama abolished the War on Terrorism.

A written exam administered by the Pentagon labels “protests” as a form of “low-level terrorism” — enraging civil liberties advocates and activist groups who say it shows blatant disregard of the First Amendment.

The written exam, given as part of Department of Defense employees’ routine training, includes a multiple-choice question that asks:

“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”

— Attacking the Pentagon

— IEDs

— Hate crimes against racial groups

— Protests

The correct answer, according to the exam, is “Protests.”

What a bunch of idiots. Protests aren’t terrorism; they are dissent, something that this administration has shown a huge amount of aversion to. So, if they can’t silence debate through other means, maybe we’ll just reclassify anyone who protests “a terrorist” and deal with them that way.

Mmm…smells like totalitarianism. Commie scum.

WASHINGTON — [Barack] Obama is offering a broad-scale overhaul of the financial system, saying hard times struck largely because a post-Depression era business regulatory scheme couldn’t keep up with an increasingly global economy.

In remarks readied for the unveiling of new rules to govern business, Obama attributed much of the country’s current problem to “a cascade of mistakes and missed opportunities” which happened over several decades.

His plan would bestow vast new powers on the Federal Reserve, authorizing it to oversee the entire financial system. It also would create a new consumer protection agency to guard against the types of abuses that played a big role in the current crisis.

(emphasis added)

“Never waste a good crisis” is the motto of this administration. They are taking a financial “crisis” that was caused by Democrats forcing banks to give out loans to unqualified individuals (Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, reaffirmed in the 90s) and turning it into an assault on capitalism.

Anytime BHO gets up to the teleprompter and reads the line “vast new powers” for a federal agency, we should all be cringing. He’s using the finance issues as a battering ram to implement communism and destroy the free market.

And what greets this harbinger of the death of freedom? Cheers from the media, who hail Obama as “sort of God” who is going to “save us all.”

Joy.

Obama’s firing of Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service, has sent ripples through the country as the illegality of the action has been exposed. Not only did he not have a good reason to fire the man, but the investigation Walpin was conducting was targeting an Obama ally, Kevin Johnson. I mean, come on; conflict of interest anyone?

I’m not terribly surprised. This administration has no respect for the Constitution, the law, the country or pretty much anyone outside their circle of czars. The firing of a solid IG who was investigating the misuse of funds by an Obama ally is small potatoes to what this administration is capable of.

Now, the fire is coming from his own side of the aisle. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who was quite the ardent BHO supporter during the campaign, seems to have had enough of his administration ignoring the law.

After being briefed today on President Obama’s firing last week of Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said the president did not abide by the same law that he co-sponsored – and she wrote – about firing Inspectors General.

“The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service,” McCaskill said. “The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal.”

McCaskill, a key Obama ally, said that the president’s stated reason for the termination, “Loss of confidence’ is not a sufficient reason.”

When his own party is coming after him for breaking the law, you know it’s serious. On top of McCaskill’s attack, Walpin himself defended his actions admirably:

Walpin learned his fate Wednesday night. He was driving to an event in upstate New York when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform. “He said, ‘Mr. Walpin, the president wants me to tell you that he really appreciates your service, but it’s time to move on,’” Walpin recalls. “Eisen said, ‘You can either resign, or I’ll tell you that we’ll have to terminate you.’”

At that moment, Walpin says, he had finished not only a report on the Sacramento probe but also an investigation into extensive misuse of AmeriCorps money by the City University of New York, which is AmeriCorps’ biggest program. Walpin says he told Eisen that, given those two investigations, neither of which was well-received by top Corporation management, the timing of his firing seemed “very interesting.” According to Walpin, Eisen said it was “pure coincidence.” When Walpin asked for some time to consider what to do, Eisen gave him one hour. “Then he called back in 45 minutes and asked for my response,” Walpin recalls.

The method of Walpin’s firing could be a violation of the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the president to give Congress 30 days’ notice, plus an explanation of cause, before firing an inspector general. Then-Sen. Barack Obama was a co-sponsor of that legislation. In the case of Walpin, Eisen’s efforts to force Walpin to resign could be seen as an effort to push Walpin out of his job so that the White House would not have to go through the 30-day process or give a reason for its action. When Walpin refused to quit, the White House informed Congress and began the 30-day countdown.

This is huge. As more media outlets start to pick this up, the damage to the Obamadministration SHOULD continue to mount. This group of thugs running Washington thought they could bring Chicago politics to the national stage and no one would notice. Sorry, BHO, but we have. Your culture of corruption is under the spotlight now.

Walpin did his job; he targeted a government official who misused funds and exposed the issue. For doing his job, he has been fired (illegally) because his target was an Obama crony. Wake up, people; we have a Thug In Chief running this country like his own personal Mafia gang.

On Thursday, I joked that under the Obamadministration, terrorists were soon going to be able to sue for emotional suffering.

I didn’t think it would happen so soon.

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge says that a convicted terrorist can sue a former Bush administration lawyer for drafting the legal theories that led to his alleged torture.

The order by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco is the first time an administration lawyer has been held potentially liable for the abuse of detainees.

White refused to dismiss Jose Padilla’s lawsuit against former Justice Department attorney John Yoo on Friday. Yoo wrote memos on interrogation, detention and presidential powers for the department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003.

This is insane. Terrorists have NO RIGHTS! THEY CAN’T SUE FOR ANYTHING! We’re treading on dangerous ground now; the next step is Osama bin Laden suing us for stalking.

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea vowed on Saturday to embark on a uranium enrichment program and “weaponize” all the plutonium in its possession as it rejected the new U.N. sanctions meant to punish the communist nation for its recent nuclear test.

North Korea also said it would not abandon its nuclear programs, saying it was an inevitable decision to defend itself from what it says is a hostile U.S. policy and its nuclear threat against the North.

The North will take “resolute military action” if the United States or its allies try to impose any “blockade” on it, the ministry said in a statement carried by the North’s official Korean Central News Agency.

North Korea continues to march quickly toward nuclear weapons, while Obama continues to throw rose petals on the path. Any day now the “open hand” foreign policy BHO advocated in his inaugural address will kick in, North Korea will turn the reactors off and decide to just peacefully co-exist…any day now. Any…day…

Meanwhile, those of us still existing in reality can see the truth: Obama’s weak foreign policy, combined with his repeated “Apology Tours” and willingness to kowtow to foreign despots have emboldened Pyongyang to push forward, because they know our New Age Socialist government won’t do a damn thing to stop them.

Last I checked, Miranda rights were required FOR CITIZENS. I’m pretty sure that the title of “enemies bent on our destruction in the name of Jihad” doesn’t give them U.S. citizenship.

Unless they’re part of some new crazy amnesty scheme the BHO admin is cooking up, that is. You can never tell with these socialists; anything that could possibly be bad for America is on the table.

Either way…this is pretty vile.

A senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee is accusing the Obama administration of quietly ordering the FBI to start reading Miranda rights to suspected terrorists at U.S. military detention facilities in Afghanistan.

The move is reportedly creating chaos in the field among the CIA, FBI and military personnel, according to Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. The soldiers, especially, he says, are frustrated that giving high value detainees Miranda rights — the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney — is impeding their ability to pursue intelligence on the battlefield, according to a story first reported by the Weekly Standard.

“What I found was lots of confusion and very frustrated people on the front lines who are trying to, well, make Afghanistan successful for the United States and its allies,” said Rogers, who serves on the House Intelligence Committee.

Rogers, a former FBI special agent who served in the U.S. Army, just returned from Afghanistan and a visit to Bagram Air Base, where he said the rights are being read.

This is beyond ridiculous. You cannot start reading rights to enemy soldiers! They don’t have any rights, especially not the right to remain silent or request an attorney.

So, we can barely fight crime within our country because of our legal system, and now we’re going to extend that umbrella to terrorists? Give me a break. Every time I think that BHO’s hyperkinetic mess of a foreign policy can’t get any worse, he goes and does something like this. Obama is continuing to paint himself as the most incompetent executive in history, or, barring that, the one who most wants to see America destroyed.

What’s next? Terrorists filing lawsuits against our soldiers for emotional suffering? ACLU lawyers embedded with our brigades to ensure they don’t fire too many times into terrorist buildings? Calm and soothing music blaring from helicopter loudspeakers so terrorists feel at ease during battle?

Or maybe just a massive and radical surrender to radical Jihad; you know, something sort of like Obama’s Cairo speech.

What? You mean everyday citizens don’t agree with Czar Obama’s theory of letting terrorists our troops captured go free? What a completely unsurprising fact.

Americans are strongly opposed to shutting the doors of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay and moving terrorism suspects to detention centers in the U.S., according to a recent poll.

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll released Tuesday found that those surveyed oppose the closing of Guantanamo by more than 2-1.

By more than 3-1, respondents oppose moving the detainees to prisons within the U.S., according to the poll.

Sixty-five percent of Americans polled said they do not support closing Guantanamo and sending its detainees to U.S. prisons while just 32 percent said they did support the idea.

What’s funny is that he’s still moving full speed ahead to TRY and close Gitmo despite massive opposition to it among citizens. Who is he trying to appease?

The answer was apparent in his Cairo speech this week: the Muslim world. Obama doesn’t care what Americans want; he cares more about what terrorists overseas think about our country than what we do. I don’t have to tell you how backwards that is.

I’m wondering if Kim Jong-Il and I’m A Dinner Jacket made some sort of bet as to who could start WWIII first, North Korea or Iran. Right now, I have to give the edge to North Korea, who is on the verge of launching another round of ICBMs.

North Korea is assembling a missile that could hit U.S. soil and may test-launch it as early as this month, a newspaper reported, as a U.S. envoy on Wednesday urged Pyongyang to cease provocations and return to disarmament talks.

The hermit state’s nuclear test last week, putting it closer to having a working atomic weapon, has already prompted the U.S. and South Korean forces to raise their military alert for the divided peninsula.

North Korea, which began ratcheting up regional tensions when it fired a long-ranged rocket over Japan in April, also test-fired a barrage of short-range missiles last week and threatened to attack the South.

“The ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) is covered up so it’s tough to be absolutely clear but it looks similar to the Taepodong-2 fired in April but longer,” the JoongAng Ilbo quoted a South Korean government source as saying.

The April launch triggered tightened U.N. Security Council sanctions that Pyongyang called unacceptable, threatening to launch an ICBM unless the world body apologised [sic].

Oh, we remember those U.N. Security Council sanctions…they just seem to work SO well. When are these smarmy idiots going to get it through their heads that “condemning” NoKo does NOTHING. They don’t care what we think of them! They don’t care about their reputation; they want to start a war, and it’s up to us to stop them before millions of people lose their lives just because some lunatic dictator wants to show the world he has…guts.

Pyongyang knows who we have in the Oval Office. They know he doesn’t have the fortitude to carry out any sort of attack (hell, he doesn’t even have the backbone to DEFEND the U.S., much less fight someone offensively), and they know he’s going to weakly look to the U.N. for guidance (which is sort of like asking the Bubble Boy for help with a playground bully).

As long as our foreign policy revolves around looking to the U.N. and “extending an open hand,” North Korea will continue to push toward their Final Solution: nuclear weapons that can strike U.S. soil.

It’ll be alright though, we can just shoot them down with our missile shiel—-oh, that’s right; Obama cut funding for it.