The screeching charlatans of the global warmists have come out of the closet and admitted their goal is redistribution of wealth. They’ve abandoned any pretense of science and instead are amping up the hysteria aimed at scaring you into paying up lest you die in your own carbon footprint. Obama is the green pied piper leading us down the road to ruin.

By Benjamin Smith

President Barack Hussein Obama – STOP using the Navy SEALS as a campaign ploy. Because with all due respect, (what little I have for you), you do NOT speak for me.

You have a movie about SEALS within the past year trying to identify with me, with the navy SEALS, and with anything that might improve your polling numbers…and yet it is all a sham to hide a weak un-American man desperate to claim the victories of others for his own.

You Sir are trying to take the credit for what the American People have achieved in killing Bin Laden. Your use of the SEALs accomplishment as a campaign slogan is nothing less than despicable. I, as a former Navy SEAL do not accept your taking credit for Osama Bin Laden’s death. The American Military accomplished that feat.

Yet now that it is useful, you Mr. President, continue to refer to the event as if it were YOU and you alone which accomplished the worthy task of slaying one of America’s greatest enemies. You say “I directed”, “I Continued”, “My Intelligence Community”, “My national security team”, “I determined that I had enough….”, “My direction…”

Yet reliable sources continue to report that not only did you attempt to stop or delay Bin Laden’s demise, you did not even leave the golf course for the situation room until 20 minutes before SEAL Team 6 took out Osama Bin Laden. Even the clothes you wore in the situation room betray this fact. This is a Commander in Chief? A man who takes credit for actions largely taken while he was out golfing?

We men who have taken the oath, say ENOUGH. You do not speak for me, a former Navy SEAL, or any one of the league of men whom I have earned the right to be among. You are simply a man running for an office. Yet you behave as a glory-hoarding ruler. You campaign to be our leader, yet in reality you wish to be our Master.

The American people are the ones who got Bin Laden… You did Not! We have fought wars and slugged it with Vast Terror Organizations to get to the man you say YOU killed. The United Sates of America has won you a title sir and you have spent the last three years trying to beg, borrow and bow as you GIVE IT ALL AWAY. You just happened to be president of the USA when WE THE PEOPLE got Osama Bin Laden. We do not see you as heroic or stoic, we see you as the guy who let America Go. We got fat and weak and you gave it all away. That is your credit – you bow to foreign leaders and pander to the press. You do not represent me as a Military Man. You do not represent me as a SEAL. You do not represent me as an AMERICAN!

You do not speak for me or any American military man because though you may now be Commander in Chief, you are not the man to whom we can point our sons and say “This is the American dream, this is American exceptionalism, this is what I wish for your future”, because you Sir are NONE of these things. You Sir, are the antithesis of American Exceptionalism. Your idols are Saul Alinksi and Karl Marx and your revolutionary dreams and anti-American ideals poison your every policy. Your every action betrays the fact that in your soul you do not understand what it is to be an American, not what America truly is. Your agenda from the beginning has been to get rid of and kill everything that is and ever was American. You who so easily dismisses America’s greatness and bows to foreigners… YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME. YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE NAVY SEALS. YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE MILITARY MAN AND you SHALL NOT claim as your prize that which you have not earned. The Navy SEALS are NOT a campaign slogan to be bantered about for play. Nor are our accomplishments, including the demise of Osama Bin Laden, yours to claim.

So you DO NOT speak for me. And I will not stand for your use and abuse of my brethren the SEALS.

For Liberty,

Benjamin Smith

An active duty Seal that was on the raid has criticized the president for taking credit for the raid’s success. Remember that Obama ended the interrogation techniques that led to finding Bin Laden.

By Brian Slattery at Heritage Foundation

Yesterday marked the 60th anniversary of the B-52 Stratofortress strategic bomber’s first flight. The last B-52 came off the production line 10 years later. Such milestones are often celebrated nostalgically for their achievements in times past. However, we can’t call them the “good old days” quite yet for the B-52, since many are still flying today.

This fact is a testament to the Air Force and industry’s ability to keep B-52s not only flying but relevant for more than half a century. However, it also underscores a rapidly spreading concern throughout the Department of Defense: The U.S. is increasingly relying on old equipment for national security.

The B-52 is just one of a surprising number of geriatric planes, ships, and other military assets still in use by the U.S. Armed Forces today. In spite of this unsettling trend, the Obama Administration has made recapitalizing national security its lowest priority by cutting the defense budget and pushing new platforms such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Ohio-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine replacement farther into the future.

Failing to replace old equipment like the B-52 is a double-edged sword. While this particular program has performed admirably, it still suffers the wear and tear of a long service life and high mileage. Maintenance costs inherently rise with the age of equipment. Furthermore, Obama’s policy of pushing new programs further into the future risks cost increases to these programs. It also puts national security at risk if the U.S. enters an unforeseen conflict ill-equipped.

The Stratofortress has admirably protected America through strategic nuclear deterrence and conventional missions in myriad conflicts for more than half a century. However, the U.S. cannot rely on this platform forever. It has become vulnerable to new enemy air defenses, for example. The Air Force also conceded that the next-generation bomber will not be certified to perform nuclear missions until the same timeframe that B-52s are scheduled to retire. This schedule assumes that B-52s will not see an increase in use due to an unforeseen conventional or non-conventional conflict. Any additional stress could shorten the fleet’s lifespan, leaving a gap in strategic nuclear deterrence capability. Delaying nuclear certifications for the new bomber puts national security at risk.

President Obama has already made it clear that he wants to reduce America’s nuclear arsenal. Doing so while weakening U.S. strategic deterrence puts national security at risk and erodes America’s leadership position in the world. With the submarine leg of the triad already scheduled to fall below its required level of capability, reliance on bombers will not be declining any time soon. Obama and Congress should recognize this by fully funding a next-generation strategic bomber program and a robust defense budget.

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

A troubling pattern of putting U.S. and allied security interests second to the Obama administration’s political priorities is now well-established. If allowed to continue, it will not only make the world more dangerous. It is going to get people killed – probably in large numbers and some of them may be Americans.

A prime example of the phenomenon was the disclosure of minute details of the 2011 raid by SEAL Team 6 withinhours of its successful liquidation of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. The revelation of special operations tradecraft horrified those in and out of the U.S. military who appreciate that safeguarding the secrecy of such techniques is essential toensuring their future utility, and the safety of those who employ them.

The really galling thing, though, was that such secrets were compromised for the transparent purpose of touting Mr. Obama’s decisiveness and competency as Commander-in-Chief. Regrettably, such qualities have not been much in evidence, either prior to or after that raid. For that matter, notwithstanding Vice President Joe Biden’s characteristically preposterous description of the operation as “the most audacious plan in 500 years,” it is not entirely clear what his boss’ role was in the execution, let alone the conception.

Still, given the importance now being attached to this narrative of vision and courage in the Obama reelection campaign, it is clear that the serial disclosure ofstate secrets by, most notably, the President’s counter-terrorism guru, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, was in the service of a political cause. Call it the ends justifying the means.

More recently, “four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers” reportedly fed Foreign Policy Magazine contributor Mark Perry a salacious story about Israel enlisting Azerbaijan in its plans for staging aircraft in an attack on Iran. Perry claims that “a senior administration official told [him] in early February that ‘The Israelis have bought an airfield, and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.’”

If true, such a disclosure would fit the pattern of deliberate, concerted and damaging leaks of exceedingly sensitive information in order to advance Team Obama’s political agenda. In this instance, that agenda would be to prevent any strike on Iranian nuclear and perhaps other targets by the Jewish State before the November elections.

True or not, the revelation has had the desired effect: It put the Azeri government of President Ilham Aliyev on the spot and forced it to disavow any such collaboration with Israel. While some have questioned the integrity of the author and the logic of his thesis, the trouble is, it certainly sounds like the Obama administration to see such a stunt as a highly desirable two-fer: an opportunity to undermine Israel’s security, while effectively protecting Iran.

It seems that a similar calculation moved the Obama administration to divulge what appeared on the front page of theWashington Post’s Sunday editions: An article citing unnamed White House and intelligence sources – including “a senior U.S. official involved in high-level discussions about Iran policy” – that revealed details about the intelligence operations and capabilities the United States is said to have brought to bear lately against Iran.

The ostensible purpose of these initiatives has been the monitoring and disabling of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Among the insights: the CIA has stood up and greatly expanded a unitdubbed “Persia House” for the purpose of monitoring and running covert actions against Iran.

In the article, much was made of the growth of this organization, its use of stealthy unmanned drones to collect signals and other intelligence deep in Iran and U.S. involvement in computer worms, assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and explosions in certain sensitive facilities involved in Iran’s weapons program.

The point of these leaks of exceedingly sensitive activities – at least some of which could constitute acts of war, however, seemed once again to be cynically manipulative: It appears designed to show the American people that everything is under control. Team Obama is working the problem, skillfully employing intelligence assets to prevent Iran’s nuclear ambitions from being realized without using military force.

The Post story also served as a vehicle for reiterating the administration’s party line: The mullahs have not decided to acquire an actual weapon and are at least a year away from getting one. And, what’s more, we will know should that decision be taken in plenty of time to do something about it.

We would all wish these assurances to be accurate. Unfortunately, the problem with the Obama administration’s practice of playing fast-and-loose with information that is secret for a reason – it might be called “political compromise,” but that would be the only sense of the term this president seems to favor – is that it almost certainly will jeopardize our security, and that of other freedom-loving people.

Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. The Center is a not-for-profit, non-partisan educational corporation established in 1988. Under Mr. Gaffney’s leadership, the Center has been nationally and internationally recognized as a resource for timely, informed and penetrating analyses of foreign and defense policy matters.

By Cliff Kincaid

You may not have heard of PSD-10 because it has received no significant coverage from the major media. Yet, President Obama issued “Presidential Study Directive 10” last August 4, 2011, and posted it on the White House website. It amounts to a new and potentially far-reaching exercise of American military power cloaked in humanitarian language and conducted under the auspices of the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

Under this new “Obama doctrine,” U.S. troops can be deployed to arrest or even terminate individuals wanted by the International Criminal Court, which is based on a treaty that has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate and isn’t even up for Senate consideration.

This “Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities,” another name for PSD-10, declares that “Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.” This is at sharp variance with the traditional role of the U.S. military—self-defense and protection of the homeland. Toward this end, an “Interagency Atrocities Prevention Board” is being formed to develop and implement this new Obama doctrine. However, it is apparent that the doctrine is already going forward.

Members of the public haven’t heard of PSD-10, but they may have heard of a decision Obama made on October 14, 2011, when he informed Congress that he had authorized “a small number of combat equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield.”

Kony, a Ugandan warlord who runs the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), is better known than most foreigners, since he is the subject of the viral “Kony 2012” video about the more than 30,000 “invisible children” he has allegedly murdered or abducted. His whereabouts are unknown, although it is believed he is no longer in Uganda.

Despite the name of his group, Kony is not a Christian and instead receives backing from the Islamic regime in northern Sudan. Although he poses no direct threat to the United States and has not carried out terrorist attacks on the U.S. or killed any American citizens, the Department of Treasury has designated him as a “global terrorist” under Executive Order 13224, a measure signed into law by President Bush after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In regard to seeking Kony’s “removal,” Obama told Congress, “I have directed this deployment, which is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”

Obama noted that Congress, in passing the “Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009,” had “expressed support for increased, comprehensive U.S. efforts to help mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the LRA to civilians and regional stability.” But it did not authorize deployment of combat forces. What’s more, a statement from Obama after signing the law did not give any indication any would be sent.

One of the sponsors of the bill, Rep. Edward Royce (R-CA), has subsequently introduced “Rewards for Justice” legislation (H.R. 4077) that would allow the State Department to offer a reward for the apprehension of Kony.

For his part, Obama is basically deploying the U.S. Armed Forces on behalf of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which indicted Kony for war crimes in 2005 and issued an arrest warrant for him. However, not only has the U.S. Senate not ratified the ICC treaty, Congress has never authorized the use of U.S. troops to carry out the ICC’s edicts. So where does Obama get the power to deploy U.S. troops in this manner?

The question is made more relevant because Obama has such an expansive view of his own executive power to wage war. He claims the power to kill American citizens overseas, on the grounds that they collaborate with foreign terrorist groups, and FBI Director Robert Mueller has told Congress that he is not sure whether the president also has the power to kill American citizens on American soil, inside the United States. Mueller testified, “I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not.”

In the case of Kony, Obama seems to be taking his cue from the ICC. Its prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, appears in the “Kony 2012” video, noting that Kony was the first person ever indicted by the court. The video also celebrates Obama’s decision to use U.S. troops to try to apprehend Kony. It does not take a big exercise in connecting the dots to arrive at the conclusion that Obama is using U.S. troops to carry out the orders of the ICC. But rather than seek ratification of the ICC and then obtain the approval of Congress to apprehend Kony, and perhaps even to kill him, Obama simply issues orders to U.S. troops and bypasses the Congress.

Last October Jake Tapper of ABC News asked Obama about the decision to deploy troops “to help eliminate Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army.” Obama replied:

“Well none of these decisions are easy, but those who are familiar with the Lord’s Resistance Army and their leader, Mr. Kony, know that these are some of the most vicious killers. They terrorize villages, they take children into custody and turn them into child soldiers, they engage in rape and slaughter in villages they go through. They have been a scourge on Uganda and that entire region, eastern Africa. So there has been strong bi-partisan support and a coalition, everything from evangelical Christians to folks on the left and human rights organizations who have said it is an international obligation for us to try to take them on. And so given that bipartisan support across the board belief that we have to do something about this, what we’ve done is we’ve provided these advisors. They are not going to be in a situation where they are called upon to hunt down the Lord’s Resistance Army or actively fire on them, but they will be in a position to protect themselves. What they can do is provide the logistical support that is needed, the advice, the training and the logistical support that hopefully will allow this kind of stuff to stop.”

Notice the use of the term “international obligation.” That is not the same as a declaration of war or resolution on the use of force from Congress.

Indeed, the Obama Administration seems to have the view that it has to seek authorization for military action against foreign regimes or individuals from the U.N. or NATO, but not from Congress. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently told a Senate committee that the U.S. military would have to seek “international permission” before intervening in Syria. Senator Jeff Sessions responded, “I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat. I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

On top of this announcement, we now learn, also from Tapper, that “according to a senior administration official, President Obama first heard about the [Kony 2012] video the same way so many people have: from one of his children. In this case, it was from Malia, 13.”

Some liberals are now complaining that the “Kony 2012” video has become a “pretext for military intervention.” If so, it is after the fact. They fear the intervention may not really be designed to find Kony. Still, it is not too late for liberals and conservatives alike to question whether Obama has superseded his constitutional and legal authority. It is certainly time for the major media to examine what Obama is getting the United States into in Africa—and on what legal basis, if any, he is doing it.

While Obama had ordered U.S. troops to apprehend Kony, he has been careful not to order them to arrest and detain Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, a patron of Kony’s who has also been indicted by the ICC on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Sudan is a member in good standing of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The crimes of Al-Bashir dwarf those of Kony.

It should be apparent what is happening here. The Obama Administration has what the United Nations Association calls an “evolving policy” of “positive engagement” toward the ICC. It doesn’t seem to matter that the administration isn’t seeking ratification of the ICC, also known as the Rome Statute, and has no plans to do so.

The policy is an open secret. Rosemary A. DiCarlo, the U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, has said, “Although the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, over the past several years we have sent observer delegations to the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) sessions and the Review Conference in Kampala. In December, we cosponsored a high-level panel at the ASP to highlight the importance of ensuring protection for witnesses and judicial officers. We have engaged with the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registrar to consider ways to support specific prosecutions already underway, and we have responded positively to a number of informal requests for assistance.”

She spoke of the need for “transnational justice,” saying that the review undertaken as part of implementing Presidential Study Directive-10 would focus on “how we can work with our international partners to more effectively prevent and respond to atrocities. We look forward to working with our partners to strengthen the international community’s capabilities in this area.”

So while the Pentagon prepares for across-the-board cuts in national security and defense programs, plans are underway by the Obama Administration to use some of what’s left of our military to operate on behalf of the United Nations and the ICC. The “fundamental transformation” of the United States is now underway at the Department of Defense.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

From Investor’s Business Daily editorials

EXCERPTS:

[Obama] he hailed Senate passage of a New START Treaty that eviscerated U.S. missile defense …..

It was certainly good for Moscow.

Obama would curtail deployment of additional ground-based interceptors (GBIs) …. in Alaska and …. in California. ….. also canceled ready-to-deploy missile defenses such as the Air Force’s Airborne Laser program in which converted 747s with high-intensity lasers would destroy enemy missiles in their vulnerable boost phase.

…. also scuttle plans for ground-based interceptors to be based in Poland, with tracking radars in the Czech Republic, designed to shoot down missiles launched from Iran against the U.S. or Europe.

The Russians objected to our missile defense plans, and Obama caved.

He would also pursue betraying the U.S. by giving our missile defense secrets to Moscow.

This would include data such as the burnout velocity of Raytheon Co.’s Standard Missile-3 interceptors, the centerpiece of our Aegis ballistic missile defense system.

FULL ARTICLE