Did Obama Stage The "Terror Threats" in NYC and DC to Make Him Look Tough on Terror?

Hmm. Set the Black Helicopter flying.

The day after the Washington Post breaks a story about Afghanistan being lost without increases to troop levels and Obama's inability to decide what to do, we are hit with the spectre of a massive terrorist plot, which, of course, Obama's crew is putting the kibosh on.

Federal counter-terrorism officials warned local police to patrol stadiums,
hotels and entertainment complexes for suspicious activity after the arrest of a
Colorado shuttle driver and others suspected in a potentially far-reaching
terror plot.

Extra officers wearing helmets and bulletproof vests were dispatched to spots like Grand Central Terminal in midtown Manhattan.

However, officials in New York City and Washington D.C. reported "no credible threat" that has sparked their actions.

"We have no specific information from intelligence sources that would lead us to believe there is a threat to our system at this time, yet MTPD (Metro Transit Police Department) officers remain vigilant," said Metro Police Chief Michael A. Taborn in a news release.

I know what you are thinking. I am nuts for even drawing the connection between Obama's Afghanistan dilemma and this threatening non-threat. I mean, no one would even accuse a sitting U.S. president of playing politics with our fear of terrorism, would he?

Obama: Only Two Days to Make the US Less Safe

It took President Barack Obama a mere two days to make the United States less safe than we were on Tuesday.

With two executive orders, Obama approved the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and all such facilities throughout the world, despite the fact that he has no idea of what to do with the terrorists detained there. He then announced that the U.S. will no longer torture terrorist subjects.

The speculation is that some terrorists will be released to "countries that want them." If no other country wants them, do we get them by default?

Others will be tried in "modified military commissions." Whatever that is (we can say that quite often regarding Obama's plans).

The rest of the detainees, those who can't be released or tried, will face a "national security court," again yet to be defined.

A correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers unwittingly gave the most essential reason why these terrorists cannot be tried in a non-military court:

The detainees had access only to the unclassified evidence against them, and they had no way to challenge it. Military officials told them nothing of other evidence that might be responsible for their detention.

If these detainees are tried in a civilian court, they will have to be provided classified intelligence and military information, or they will walk. And, of course, the classified information will be revealed in court or otherwise leaked to the press. That will do untold damage to the war on terror.

Reports indicate that many Guantanamo detainees who have been released have indeed returned to the war against us.

AP reported today on an alleged statement from a Yemeni group known as "al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula," who claim "that group's No. 2 is a Saudi national who is a former Guantanamo detainee."

This, apparently, is nothing new.

The Washington Post reported in 2004 that one of the repatriated Guantanamo prisoners is still at large after taking leadership of a militant faction in Pakistan and aligning himself with al Qaeda, Pakistani officials said.

Meanwhile, Obama announced to the press -- and our enemies throughout the world -- that the U.S. can only use interrogation methods outlined in the Army Field Manual. This inexplicable pronouncement tells our enemies that U.S. soldiers and intelligence officials cannot use any extreme methods of interrogation, even to elicit information that could save American lives. How many terrorist captured in the future will talk, knowing that their interviewers are limited in what they can do to them.

In two quick strokes of a pen, Obama has made it easier for terrorists to do their job: killing us; and he made it harder for the military to do their job: protecting us from the people who want to kill us.

Obama: Change that Could Kill Us.

Racial Profiling is a Bigger Threat than Terrorism

If this article from Reuters can be believed, racial profiling is a bigger threat to the United States than is terrorism. Does anybody agree with this statement?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) does.

Reportedly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the United States Department of Justice want to use a set of existing guidelines in their hunt for terrorists. The FBI already use the rules when going after "domestic" criminals, and simply want to apply these rules in cases involving national security.

And, not surprisingly, the ACLU is shrieking that if these guidelines are adopted for terror cases, "a person's race or ethnic background could be used as a factor in opening an investigation," leading to racial profiling.

The DoJ believes these rules will help find and arrest terrorists, preventing terrorist attacks on US soil. If they get their way, the ACLU would prevent the FBI from implementing these rules, denying a tool that the FBI would use to prevent a terrorist from killing hundreds, thousands, or millions of innocent Americans.

The ACLU is willing to sacrifice your life to avoid the possibility that a dark-skinned person with a funny name* might be inconvenienced. The ACLU wants your child to risk being the victim of a subway bomber or a car bomb outside their workplace or shopping mall on their "concern" someone "could" be racially profiled.

The ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, said, "Issuing guidelines that permit racial profiling the day after the 9/11 anniversary and in the midst of a historic presidential campaign is typical Bush administration stagecraft designed to exploit legitimate security concerns for partisan political purposes."

Wrong, Tony. Issuing these guidelines the day after 9/11 should serve as a reminder how dangerous is this world we live in, and that we should spare no effort to prevent the next 9/11.

According to a typically hysterical ACLU press release, "[t]hese techniques would allow agents to conduct pre-textual (undercover) interviews, use informants and conduct physical surveillance in connection with First Amendment protected activities."

Egad! The FBI wants to use undercover officers, informants and surveillance to nab suspected terrorists! The horrors. I have news for you Tony, the terrorists want to do more than just survey you, they want to kill you.

And then, there is this canard: "After eight years of historic civil liberties abuses (during the Bush years), the American people know better. " If anyone at the ACLU has had a single civil liberty denied or even infringed upon, please name it.

You know a moonbat when he has a bumper sticker on his car announcing that his freedom of speech is being restricted. Or, when you see a rally on the public square decrying their inability to speak out on the issues. Huh?

This is one of my new favorite red-herrings, from the tellingly-named CommonDreams.org: "in order to bring a complaint about abuses under the PATRIOT Act, a person had to..know that his or her rights had been violated".Well, yeah, I should think that a basic hurdle to showing that you were aggrived would be knowing you were aggrieved.

I wanted to report my house was broken into, but I couldn't tell if there was a break-in and nothing was missing. Say it ain't so!

I think we should send these ACLU whack-jobs to Iran, North Korea, China, or their beloved Cuba to see what true repression is. I have my doubts that a Civil Liberties Union would exist in Pyongyang.

It is especially galling for these lefties to whine about losing their freedoms when, in the crushing dictatorship in Italy, a comedian may be prosecuted for making a joke about the Pope. But, we in the US are being repressed.

But, the ALCU knows what the real problem is: According to the ACLU's Caroline Fredrickson, "Handing this kind of latitude (the new guidelines) to an organization already rife with internal oversight problems is a huge mistake."

Actually, allowing the ACLU to place any restiction on the goverment's efforts to prevent terrorism is the true mistake.



*"They'll tell you he has a funny name..." -- Barack Obama