H/T to my boy Prophet for the link on this one.

So I read the article below and thought to myself “self, I wonder how this will end up turning out, but I am sure it won’t be good”.

UMM has interests beyond the building of mosques. One of them deals with children’s activities – violence-based children’s activities.

Jawala Scouts or the Jawala Scout Youth Leadership Program, an Islamic paramilitary boys group, was incorporated in Philadelphia in August 2005.

Read the whole story at….

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/13/philadelphia’s-islamist-boy-scouts/

I was going to write about this topic myself, but they I saw Uncle Jimbo’s video and figured I couldn’t say it any better than he did. He has such a way with words. How could I do better than this? Caution- Uncle Jimbo uses some salty language.

The CinC made a surprise visit to the combat zone yesterday, as most CinC’s are prone to do…this time to Afghanistan. In his predictable pep rally speech to assembled US forces, he made two statements that caught my eye and made me question the truth behind the rhetoric.

“If this region slides backwards,” Obama told the troops, “if the Taliban retakes this country, al-Qaida can operate with impunity, then more American lives will be at stake, the Afghan people will lose their opportunity for progress and prosperity and the world will be significantly less secure.

“We know there’s going to be some difficult days ahead, there’s going to be setbacks. We face a determined enemy, but we also know this: the United States of America does not quit once it starts on something. We will prevail, I am absolutely confident of that.”

We won’t quit? Ever?

We will never assess a situation as not being worth the national treasure of our nation….that once we start down a path, we shall not waver….even though logic and reason may dictate otherwise?  Where is the rationale for a Taliban regime to again harbor Al Qaeda?  The Taliban and Al Qaeda share little in common strategically, but they are intelligent enough to realize that they would quickly lose power once again by hosting the terror group. Add to this the feelings of betrayal and mistrust between Afghan and the ‘foreign Arabs’.

Recently counter-terrorism analyst turned academic Leah Farrall interviewed Islamic militant Abu Walid al-Masri, a longtime jihadist close to both Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden. From this interview Farrall writes:

In his most recent letter to me, where he responded to an article I wrote for The Australian on al-Qa’ida’s Afghanistan strategy, he dropped the loudest bomb of all. He tells me the Taliban will no longer welcome al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan. Their return would make matters more complicated for the Taliban because “the majority of the population is against al-Qa’ida”.

He believes that disassociation is required. He tells me “if the link between the Taliban and al-Qa’ida is not broken the results will be bad for the Taliban and Afghanistan”. And he thinks that the Taliban should also move away from the salafist movement so it can be liberated “from all of the restrictions that hinder its political options”. The Austrailian

A withdrawal would of course provide short term propaganda to Al Qaeda, but in hollow rhetoric. A truly fervent jihadi will be drawn to the cause no matter the situation, but for all other financing and recruitment, a compelling threat must be conveyed to potential fighters and backers. By de-legitimizing Al Qaeda as a military threat, and as the overwhelming threat to western civilization…….and removing the perceived threat to Muslims [occupations], we take away that compelling threat that motivates many jihadi’s.

Here’s the question more Americans should be asking…..why aren’t factually based analysis’ entering into the national debate? Why do we accept the meme that we are escalating in Afghanistan intent on ‘disrupting and destroying terrorist groups’…when we all know that they aren’t there? These reasons for escalation are just as intellectually corrupt as the buildup to invade Iraq.

If someone supports trying to defeat the Taliban simply because of their moral temperature when it comes to human rights, fine. Just don’t frame it as an imperative to our national security.

We’ve come full circle with Obama channeling Bush in his invocation of ‘evil’. Just another statist, mainstream, god fearing political clone. So continues a long American tradition (dating back at least to the insurgency battles in the Philippines) of the United States committing troops [or escalating in this case] against an enemy who neither attacked us nor poses a security threat to us. This decision spotlights the Obama Administration as decidedly un-liberal and bringing about little to no ‘hope’ or ‘change’.

All of this occurs at a time when there exists both the rhetoric of the gravest threat to national security and asking not an iota of tangible support from the populace at large. So can someone….anyone….explain to me the rationale for even tepid support of escalation in Afghanistan? Given that nearly all of the rhetoric provided fails to support the reality…does it simply boil down to ‘well at least we’re doing something?’ Even though that something is counter-productive?

Let me get this straight, we can keep all the back-door-dope-deals secret for passing the healthcare bills, and who is to blame for the security lapses on the passengers flying into this country, but we can open up all of our classified secrets? Am I understanding that correctly or am I just missing something here?

Obama orders creation of declassification center

President Obama created by executive order Tuesday a National Declassification Center to oversee efforts to make once-secret government documents public.
The order comes as part of Obama’s promise to push government to err on the side of disclosure as it tackles the need to keep certain information from the public.
In a post on the White House blog, William H. Leary, the senior director of records and access management at the National Security Council, writes that the effort is aimed at shifting the burden of defending secrecy to the government.
“While the Government must be able to prevent the public disclosure of information that would compromise the national security, a democratic government accountable to the people must be as transparent as possible and must not withhold information for self-serving reasons or simply to avoid embarrassment,” Leary wrote.
As a candidate, Obama promised to run the most open and transparent administration ever. He has released White House visitor log data for the first time, though only months after the visits. But his decision not to release some information about detainee torture and his acceptance of closed-door negotations on the health care bill in Congress have brought criticism from good-government groups.
In the executive order, Obama instructs the government not to keep secrets forever, eliminates the ability of intelligence officials to veto declassification decisions, and requires agencies to conduct reviews of their classification procedures.

If you read http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/26/lawmakers-attempted-airline-attack-disturbing-pledge-hold-hearings/, you will see that the White House is calling this an act of terrorism…

The White House and lawmakers are calling it an attempted act of terrorism.

Is the word “terrorism” acceptable again? Or does this administration finally realize and are they ready to admit that our country is still and continually under terrorist threat. Are they also ready to admit that traveling the world apologizing for what our country does to protect its own people and getting Nobel Peace Prizes for doing nothing is maybe not the best indicator that the World loves us.