|American Minute with Bill FedererFEB. 16 – White Slaves-Muslim Masters & the Barbary Wars|
“The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco,” stated President Obama in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009.
Explaining this, Governor William Bradford wrote that in 1625, a Pilgrim ship was returning to England with dried fish and 800 lbs of beaver skins to trade for supplies:
“They…were well within the England channel, almost in sight of Plymouth. But…there she was unhapply taken by a Turkish man-
of-war and carried off to Morocco where the captain and crew were made slaves.”
Muslim pirates of Morocco raided European coasts and carried away over a million to the North African slave markets, where also they sold tens of millions of Africans into slavery.
In 1627, Algerian Muslim pirates, led by Murat Reis the Younger, raided Iceland, and carried 400 into slavery.
One captured girl, who had been made a slave concubine in Algeria, was rescued back by King Christian IV of Denmark.
On June 20, 1631, the entire village of Baltimore, Ireland, “The Stolen Village,” was captured by Muslim pirates.
Only two ever returned. Thomas Osborne Davis wrote in his poem, “The Sack of Baltimore” (1895):
“The yell of ‘Allah!’ breaks above the shriek and roar;
O’blessed God! the Algerine is lord of Baltimore.”
Kidnapped Englishman Francis Knight wrote:
“I arrived in Algiers, that city fatal to all Christians and the butchery of mankind.”
Moroccan Sultan Moulay Ismail had 500 wives and forced 25,000 white slaves to build his palace at Meknes. He was witnessed to have killed an African slave just to try out a new hatchet he was given.
The Catholic Order “Trinitarians” collected alms to ransom slaves.
In 1785, Morocco recognized the new country of the United States by capturing two American ships and demanding tribute.
Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Jay, 1787:
“There is an order of priests called the Mathurins, the object of whose institution is to beg alms for the redemption of captives.
They keep members always in Barbary, searching out the captives of their country, and redeem, I believe, on better terms than any other body, public or private.
It occurred to me, that their agency might be obtained for the redemption of our prisoners at Algiers.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Carmichael, 1786:
“Mr. Adams and I had conferences with a Tripoline ambassador, named Abdrahaman. He asked us thirty thousand guineas for a peace with his court.”
Jefferson reported to John Jay,” March 28, 1786:
“The Ambassador answered us that it was…written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged Islam’s authority were sinners, that it was their…duty to make war upon them…and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.”
Jefferson purchased a Qur’an to understand the enemy.
Despite paying nearly 20 percent of the U.S. Federal budget as extortion payments, the Muslims continued their piracy.
When Jefferson became President, he finally sent in the U.S. Marines to stop Morocco’s Barbary pirates.
In his First Annual Message, December 8, 1801, Thomas Jefferson stated:
“Tripoli…of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to (announce) war on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer.
I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean, with assurances to that power of our sincere desire to remain in peace, but with orders to protect our commerce against the threatened attack. “
On December 29, 1803, the new 36-gun USS Philadelphia ran aground on Morocco’s shallow coast and Muslim pirates captured and imprisoned Captain William Bainbridge and his 307 man crew for 18 months.
To prevent the ship from being used by the Muslim Barbary pirates, Lieut. Stephen Decatur, FEBRUARY 16, 1804, sailed his ship, the Intrepid, into the pirate harbor of Tripoli, burned the captured U.S. frigate “Philadelphia” and escaped amidst enemy fire. British
Admiral Horatio Nelson called it the “most bold and daring act of the age,”
The Marines later captured Tripoli and forced the Pasha to make peace on U.S. terms.
Frederick Leiner wrote in The End of the Barbary Terror-America’s 1815 War Against the Pirates of North Africa (Oxford University Press):
“Commodore Stephen Decatur and diplomat William Shaler withdrew to consult in private…The Algerians were believed to be masters of duplicity, willing to make agreements and break them as they found convenient.”
The annotated John Quincy Adams-A Bibliography, compiled by Lynn H. Parsons (Westport, CT, 1993, p. 41, entry#194), contains “Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War and on Greece,” published in The American Annual Register for 1827-28-29 (NY: 1830):
“Our gallant Commodore Stephen Decatur had chastised the pirate of Algiers…The Dey (Omar Bashaw)…disdained to conceal his intentions;
Get the book, What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur’an-A History of Islam & the United States
‘My power,’ said he, ‘has been wrested from my hands; draw ye the treaty at your pleasure, and I will sign it; but beware of the moment, when I shall recover my power, for with that moment, your treaty shall be waste paper.’”
America’s war with the Muslim Barbary Pirates was the country’s first war after the Revolution, giving rise to the Marine Anthem:
“From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.”
American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement to vwww.AmericanMinute.com
There has been an understanding among a number of Arab governments which stated that the first objective was to force Israel through world pressure to return all the lands lost by three of these countries resulting from the Six Day War in June of 1967. The initial efforts to have Israel required to return these lands failed as the Israelis resisted and at that time still had the support of much of the world, particularly the Western World. The main contributing factor to the support Israel was receiving was due to the perception that the Arab Israeli conflict was perceived accurately as one tiny little country, Israel, standing against Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab World. The statements and propaganda emanating from the Arab World supported the concept that Israel was fighting against almost unimaginable odds facing a coordinated attack supported by countries with tens, if not hundreds or even thousands, of times sized militaries, tanks, planes, troops, helicopters, trucks, rifles, artillery, mortars and every other imaginable military equipment and other essentials. The solution to this problem was to find some manner of changing the equation on the ground, but how to shrink the Arab forces and make Israel to appear as the military giant instead of the outmanned and outgunned small country in a sea of enemies. There was a solution and it was to invent a group and isolate them from the rest of the Arab World and recast the representation of the two adversaries replacing the overwhelming Arab forces with a small and virtually defenseless and powerless group of Arabs with no military and no resources and cast Israel as an oppressor. This was what brought on the invention of the Palestinians as the indigenous people from whom the Israelis had stolen their lands and forced them into refugee camps where they languished under the most inhuman conditions. Read the complete post at The World Pushing for Yet Another Arab Israeli War « Beyond the Cusp.
He sided with the Brotherhood in Egypt and went to war for Al Qaeda and jihadist elements in Libya. Now this …….. I told ya so, in The Post American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.
Some of the thousands of surface-to-air missiles that have gone missing since the collapse of the Gadhafi regime in Libya have now turned up just miles from the Israeli border.
U.S. officials say there were 20,000 Russian-made anti-aircraft missiles in Libya before the uprising, and thousands have disappeared in the looting of Moammar Gadhafi‘s arm caches. According to the Washington Post, many of those Russian-made anti-aircraft weapons are being sold in Egyptian black markets, and so many are available the price has dropped from $10,000 to $4,000.
Egyptian officials told the paper they have intercepted looted Libyan weapons, including anti-aircraft guns, missiles and artillery, on the road from Libya into Egypt, in black markets on the Sinai Peninsula, and in the smuggling tunnels between the Sinai and Gaza.
The heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles, most of them shoulder-fired, have a range of two miles and would pose a threat to Israeli helicopter and planes on either side of the Israel-Gaza border.
Though Libya had an estimated 20,000 man-portable surface-to-air missiles before the popular uprising began in February, Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro told ABC News in September the government does not have a clear picture of how many missiles they’re trying to track down.
A spokesperson told ABC News that the State Department “commend[s] Egyptian authorities” for seizing the missiles and other arms.
“We are seeking additional information from Egyptian authorities as their investigations continue,” said Noel Clay. “Egypt is one of several nations in the region where we have held discussions about potential conventional weapons proliferation from Libya in recent months. It is clear that the Egyptian government shares our concerns about weapons smuggling.” Read the rest at Atlas Shrugs http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/10/
Once again the Obama administration is arming our, as well as Israels enemies. This is a betrayal of Israel, our only ally in the area, but most of all this is a betrayal of the American people. To actively aid a terrorist group that has stated over and over again that they wish for the destruction of our country should be considered treason. There is so much that Barack Obama and his administration have done to disrupt and destroy the security of this country, how can any sane person think that that is not their aim? We see it here as well as the project Fast and Furious and the enacting of the Dream Act by Executive Order! We see it in the destruction of our ability to provide the basic needs for ourselves and we see it via the TSA and other agencies that are actively harassing regular people instead of even attempting to stop terrorists from entering this country. Wake up American, if we don’t watch out, we will not have a United States of America! Barack Obama is declaring himself the sole arbiter of our continued existence. This must stop with 2012!!!
- Obama: US Backs Russian Mediation in Libya if Gadhafi Goes (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
The war in Libya has been under way for months, without any indication of when it might end. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s faction has been stronger and more cohesive than imagined and his enemies weaker and more divided. This is not unusual. There is frequently a perception that dictators are widely hated and that their power will collapse when challenged. That is certainly true at times, but often the power of a dictator is rooted in the broad support of an ideological faction, an ethnic group or simply those who benefit from the regime. As a result, naive assumptions of rapid regime change are quite often replaced by the reality of protracted conflict.
This has been a characteristic of what we have called “humanitarian wars,” those undertaken to remove a repressive regime and replace it with one that is more representative. Defeating a tyrant is not always easy. Gadhafi did not manage to rule Libya for 42 years without some substantial support.
Nevertheless, one would not expect that, faced with opposition from a substantial anti-regime faction in Libya as well as NATO and many other countries, Gadhafi would retain control of a substantial part of both the country and the army. Yet when we look at the situation carefully, it should be expected.
The path many expected in Libya was that the support around Gadhafi would deteriorate over time when faced with overwhelming force, with substantial defections of senior leaders and the disintegration of his military as commanders either went over to the other side en masse, taking their troops with them, or simply left the country, leaving their troops leaderless. As the deterioration in power occurred, Gadhafi — or at least those immediately around Gadhafi — would enter into negotiations designed for an exit. That hasn’t happened, and certainly not to the degree that it has ended Gadhafi’s ability to resist. Indeed, while NATO airpower might be able to block an attack to the east, the airstrikes must continue because it appears that Gadhafi has retained a great deal of his power.
One of the roots of this phenomenon is the existence of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which became operational in 2002 in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICC has jurisdiction, under U.N. mandate, to prosecute individuals who have committed war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity. Its jurisdiction is limited to those places where recognized governments are unwilling or unable to carry out their own judicial processes. The ICC can exercise jurisdiction if the case is referred to the ICC prosecutor by an ICC state party signatory or the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) or if the prosecutor initiates the investigation him or herself.
The current structure of international law, particularly the existence of the ICC and its rules, has an unintended consequence. Rather than serving as a tool for removing war criminals from power, it tends to enhance their power and remove incentives for capitulation or a negotiated exit. In Libya’s case, Gadhafi’s indictment was referred to the ICC by the UNSC, and he was formally indicted in late June. The existence of the ICC, and the clause that says that it has jurisdiction where signatory governments are unable or unwilling to carry out their own prosecutions, creates an especially interesting dilemma for Gadhafi and the intervening powers.
Consider the case of Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia. Milosevic, like Gadhafi, was indicted during a NATO intervention against his country. His indictment was handed down a month and a half into the air campaign, in May 1999, by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), a court that was to be the mold, to a large extent, for the ICC. After the intervention, Milosevic clung to power until 2001, cracking down on the opposition and dissident groups whom he painted as traitors during the NATO air campaign. Milosevic still had supporters in Serbia, and as long as he refused to cede his authority, he had enough loyalists in the government who refused to prosecute him in the interest of maintaining stability.
One of the reasons Milosevic refused to cede power was the very real fear that regime change in Serbia would result in a one-way ticket to The Hague. This is exactly what happened. A few months after Serbia’s October 2000 anti-Milosevic revolution, the new and nominally pro-Western government issued an arrest warrant for Milosevic, finally sending him to The Hague in June 2001 with a strong push from NATO. The Milosevic case illustrates the inherent risk an indicted leader will face when the government falls in the hands of the opposition.
The case of Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb political leader, is also instructive in showing the low level of trust leaders like Gadhafi may place in assurances from the West regarding non-prosecution. Serbian authorities arrested Karadzic in July 2008 after being on the run for 12 years. He claimed in court proceedings at the ICTY that he was given assurances by the United States — denied by Washington — that if he were to step down and make way for a peace process in Bosnia, he would not be prosecuted. This obviously did not happen. In other words, the likely political arrangements that were arrived at to initiate a peace process in Bosnia-Herzegovina were wholly disregarded by the ICTY.
Gadhafi is obviously aware of the Balkans precedents. He has no motivation to capitulate, since that could result in him being sent to The Hague, nor is there anyone that he can deal with who can hold the ICC in abeyance. In most criminal proceedings, a plea bargain is possible, but this is not simply a matter of a plea bargain.
Regardless of what a country’s leader has done, he or she holds political power, and the transfer of that power is inherently a political process. What the ICC has done since 2002 — and the ICTY to an extent before that — is to make the political process moot by making amnesty impossible. It is not clear if any authority exists to offer and honor an amnesty. However, the ICC is a product of the United Nations, and the authority of the United Nations lies in the UNSC. Though there is no clear precedent, there is an implicit assumption that the UNSC would be the entity to offer a negotiated amnesty with a unanimous vote. In other words, the political process is transferred from Libya to the UNSC, where any number of countries might choose to abort the process for their own political ends. So the domestic political process is trumped by The Hague’s legal process, which can only be trumped by the UNSC’s political process. A potentially simple end to a civil war escalates to global politics.
And this is not simply a matter of a leader’s unwillingness to capitulate or negotiate. It aborts the process that undermines men like Gadhafi. Without a doubt, most of the men who have surrounded him for years are guilty of serious war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is difficult to imagine anyone around Gadhafi whose hands are clean, or who would have been selected by Gadhafi if their hands weren’t capable of being soiled. Each of them is liable for prosecution by the ICC, particularly the senior leadership of the military; the ICC has bound their fate to that of Gadhafi, actually increasing their loyalty to him. Just as Gadhafi has nothing to lose by continued resistance, neither do they. The ICC has forged the foundation of Gadhafi’s survival and bitter resistance.
It is not a question only of the ICC. Recall the case of Augusto Pinochet, who staged a coup in Chile against Salvador Allende and presided over a brutal dictatorship. His support was not insubstantial in Chile, and he left power in a carefully negotiated political process. A Spanish magistrate, a minor figure in the Spanish legal system, claimed jurisdiction over Pinochet’s crimes in Chile and demanded that he be extradited from Britain, where Pinochet was visiting, and the extradition was granted. Today the ICC is not the only authority that can claim jurisdiction in such cases, but under current international law, nations have lost the authority to negotiate solutions to the problem of transferring power from dictators to representative democracies. Moreover, they have ceded that authority not only to the ICC but also to any court that wants to claim jurisdiction.
Apply this to South Africa. An extended struggle took place between two communities. The apartheid regime committed crimes under international law. In due course, a negotiated political process arranged a transfer of power. Part of the agreement was that a non-judicial truth commission would review events but that prosecutions would be severely limited. If that transfer of power were occurring today, with the ICC in place and “Spanish magistrates” loose, how likely would it be that the white government would be willing to make the political concessions needed to transfer power? Would an agreement among the South Africans have trumped the jurisdiction of the ICC or another forum? Without the absolute certainty of amnesty, would the white leadership have capitulated?
The desire for justice is understandable, as is the need for an independent judiciary. But a judiciary that is impervious to political realities can create catastrophes in the name of justice. In both the Serbia and Libya cases, ICC indictments were used by Western countries in the midst of bombing campaigns to legitimize their humanitarian intervention. The problem is that the indictments left little room for negotiated settlements. The desire to punish the wicked is natural. But as in all things political — though not judicial — the price of justice must also be considered. If it means that thousands must die because the need to punish the guilty is an absolute, is that justice? Just as important, does it serve to alleviate or exacerbate human suffering?
Consider a hypothetical. Assume that in the summer of 1944, Adolph Hitler had offered to capitulate to the allies if they would grant him amnesty. Giving Hitler amnesty would have been monstrous, but at the same time, it would have saved a year of war and a year of the holocaust. From a personal point of view, the summer of 1944 was when deportation of Hungarian Jews was at its height. Most of my family died that fall and winter. Would leaving Hitler alive been worth it to my family and millions of others on all sides?
The Nuremberg precedent makes the case for punishment. But applied rigorously, it undermines the case for political solutions. In the case of tyrannies, it means negotiating the safety of tyrants in return for their abdication. The abdication brings an end to war and allows people who would have died to continue to live their lives.
The theory behind Nuremberg and the ICC is that the threat of punishment will deter tyrants. Men like Gadhafi, Milosevic, Karadzic and Hitler grow accustomed to living with death long before they take power. And the very act of seizing that power involves two things: an indifference to common opinion about them, particularly outside their countries, and a willingness to take risks and then crush those who might take risks against them. Such leaders constitute an odd, paradoxical category of men who will risk everything for power, and then guard their lives and power with everything. It is hard to frighten them, and harder still to have them abandon power without guarantees.
The result is that wars against them take a long time and kill a lot of people, and they are singularly indifferent to the suffering they cause. Threatening them with a trial simply closes off political options to end the war. It also strips countries of their sovereign right to craft non-judicial, political solutions to their national problems. The dictator and his followers have no reason to negotiate and no reason to capitulate. They are forced to continue a war that could have ended earlier and allowed those who would have died the opportunity to live.
There is something I call judicial absolutism in the way the ICC works. It begins with the idea that the law demands absolute respect and that there are crimes that are so extraordinary that no forgiveness is possible. This concept is wrapped in an ineluctable judicial process that, by design, cannot be restrained and is independent of any moderating principles.
It is not the criminals the ICC is trying who are the issue. It is the next criminal on the docket. Having seen an older dictator at The Hague earlier negotiate his own exit, and see that negotiation fall through, why would a new dictator negotiate a deal? How can Gadhafi contemplate a negotiation that would leave him without power in Libya, when the Milosevic case clearly illuminates his potential fate at the hands of a rebel-led Libya? Judicial absolutism assumes that the moral absolute is the due process of law. A more humane moral absolute is to remove the tyrant and give power to the nation with the fewest deaths possible in the process.
The problem in Libya is that no one knows how to go from judicial absolutism to a more subtle and humane understanding of the problem. Oddly, it is the judicial absolutists who regard themselves as committed to humanitarianism. In a world filled with tyrants, this is not a minor misconception.
“Libya and the Problem with The Hague is republished with permission of STRATFOR.”
Libya and the Problem with The Hague is republished with permission of STRATFOR.
Is the U.N. stealing control of our water (and Republic) right out from under us? (via The PPJ Gazette)
Who does our water belong to? Does the government have the right to take our precious resource and give it the United Nations to manage and control? Early this year the Obama administration implemented new rules that allowed them total control over every single drop of water in this country. Now we learn that they are in the process of giving it to the United Nations. This nation is quickly being ceded to an orginization that owes no allegiance to anyone or anything.
By their actions, the Obama administration is committing treason and betraying the very country and people that they swore to protect. We must not let them succeed. We need to keep the pressure on our Congress and our Senate. Surely there are still good Democrats out there that love this country. We see what the UN does in places such as Libya, Rawanda, Sudan and others. It is insanity to think that anything that they do is in the best interest of anyone but those that have a financial stake in their policies. Wake up America!!!! We are being sold down the river for the profit of those that hate us and despise the very freedoms that they are so willing to abuse.
via The PPJ Gazette
- U.S. Military – The NWO Protectorate? (via The PPJ Gazette) (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
- We can’t trust our own government (via The PPJ Gazette) (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
- H.J.res. 62. Amending the Constitution to end states rights? (via The PPJ Gazette) (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
I have been having an interesting back and forth with a couple of guys from a website called:Lunki and Sika – Movie, TV, Celebrity and Entertainment. The article is listed below but I decided to post the answers that I gave to Janne the director and get your responses. Tell me if I am right or wrong on any point, or all of them if you wish! They are in Sweden, I believe.
I think Sika is being too kind. Palin hasn’t done anything wrong because she hasn’t accomplished ANYTHING yet. I wouldn’t trust that woman to dig my grave when I’m dead so I sure don’t want her hand on “the button” while I’m alive. And I don’t even live in America.
You don’t need somebody that is “folksy”. You guys need somebody SMART. You guys need somebody like…
Do I have to pick one now, or can I get back to ya?
So, lets compare accomplishments, Barack Obama worked for a short time as a Lawyer for Acorn and other community organizers, worked as a part-time guest lecturer, was head of a committee that handed out grants, he was an Illinois State Senator from 1996-2004( who if you look at the record, he voted present 80% of the time), then he was a US Senator from 2005 til he resigned in 2008 to become President in 2009 (he started running for President in 2006, so really didn’t do much as a US Senator except run for Pres.) Oh yes, he also wrote two books, maybe (it seems there are a lot of questions as to whether he actually wrote them)!
Now Sarah Palin: She first served on her local city council (yes it is a small city, but have you ever attended a small city council? If not you should do so sometime), then as Mayor, as Chair of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and ethics supervisor, then as Gov.—then you have to add in the fact that her and her husband ran a successful fishing business for many years. She has also written two books, and has had a travel-loge show on TLC, as well as working as a political analyst for Fox News.
Can you truly say that she hasn’t accomplished anything? If that is true then Mr. Obama accomplished less than nothing before he became President (if you are fair in your evaluations).
She has actually accomplished more than many of our past Presidents. Bill Clinton, himself was in politics most of his life before becoming President and except for a short time teaching law, did nothing else. By any normal persons reasoning he accomplished nothing except to be a Politician, and I like Bill Clinton, he was my Gov.
How many people do you know who have the power to move the nation by a single tweet? How many people do you know who can change the conversation and the policy of the White House by a posting on her facebook page? How in the world do you count accomplishments if you can say that she has none?
If that is truly your belief, you must think that nobody alive has any accomplishments. Barack Obama seems to have everything he tries fail, read a few of my posts and give me an opposing argument. But if all you have to say about Sarah is that she has no accomplishments, you are being deliberately obtuse!
Now as for “Smart”, do you mean smart like Barack Obama, the so called “smartest man in the room”? If that is what you mean, I think that I will pass on smart, and so will many other Americans. Look where that has gotten us. We are up to six wars, unemployment higher now than it was when he took office with no signs of going down, more debt in his term alone than all past Presidents combined. About to go into a depression. The man that was supposed to be the “great uniter” has managed in a few short years to cause more distrust and strife that any other person in our history. He has betrayed our allies, embraced our enemies, decreased our security. I could go on, but what is the point.
What we need is someone who actually loves the country, understands what it is to run a business and work for a living, somebody that works well with others and doesn’t spend their time mocking and demeaning those who are opposed. Somebody with some common sense and doesn’t think that they know everything as opposed to someone who thinks that he knows more than everybody else. Someone who will stand with our allies, and thinks government should be limited. Someone that realizes that most people don’t need to be told every thing from what to eat to what to watch or listen to. Someone who actually likes people, rather than someone who thinks that if people can’t do something for him, they aren’t worth his time. As for trusting Sarah to dig your grave, at least you could depend on her to do so if it was necessary. Barack Obama would more than likely leave you to the scavengers, if he even noticed you were dead!
This is the original article that I was commenting on if you wish to read it:
Hookers are the New Black in Politics
- The Power of ‘The Undefeated’: A Review by Josh Painter (via Sarah Palin Information Blog) (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
- Libya: Obama Doctrine – It’s The Right Thing To Do vs. The Law of the Land (via ON MY WATCH – the writings of SamHenry) (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
- Obama’s Fails Again! (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
- Sarah Loses Oil To China! Oh Wait, I Mean Obama! (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
- The Obama New START Treaty with Russia Encourages an Attact on the United States (via Voting American) (loopyloo305-intothelight.blogspot.com)
- Should Sarah Palin Run for President and Can She Win? (via Go Fish Ministries, Inc) (loopyloo305-intothelight.blogspot.com)
- Donna Brazile: Yes, I said Sarah Palin for President (via The Tree of Mamre) (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
- Sarah Palin: Stronger Than Ever (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
- Scott Conroy: Palin Vows ’110 Percent’ Commitment To Iowa (via Sarah Palin Information Blog) (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
- Liberals can’t handle the truth about Sarah Palin, so they lie. (via Sarah Palin Information Blog) (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
- Chasing Sarah Palin (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
- Sarah Palin: Principled And Relevant (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
- Sarah Palin: Rising To The Challenge (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
In another fail for the Obama administration, the African Union has voted against them. When Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton pressed the International Criminal Court to declare Moammar Quadaffi a war criminal and put out an arrest warrant, I am sure they thought they had convinced the world. Unfortunately, they failed to consider that others might not agree. What does this mean for the war that we are not in in Libya? Does it strike anyone else as odd that the smartest man in the room has zero wins in the foreign policy area. It seems that when it comes to the world, Barack Obama is more of a Peter Sellers character than he is a Winston Churchill. At least the Peter Sellers characters were funny, Barack Obama doesn’t even have that saving grace. Interesting article below from the Land Destroyer
It’s Official: International Criminal Court has ZERO Mandate
by Tony Cartalucci
Bangkok, Thailand July 2, 2011 – If an entire continent rejects an alleged international institution’s actions as illegitimate and self-serving, does said institution still get to call itself “international?” Furthermore, does it still hold any sort of mandate to continue on as self-proclaimed international arbiter? Certainly not, and for the International Criminal Court, whose “arrest warrant” for Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was soundly rejected by the 53-member African Union, their last shred of self-proclaimed credibility has been rendered moot.
It’s Official: International Criminal Court has ZERO Mandate
Rejection by African Union of ICC’s Qaddafi arrest warrant reveals ICC as hoax.
by Tony Cartalucci
Bangkok, Thailand July 2, 2011 – If an entire continent rejects an alleged international institution’s actions as illegitimate and self-serving, does said institution still get to call itself “international?” Furthermore, does it still hold any sort of mandate to continue on as self-proclaimed international arbiter? Certainly not, and for the International Criminal Court, whose “arrest warrant” for Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was soundly rejected by the 53-member African Union, their last shred of self-proclaimed credibility has been rendered moot. Read the rest at the Land Destroyer:
- African Union refuses to recognize Gaddafi arrest warrant (rt.com)
- Arrest warrants, weapon delivery unlikely to solve Libya crisis (laaska.wordpress.com)
- AU members agree to disregard Gadhafi warrant (theglobeandmail.com)
- Libyan Minister Condemns Qaddafi Arrest Warrant (israelnationalnews.com)