Tag Archives: Terrorism

Dead terrorist storage! Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan killed in Yemen

What a great way to start a weekend.

Two more terrorist scums join Osama and Saddam Hussein in the hot tub with their 72 virigins. According to Fox News, Senior Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki and his “webmaster” Samir Khan were killed in Yemen early Friday morning by a CIA-led U.S. drone strike. Gotta love those predator drones!

Via Fire Andrea Mitchell!.

Advertisements

Chavez Provides Fertile Soil for Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda

Posted by Nicole Ferrand Jul 13th 2010 at 2:47 am

Hezbollah has had a presence in Latin America since the late 1980’s, particularly in the Tri-Border Region, where Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina meet. But since Hugo Chavez’s ascension to power in Venezuela in 1999, Hezbollah and Hamas’ activities have increased in the region. Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaeda are using Venezuela as their bridge to other Latin American countries.

chavez_ahmaddinejad

In Latin America, Hezbollah activities are financed mainly by drug trafficking, money laundering and terrorism. The group also engages in fund-raising, recruitment and receives logistical support from Iranian intelligence officials assigned to Iranian embassies in the region. Some direct financing for Hezbollah originates in Venezuela, in Margarita Island and the Lebanese branch of the Hezbollah organization has publicly expressed gratitude to Hugo Chavez for his support. In addition, the US military’s Southern Command has reported that there are several Hezbollah support and logistics cells on this Island.

There is also a banking connection between Venezuela and Iran where the Iranian Bank Saderat and its Venezuelan affiliate Banco Internacional de Desarrollo, BID, operate to circumvent U.S. supervision. The connection also serves as a pipeline for terrorists coming from Iran through Venezuela, where they are provided with false Venezuelan documents. In fact, in June 2008, the US Treasury department named a Venezuelan diplomat in Damascus as a Hezbollah fundraiser. Ghazi Nasr al Din, former Charge d’ Affaires at the Venezuelan Embassy in Damascus, gave Hezbollah donors information on bank accounts where the deposits would go directly to Hezbollah.

Hezbollah Latin America has two cells: one in Venezuela and the other in Argentina. In Venezuela, its members are from the Wayuu tribe, a small indigenous group that converted to Islam a few years ago. In Argentina, the group has direct ties to Iran through the Arab Argentine Home and the Argentine-Islamic Association-ASAI of La Plata, which cooperate and are financed by the Iranian Representation in Buenos Aires.

The leaders of Iran and Venezuela have created an impressive network of trade and international influence. Whether the funding goes to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Hezbollah, the purchase of Latin American politicians, or the further consolidation of Chavez’s power at home, this mobilization of strategic advantage has reached a global status in international finance.

Venezuelan investigative journalist, Patricia Poleo, who escaped Venezuela and currently lives in Miami says that Venezuelan government officials are in charge of recruiting young Venezuelan Arabs affiliated with Chavez’s Socialist Party, to be sent to South Lebanon for combat training in Hezbollah camps. Once back in Venezuela, they continue with their training in firearms, explosives and munitions. The training camps are located in the states of Monagas, Miranda, el Páramo, Falcon, Yaracuy, Yumare, and Trujillo and the districts of Maturin, Los Teques, El Jari, Churuguara and Sierra de San Luis. These groups and individuals are supervised by the Hezbollah Organization in Venezuela, along with al-Qaeda Iraqis currently living in the country and by the Palestinian Democratic Front, headed by Salid Ahmed Rahman, whose office is located in Caracas’s Central Park.

The U.S Administration needs to pay attention to these developments. Soon, we will wake up to the day where we will find the nightmare not in Iraq or in Central Asia, but right here in our own backyard.

Terror — and candor in describing the Islamist ideology behind it

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 2, 2010; A23

The Fort Hood shooter, the Christmas Day bomber, the Times Square attacker. On May 13, the following exchange occurred at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee:

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.): Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?

Attorney General Eric Holder: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. . . .

Smith: Okay, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?

Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people —

Smith: But was radical Islam one of them?

Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious-based.

Potentially, mind you. This went on until the questioner gave up in exasperation.

A similar question arose last week in U.S. District Court when Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square attacker, pleaded guilty. Explained Shahzad:

“One has to understand where I’m coming from . . . I consider myself a mujahid, a Muslim soldier.”

Well, that is clarifying. As was the self-printed business card of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, identifying himself as SoA: Soldier of Allah.

Holder’s avoidance of the obvious continues the absurd and embarrassing refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge who out there is trying to kill Americans and why. In fact, it has banned from its official vocabulary the terms jihadist, Islamist and Islamic terrorism.

Instead, President Obama’s National Security Strategy insists on calling the enemy — how else do you define those seeking your destruction? — “a loose network of violent extremists.” But this is utterly meaningless. This is not an anger-management therapy group gone rogue. These are people professing a powerful ideology rooted in a radical interpretation of Islam, in whose name they propagandize, proselytize, terrorize and kill.

Why is this important? Because the first rule of war is to know your enemy. If you don’t, you wander into intellectual cul-de-sacs and ignore the real causes that might allow you to prevent recurrences.

The Pentagon review of the Fort Hood shooting runs 86 pages with not a single mention of Hasan’s Islamism. It contains such politically correct inanities as “religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor.”

Of course it is. Indeed, Islamist fundamentalism is not only a risk factor. It is the risk factor, the common denominator linking all the great terror attacks of this century — from 9/11 to Mumbai, from Fort Hood to Times Square, from London to Madrid to Bali. The attackers varied in nationality, education, age, social class, native tongue and race. The one thing that united them was the jihadist vision in whose name they acted.

To deny this undeniable truth leads to further absurdities. Remember the wave of speculation about Hasan’s supposed secondary post-traumatic stress disorder — that he was so deeply affected by the heart-rending stories of his war-traumatized patients that he became radicalized? On the contrary. He was moved not by their suffering but by the suffering they (and the rest of the U.S. military) inflicted on Hasan’s fellow Muslims, in whose name he gunned down 12 American soldiers while shouting “Allahu Akbar.”

With Shahzad, we find the equivalent ridiculous — and exculpating — speculation that perhaps he was driven over the edge by the foreclosure of his home. Good grief. Of course his home went into foreclosure — so would yours if you voluntarily quit your job and stopped house payments to go to Pakistan for jihadist training. As The Post’s Charles Lane pointed out, foreclosure was a result of Shahzad’s radicalism, not the cause.

There’s a final reason the administration’s cowardice about identifying those trying to kill us cannot be allowed to pass. It is demoralizing. It trivializes the war between jihadi barbarism and Western decency, and diminishes the memory of those (including thousands of brave Muslims — Iraqi, Pakistani, Afghan and Western) who have died fighting it.

Churchill famously mobilized the English language and sent it into battle. But his greatness lay not in mere eloquence. It was his appeal to the moral core of a decent people to rise against an ideology the nature of which Churchill never hesitated to define and describe — and to pronounce (“Nahhhhzzzzi”) in an accent dripping with loathing and contempt.

No one is asking Obama or Holder to match Churchill’s rhetoric — just Shahzad’s candor.

The president has become the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole.

May 22, 2010 6:00 A.M. by Mark Steyn

One of Those Moments

Barack Obama’s remarkable powers of oratory are well known: In support of Chicago’s Olympic bid, he flew into Copenhagen to give a heartwarming speech about himself, and they gave the games to Rio. He flew into Boston to support Martha Coakley’s bid for the U.S. Senate, and Massachusetts voters gave Ted Kennedy’s seat to a Republican. In the first year of his presidency, he gave a gazillion speeches on health-care “reform” and drove support for his proposals to basement level, leaving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to ram it down the throats of the American people through sheer parliamentary muscle.

Like a lot of guys who’ve been told they’re brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy, and doesn’t always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl, upon signing the “Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act.”

Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002. That’s how I’d put it.

This is what the president of the United States said: “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”

Now Obama’s off the prompter, when his silver-tongued rhetoric invariably turns to sludge. But he’s talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceased’s family is standing all around him. And, even for a busy president, it’s the work of moments to come up with a sentence that would be respectful, moving, and true. Indeed, for Obama, it’s the work of seconds, because he has a taxpayer-funded staff sitting around all day with nothing to do but provide him with that sentence.

Instead, he delivered the one above. Which, in its clumsiness and insipidness, is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: “The loss of Daniel Pearl.” He wasn’t “lost.” He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his “loss” merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Obama can muster none.

Even if Americans don’t get the message, the rest of the world does. This week’s pictures of the leaders of Brazil and Turkey clasping hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also monuments to American passivity.

But what did the “loss” of Daniel Pearl mean? Well, says the president, it was “one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination.” Really? Evidently it never captured Obama’s imagination, because, if it had, he could never have uttered anything so fatuous. He seems literally unable to imagine Pearl’s fate, and so, cruising on autopilot, he reaches for the all-purpose bromides of therapeutic sedation: “one of those moments” — you know, like Princess Di’s wedding, Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, whatever — “that captured the world’s imagination.”

Notice how reflexively Obama lapses into sentimental one-worldism: Despite our many zip codes, we are one people, with a single imagination. In fact, the murder of Daniel Pearl teaches just the opposite — that we are many worlds, and worlds within worlds. Some of them don’t even need an “imagination.” Across the planet, the video of an American getting his head sawed off did brisk business in the bazaars and madrassas and Internet downloads. Excited young men e-mailed it to friends, from cell phone to cell phone, from Karachi to Jakarta to Khartoum to London to Toronto to Falls Church, Va. In the old days, you needed an “imagination” to conjure the juicy bits of a distant victory over the Great Satan. But in an age of high-tech barbarism, the sight of Pearl’s severed head is a mere click away.

And the rest of “the world”? Most gave a shrug of indifference. And far too many found the reality of Pearl’s death too uncomfortable and chose to take refuge in the same kind of delusional pap as Obama. The president is only the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole. Before him, it was Michael Winterbottom in his film A Mighty Heart: As Pearl’s longtime colleague Asra Nomani wrote, “Danny himself had been cut from his own story.” Or, as Paramount’s promotional department put it, “Nominate the most inspiring ordinary hero. Win a trip to the Bahamas!” Where you’re highly unlikely to be kidnapped and beheaded! (Although, in the event that you are, please check the liability-waiver box at the foot of the entry form.)

The latest appropriation is that his “loss” “reminded us of how valuable a free press is.” It was nothing to do with “freedom of the press.” By the standards of the Muslim world, Pakistan has a free-ish and very lively press. The problem is that some 80 percent of its people wish to live under the most extreme form of Sharia, and many of its youth are exported around the world in advance of that aim. The man convicted of Pearl’s murder was Omar Sheikh, a British subject, a London School of Economics student, and, like many jihadists from Osama to the Pantybomber, a monument to the peculiar burdens of a non-deprived childhood in the Muslim world. The man who actually did the deed was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed in March 2007: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi.” But Obama’s not the kind to take “guilty” for an answer, so he’s arranging a hugely expensive trial for KSM amid the bright lights of Broadway.

Listen to his killer’s words: “The American Jew Daniel Pearl.” We hit the jackpot! And then we cut his head off. Before the body was found, The Independent’s Robert Fisk offered a familiar argument to Pearl’s kidnappers: Killing him would be “a major blunder . . . the best way of ensuring that the suffering” — of Kashmiris, Afghans, Palestinians — “goes unrecorded.” Other journalists peddled a similar line: If you release Danny, he’ll be able to tell your story, get your message out, “bridge the misconceptions.” But the story did get out; the severed head is the message; the only misconception is that that’s a misconception.

Daniel Pearl was the prototype for a new kind of terror. In his wake came other victims from Kenneth Bigley, whose last words were that “Tony Blair has not done enough for me,” to Fabrizzio Quattrocchi, who yanked off his hood, yelled “I will show you how an Italian dies!” and ruined the movie for his jihadist videographers. By that time, both men understood what it meant to be in a windowless room with a camera and a man holding a scimitar. But Daniel Pearl was the first, and in his calm, coherent final words understood why he was there:

“My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California, U.S.A.”

He didn’t have a prompter. But he spoke the truth. That’s all President Obama owed him — to do the same.

I mentioned last week the attorney general’s peculiar insistence that “radical Islam” was nothing to do with the Times Square bomber, the Pantybomber, the Fort Hood killer. Just a lot of moments “capturing the world’s imagination.” For now, the jihadists seem to have ceased cutting our heads off. Listening to Obama and Eric Holder, perhaps they’ve figured out there’s nothing much up there anyway.

Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone.

MSM Finally Gives In As Evidence Mounts for Taliban Role in Car Bomb Plot – NYTimes.com

May 5, 2010

Evidence Mounts for Taliban Role in Car Bomb Plot

WASHINGTON — American officials said Wednesday that it was very likely that a radical group once thought unable to attack the United States had played a role in the bombing attempt in Times Square, elevating concerns about whether other militant groups could deliver at least a glancing blow on American soil.

Officials said that after two days of intense questioning of the bombing suspect, Faisal Shahzad, evidence was mounting that the group, the Pakistani Taliban, had helped inspire and train Mr. Shahzad in the months before he is alleged to have parked an explosives-filled sport utility vehicle in a busy Manhattan intersection on Saturday night. Officials said Mr. Shahzad had discussed his contacts with the group, and investigators had accumulated other evidence that they would not disclose.

On Wednesday, Mr. Shahzad, the 30-year-old son of a retired senior Pakistani Air Force officer, waived his right to a speedy arraignment, a possible sign of his continuing cooperation with investigators.

As his interrogation continued, Department of Homeland Security officials directed airlines to speed up their checks of new names added to the no-fly list, a requirement that might have prevented Mr. Shahzad from boarding a flight to Dubai on Monday night before his arrest at Kennedy International Airport.

The failed attack has produced a flurry of other proposals to tighten security procedures, including calls by members of Congress to more closely scrutinize passengers who buy tickets with cash, as Mr. Shahzad did. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Senator Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, proposed stripping terrorism suspects of American citizenship, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg asked Congress to block the sale of firearms and explosives to those on terrorist watch lists.

American officials, speaking about the continuing inquiry only on condition of anonymity, gave few details about what Mr. Shahzad had told investigators, and said their understanding of the plot would evolve as a dragnet spanning two continents gathered more evidence.

One senior Obama administration official cautioned that “there are no smoking guns yet” that the Pakistani Taliban had directed the Times Square bombing. But others said that there were strong indications that Mr. Shahzad knew some members of the group and that they probably had a role in training him.

In a video on Sunday, the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the attempted bombing.

One issue that investigators are vigorously pursuing is who provided Mr. Shahzad cash to buy the S.U.V. and his plane ticket to Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. “Somebody’s financially sponsoring him, and that’s the link we’re pursuing,” one official said. “And that would take you on the logic train back to Pak-Taliban authorizations,” the official said, referring to the group.

American officials said it had become increasingly difficult to separate the operations of the militant groups in Pakistan’s tribal areas. The region, they said, has become a stew of like-minded organizations plotting attacks in Pakistani cities, across the border into Afghanistan, and on targets in Western Europe and the United States.

Besides the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda, groups operating in the tribal areas are the Haqqani Network and the Kashmiri groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad.

There is no doubt among intelligence officials that the barrage of attacks by C.I.A. drones over the past year has made Pakistan’s Taliban, which goes by the name Tehrik-i-Taliban, increasingly determined to seek revenge by finding any way possible to strike at the United States.

The C.I.A.’s drone program in Pakistan, which was accelerated in 2008 and expanded by President Obama last year, has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Washington in part because it was perceived as eliminating dangerous militants while keeping Americans safe.

But the attack in December on a C.I.A. base in Afghanistan, and now possibly the failed S.U.V. attack in Manhattan, are reminders that the drones’ very success may be provoking a costly response.

Last March, when the Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud boasted that his group was planning an attack on Washington that would “amaze everyone in the world,” many American officials dismissed his claims as empty bravado. His network, they said, had neither the resources nor the reach to pull off an attack far beyond its base in the mountains of western Pakistan.

But the attempted attack on Saturday has forced something of a reassessment, especially as American officials see militant groups determined to score a propaganda victory by pulling off even the crudest of attacks.

If the Pakistani Taliban was involved in the Times Square bombing plot, the organization is only the latest militant group to expand beyond a local political agenda and strike the United States. The Christmas Day attempt to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner, for instance, was traced to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, whose primary targets had previously been the Saudi and Yemeni governments.

But for such a group, trying for the biggest prize in the jihadist universe — a successful attack on American soil — could have significant payoffs, said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University.

The message may be, “ ‘The U.S. is pounding us with drone attacks, but we’re powerful enough to strike back’; it’s certainly enough to attract ever more recruits to replace those they’re losing,” Mr. Hoffman said.

The Pakistani Taliban has used a relentless campaign of violence to undermine Pakistan’s secular government. The group has been blamed for the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, as well as bombings in Islamabad, Lahore and elsewhere.

As casualties from the Taliban mounted in Pakistan in 2008, officials there pleaded with Washington to begin striking the group with C.I.A. drones. American counterterrorism officials had never considered the group to be a top priority, but last year the Obama administration approved targeted attacks on Pakistani Taliban leaders, in part to win Islamabad’s tacit approval for drone strikes elsewhere in the tribal areas. Mr. Mehsud himself was killed in a C.I.A. drone attack in August.

Some American officials bristled at the idea that the United States had not taken the Pakistani Taliban threat seriously.

“We’ve been pounding their leadership, including figures like Baitullah Mehsud, and their training camps and other facilities,” one American counterterrorism official said. “Those actions have probably taken other people like Shahzad off the board.”

Denis McDonough, the chief of staff for the National Security Council, said the Times Square attempted bombing showed that Pakistan and the United States faced a common enemy, calling it “a pretty stark reminder that the same collection of terrorists that are threatening them are threatening us.”

The administration has been in intensive contact with the Pakistani government, delivering the message that “there are clear links to Pakistan and that we would fully expect them to do what they should do,” the State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, said. Pakistani officials have arrested about a dozen people they believe may be linked to the plot, the authorities have said.

On Wednesday, the American ambassador, Anne W. Patterson, met with Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, and spoke by phone with the interior minister, A. Rehman Malik. The administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, also spoke by phone with Mr. Qureshi.

“The key here is that we’re touching the right bases politically, and we’re getting the right signals back,” a senior official said.

The tracking of Mr. Shahzad and his links to Pakistan began with a fortunate match of phone numbers, a law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity said Wednesday.

One number that he had provided when he last entered the United States, in February, was stored in a Customs and Border Protection database. It turned out to match a number on the list of calls to and from a prepaid cellphone that investigators knew belonged to the purchaser of the S.U.V. found on Times Square.

Only when they matched the phone numbers did investigators learn “that that was the guy we were looking for,” said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss the investigation.

The name match allowed security officials to discover Mr. Shahzad aboard the flight to Dubai minutes before takeoff on Monday night. He had been added to the no-fly list at 12:30 p.m. that day, when airlines were directed to check the list for updates. But Emirates airline did not look at the updated list, and sold Mr. Shahzad a ticket for cash at 7:35 p.m. on Monday.

Airlines had been required to check the no-fly list for updates only every 24 hours. The new rule requires that they check within two hours of receiving notification that a high-priority name has been added to the list, Homeland Security officials said.

Reporting for articles on the Times Square bomb case was contributed by Peter Baker, Anne Barnard, Nina Bernstein, Alison Leigh Cowan, Adam B. Ellick, Andrea Elliott, Dan Frosch, Kirk Johnson, Mark Landler, Mike McIntire, Sharon Otterman, Ray Rivera, David E. Sanger, Michael S. Schmidt, Daniel E. Slotnik and Karen Zraick.

America’s Growing Vulnerability to Catastrophe



May 03, 2010

By Steve McCann

The major responsibility of those in government is to be certain that a country is capable of surviving a worst-case scenario such as war, massive economic downturn, or a catastrophic natural disaster.
It has been predicted that California has a 99% chance of a major devastating earthquake in the next thirty years. The central part of the United States extending to the east coast, in an area that has recorded four of the largest earthquakes ever in North America, could experience a cataclysmic earthquake sometime in the next fifty years. The cost of these events may well be in the trillions of dollars.
The economy, so wedded to the world financial structure and socialist economic policies, has a very high probability in the short- and long-term of repeating the scale of financial wreckage that the country has recently undergone.
Yet the current regime in Washington, D.C. does not seem to understand or care that the policies they are pursuing will leave no margin for error in the event of an apocalyptic natural or man-made calamity.
The wealth of the United States has always been its fallback position in order to come through wars and recessions or cope with natural disasters. The country’s enormous gross domestic product (GDP) has allowed the government to spend (by reducing taxes, if necessary, and borrowing) whatever monies were needed to offset the losses incurred from these events and/or to restart the engine of the economy.
This nation has had an unlimited credit card and until recently used it somewhat wisely, compared with what has begun under Obama. As long as the United States maintained a reasonable debt-to-GDP ratio (less than 50%) and kept the annual budget deficit to less than 3% of the GDP, then it always had the ability to survive a contingency of unimagined proportions.
The Obama administration and its fellow travelers in Congress appear to care little for the long-term survival of this country. They are in the process of squandering the nation’s wealth, and thus its well-being, in their headlong determination to “fundamentally change the country.”
This let the consequences (unintended or otherwise) be damned approach to governing will put the United States in a position where it will not have at its disposal the funding and economic activity necessary to recover from whatever catastrophe the country may encounter in the future.
At the end of 2008, the publicly held debt of the U.S. government stood at 40.2% of GDP.  In the four years of the Obama administration, the debt will increase $5.7 trillion (equal to the entire debt incurred by the United States since its inception up to and including 2008). This will result in the country having a debt to GDP ratio of 72% by 2012, a mere two years from now.
It has been acknowledged by a consensus of economists that unemployment, as a result of the Obama agenda, will remain in the double-digit range over the next three to four years. This government refuses to recognize the need for spending reduction, opting instead to adopt new entitlement programs and, as part of its war on wealth, dramatically raise any and all taxes on the citizens and the private sector. That component coupled with the massive new regulations already passed and proposed will result in inflation adjusted negative or stagnant GDP growth.
Without significant repeal of the Obama tax and regulatory policies and changes in the entitlement programs and overall reduction in government expenditures, the current spending proposals and impact of the trillions needed for ObamaCare, Social Security, and Medicare and interest payments will result in the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding 100% by 2019.
Recently the bond ratings of Greece, Portugal, and Spain have been downgraded (Greece to junk bond status). Not only is the entire European Union threatened with collapse because of the excessive debt and budget deficit policies of these countries, but so is the entire world economy. In the case of Greece, the debt-to-GDP ratio is 125%, and the annual budget deficit is 13.6% of the GDP. Greece can no longer borrow money (except at excessively high interest rates) and must turn to the European Union for a bailout in order to pay debts due within the month.
By comparison, the United States, if it remains committed to the Obama agenda, will experience a debt-to-GDP ratio of 104% and an annual budget deficit of 9.7% of GDP by 2019. This nation will become the next Greece.
The United States, unlike Greece, will not have the European Union or the IMF to turn to. Where, then, will the monies come from if the worst occurs?
How would we pay the recovery costs associated with a catastrophic natural disaster? From whom could we borrow the money without paying a usurious interest rate and forcing the country into further decline? Can we expect our traditional allies, who will find themselves in a similar situation, to come to our aid?
As to a dramatic economic downturn, the traditional tools used to come through a recession or depression will not be available. Would the debt-holders of the United States’ bonds concur with significant tax reductions to spur the economy or would they agree to finance more debt as a stimulus?
Would the United States choose as an alternative hyper-inflation by printing more dollars in order to mitigate the debt in a potential repeat of the devastating experience within the Weimar Republic in the 1920s? This strategy would ultimately plunge the citizenry into a dramatically reduced standard of living and excessive unemployment.
These are the only choices the country will have, yet never in the history of this nation have we had an administration and a Congress so willingly and with no second thoughts place their agenda and philosophy ahead of the survival of the United States. This may well border on treachery of the worst sort, as it violates the allegiance owed by our elected leaders to preserve and protect the long-term welfare and well-being of the people and the nation.
This November, as the American citizens vote, they must ask themselves: Will the person I vote for fulfill his or her sworn obligations to make certain that the United States can survive any and all potential catastrophes?

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/americas_growing_vulnerability_1.html at May 03, 2010 – 05:17:18 PM CDT

//