WHY IS OBAMA ARMING OUR ENEMIES AND AT THE SAME TIME WAGING WAR ON AMERICANS AT HOME???

[Whirlaway]

With the Benghazi official account breaking down like cheap cement with too much sand in the mix, we now know with near certainty that our very own Department of State has been recruiting and arming Al-Qaeda.

Let's reflect on autumn 2000. Al-Qaeda was officially designated by our President as global enemy Number One. In response to the events of September 11, 2000 and after designating an axis of evil yet carefully navigating around the question of Islam and its fanatics, the federal government in Washington rushed to increase surveillance and security measures to guard against Al-Qaeda and the threat of terrorism.

We, the citizens who are not responsible for terrorism, are saddled 12 years later with the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Safety Administration and a surveillance technology that is everywhere, all the time.
$9 trillion dollars later are we more secure? If Al-Qaeda is the prime designee in the axis of evil, why is the US Department of State recruiting and arming them? The implication is to topple the Ba'athist regime of Bashar Assad, but that brings up more questions. Disturbing questions. But let's stick with the topic of Who Are They Looking For?

TSA is omnipresent. Trains, planes and automobiles. Now railroads and buses. Next it will be dog walkers and model airplanes.

Homeland Security peers through every remote camera and surveillance platform. The federal decision to see and record everything is approaching total coverage. You're even recorded and surveilled in many national parks.
Who, or what, are they looking for? If Al-Qaeda is now our surrogate shadow-military so the US Department of State can pretend to clean hands, who is all this surveillance for? It looks like Washington has targeted you and me as the mission of surveillance. I mean, if the Al-Qaeda boogey-man is now inside the tent, who is Washington looking for?

Warrantless wiretapping. Police checkpoints. Metal detectors. Bomb scanners. Backscatter x-ray machines. Warrantless physical searches. Millions of scanning surveillance cameras. Everything you write, every commentary stored, many bone-deep Patriotic groups labeled by the Washington as potential terrorists, then Orwell was a lightweight in describing the total surveillance state and it was all brought to pass by the threat of Al-Qaeda.
But now the federal apparatus is recruiting and arming Al-Qaeda, the zenith of Islamic terror. We're still carrying the (often unconstitutional) weight of surveillance and security even as the threat has been brought into our national tent.

I'm sure to 100 decimal points there are threats out there. I am, after all, a firm defender of the 2nd Amendment. But this is the question; if Al-Qaeda was enemy number one and the US Government expensed trillions of dollars to forge a surveillance and security society responding to the threat of Al-Qaeda and Islamic jihadists, and we're now recruiting them and arming them ... who, or what, is all this surveillance looking for?

You? Me?


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2HIjg7Rrj
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[joe bloe]

Imagine if Bill Ayers, Vann Jones, Khalid Rashidi, or Jeremiah Wright was president. Obama was raised by radicals, is friends with radicals and associates with radicals. It is reasonable to assume he shares their views. It would be unreasonable to assume he does not.

Is it possible that Obama is deliberately undermining our national security? What would Bill Ayers do if he were president?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnlRrxXv-v8

[LovingKayla]

Seems to me the terrorists did a bang up job. Mission soooooo accomplished.

For u lefties, I just wanted to say that you were right and I agree with you guys on bush. He should have been impeached. I hope (but don't expect) you all to agree Obama should be on trial for treason sooner than 10 years too late like I was.

Our all encompassing government are more effective terrorists than any Muslim EVER.

[timpage]

Because he knows it drives you whacko?

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

With the Benghazi official account breaking down like cheap cement with too much sand in the mix, we now know with near certainty that our very own Department of State has been recruiting and arming Al-Qaeda.

Let's reflect on autumn 2000. Al-Qaeda was officially designated by our President as global enemy Number One. In response to the events of September 11, 2000 and after designating an axis of evil yet carefully navigating around the question of Islam and its fanatics, the federal government in Washington rushed to increase surveillance and security measures to guard against Al-Qaeda and the threat of terrorism.

We, the citizens who are not responsible for terrorism, are saddled 12 years later with the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Safety Administration and a surveillance technology that is everywhere, all the time.
$9 trillion dollars later are we more secure? If Al-Qaeda is the prime designee in the axis of evil, why is the US Department of State recruiting and arming them? The implication is to topple the Ba'athist regime of Bashar Assad, but that brings up more questions. Disturbing questions. But let's stick with the topic of Who Are They Looking For?

TSA is omnipresent. Trains, planes and automobiles. Now railroads and buses. Next it will be dog walkers and model airplanes.

Homeland Security peers through every remote camera and surveillance platform. The federal decision to see and record everything is approaching total coverage. You're even recorded and surveilled in many national parks.
Who, or what, are they looking for? If Al-Qaeda is now our surrogate shadow-military so the US Department of State can pretend to clean hands, who is all this surveillance for? It looks like Washington has targeted you and me as the mission of surveillance. I mean, if the Al-Qaeda boogey-man is now inside the tent, who is Washington looking for?

Warrantless wiretapping. Police checkpoints. Metal detectors. Bomb scanners. Backscatter x-ray machines. Warrantless physical searches. Millions of scanning surveillance cameras. Everything you write, every commentary stored, many bone-deep Patriotic groups labeled by the Washington as potential terrorists, then Orwell was a lightweight in describing the total surveillance state and it was all brought to pass by the threat of Al-Qaeda.
But now the federal apparatus is recruiting and arming Al-Qaeda, the zenith of Islamic terror. We're still carrying the (often unconstitutional) weight of surveillance and security even as the threat has been brought into our national tent.

I'm sure to 100 decimal points there are threats out there. I am, after all, a firm defender of the 2nd Amendment. But this is the question; if Al-Qaeda was enemy number one and the US Government expensed trillions of dollars to forge a surveillance and security society responding to the threat of Al-Qaeda and Islamic jihadists, and we're now recruiting them and arming them ... who, or what, is all this surveillance looking for?

You? Me?


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2HIjg7Rrj
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[CuteOldGuy]

So Tim, does that mean you support arming Al Qaida, unlimited, warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention without due process?

[Randy4Candy]

Hmmm, sounds like exactly what Good Ol' Ronnie Reagan did back in the day in Afghanistan.....

[CuteOldGuy]

RaggedyAndy, does that make it right? I didn't know you were such a big fan of President Reagan.

[Whirlaway]

I don't recall Reagan waging war on American rights and liberties at home ???????????

[Yssup Rider]

Broad generalizations lead to broader lies. That's the tabloid trash tactics that Unaliar employs in discussions like this.

Are you saying that if you don't agree with this article then you're for child labor in China?

Snick.

Transparent, stupid bullshit.

[Whirlaway]

And what "enemy" did Reagan arm ?

He armed the mujahadeen; but Reagan (and the rest of the world) didn't know they would turn into our enemies...

Obama is directly arming Al Qaeda; big difference for most Americans...but not for the Obama loving anti-Americans.

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

RaggedyAndy, does that make it right? I didn't know you were such a big fan of President Reagan.

It makes it factual and whether or not I like something or someone has nothing to do with pretending something that happened didn't. You and your Teawipe brothers and sister might want to look into trying that.

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I don't recall Reagan waging war on American rights and liberties at home ??????????? Like vaginal ultrasounds or what? Exactly what are you talking about? (Like you would know)

Trendaway is trending past delusional - again.

[Whirlaway]

So you equate the federal government not paying for vaginal ultrasound screening with domestic spying ?

Your a fool...

Again, what enemy did Reagan arm ?

[CuteOldGuy]

These liberals have such lame arguments. If Obama does something stupid, it's ok as long as they can find a Republican who did something similar, like that makes it right. Wrong is wrong whether a Republican or Democrat does it. I opposed Reagan on these issues as well as GWB.

Why don't we elect a President who doesn't do stupid things?

BTW, nice deflection and avoiding answering the question, RaggedyAndy. In other words, you got nothin'.

[Whirlaway]

We know Obama is arming our enemy Al Qaeda; what known enemy did Reagan arm ?

[Whirlaway]

They are dangerous. Their love for all things Obama is anti-American and they think it is cool. In this instance; like most others...they can't find a Republican who has acted in the same...so they ignore the facts, and continue their idolatry of Obama.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

These liberals have such lame arguments. If Obama does something stupid, it's ok as long as they can find a Republican who did something similar, like that makes it right. Wrong is wrong whether a Republican or Democrat does it. I opposed Reagan on these issues as well as GWB.

Why don't we elect a President who doesn't do stupid things?

BTW, nice deflection and avoiding answering the question, RaggedyAndy. In other words, you got nothin'.