(WSJ) Al Qaeda Remains Top Threat to U.S.

Posted by Kendall Harmon

The Obama administration said Wednesday that al Qaeda and its acolytes—including radicalized Americans—remained the "preeminent security threat to the United States" even after the death last month of Osama bin Laden.

In its first formal document on counterterrorism strategy, the administration said direct attacks on the homeland by foreigners or homegrown militants were its top priority, ahead of such militant-heavy regions as Yemen and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

"We seek nothing less than the utter destruction of this evil that calls itself al Qaeda," John Brennan, the president's chief counterterrorism adviser, said in a speech Wednesday.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Economics, PoliticsDefense, National Security, MilitaryEconomyThe U.S. GovernmentPolitics in GeneralTerrorism* International News & CommentaryAmerica/U.S.A.

28 Comments
Posted June 30, 2011 at 8:00 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. St. Nikao wrote:

The errant apostate Church and its leaders are the top threat to the US and world.

June 30, 10:33 am | [comment link]
2. Capt. Father Warren wrote:

I think the acute threat to the US is the Obama administration; fiscal dishonesty, mission to undermine the founding principles of the nation, and the endless divisions of class warfare.  The apostate church leaders are merely useful pawns of Jim Wallis, et al.

June 30, 10:45 am | [comment link]
3. Cennydd13 wrote:

St. Nikao, the “errant apostate Church and its leaders” are part and parcel of what helps fuel al Qaeda’s hatred of the West, to be sure, and I agree that the Obama administration is a dire threat as well.  Fortunately, we can do something about the administration and their supporters in November, 2012, but al Qaeda is going to take a bit longer to destroy.  Vigilance is the order of the day here.

June 30, 11:28 am | [comment link]
4. Br. Michael wrote:

I think the rampant lawlessness of the federal government is the greatest threat.

It’s not unusual for politicians on Capitol Hill to recognize citizens during hearings on legislation that would have a positive or negative impact on their lives.

But that tactic took a different turn this week when hundreds of illegal immigrants filled the largest hearing room in the Senate to openly participate in the proceedings.

And they did so without threat of arrest from the nation’s chief immigration law enforcement official who was sitting in the front row: Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44558
The current executive branch needs to be purged, not just voted out of office.

June 30, 11:48 am | [comment link]
5. Capt. Father Warren wrote:

All four posts above are on the money.  But neither the voting or purging of the Obama administration will happen if we the people do not make it happen.  And that starts with supporting people running for office who are constitutionally conservative by nature and impassioned to clean out the progressive contamination at all levels of the Federal Government. 

To be blunt: if people are looking at Mitt Romney, Jon Hunstman, Newt Gingrich, as their champion, they are looking at more of the same.

In the next few weeks we will get a gut-check on whether the Republicans have a spine or not.  If they cave-in and vote for an increase of the debt ceiling, for any reason, that will tell us that they are still in need of a spinal implant.

June 30, 12:47 pm | [comment link]
6. Br. Michael wrote:

I will tell you right now that I will not vote for any of the above even if it means not voting.  I would rather a quick death under liberal progressive rule than a slow death by RINO.

June 30, 1:10 pm | [comment link]
7. Alta Californian wrote:

“Purging” the “contamination”...charming language that.  That’s the language of a Milosevic or a Qaddafi, not an American interested in democracy.

The greatest threat to our country is partisan dogma that will not admit to any compromise whatsoever.  This country is founded on compromise (just look at the Constitutional Convention), even if it hasn’t always seen us through (i.e. things like the Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850 that exacerbated the tensions that led to the Civil War). Our country survives best on consensus, not on zero-sum-game, winner-take-all fundamentalism of either stripe. You can have take your “purges” and shove them.

June 30, 1:43 pm | [comment link]
8. Br. Michael wrote:

It’s not democracy when the executive operates outside the Constitution and outside the laws.  Conspiring to evade the Congress by regulatory fiat and flat ignoring laws they don’t like.  Compromise does not work with an outlaw government.

June 30, 4:11 pm | [comment link]
9. Cennydd13 wrote:

That’s why it is so vitally important that we get out and vote for change in November, 2012.  We need to ensure that conservatives will be in the majority and that we elect a conservative president.  The time to begin is right now.

June 30, 4:34 pm | [comment link]
10. Br. Michael wrote:

The problem is that the conservatives play fast and loose too.  Bush freely made use of recess appointments.  The problem is systemic with neither party feeling constrained by law and the Constitution.

June 30, 4:40 pm | [comment link]
11. Fradgan wrote:

The problem is not partisan dogma nor winner-take-all fundamentalism nor al Qaeda.  The problem is the Democrat Party/ Media’s divisive secular Socialist agenda.  If the USA finds a way to counter this subversive movement, we’d all better have long memories.

June 30, 6:05 pm | [comment link]
12. Capt. Father Warren wrote:

When someone and some collective of organizations [the George Soros bunch; Tides Foundations, etc] are seeking to destroy the country as founded from within, you do not compromise with them.  You go to the ballot box and you soundly defeat them.  Then you purge the government of the socialist moles like the Head of the Department of Homeland Security who sits by while illegal immigrants parade around in congress.  Illegal is illegal.

The last conservative president we had was Ronald Reagan.  The Bushes were RINO’s, who sounded conservative when convenient or expedient, but were satisfied to ratchet up entitlement spending and let the reglulatory apparatchecks run rampent [Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind].  Federal spending and the Federal Register both grew considerably on their watches.  John McCain would have been more of the same.  Of course spending-wise, they and Billy Clinton were mere pikers compared to BHO.

A Constitutional Conservative is one who understands what the Founding Fathers were about, who cherishes the Declaration of Independence, and is committed to governing by full intent of the Constitution of the United States of America.

What amuses me is the liberal assumption [it has to be there!], that somehow when the system collapses like Greece is on the verge of doing, that somehow their utopia will all be intact.  It’s just those awful conservatives who will be begging for bread in the streets or sent off to the gulags.

I saw a rather faded billboard the other day while driving through south Alabama, near Dothan: “America, Love It or Leave It”.  Brought back memories.

June 30, 8:07 pm | [comment link]
13. Alta Californian wrote:

Ah, yes, Reagan, who increased certain taxes when the circumstance required it, eliminated tax loopholes thus raising the effective tax rate, engaged in illegal foreign adventures such as in Nicaragua, and who ballooned the national debt, all the while making several compromises with a Democratic Congress.  That Reagan?

June 30, 8:39 pm | [comment link]
14. Alta Californian wrote:

Nothing but evil ever comes when we view our political opponents as a contagion that has to be eradicated.

June 30, 9:09 pm | [comment link]
15. Br. Michael wrote:

Kind of like the left treats Sara Palin or Bush?

July 1, 5:52 am | [comment link]
16. Cennydd13 wrote:

Exactly!

July 1, 12:47 pm | [comment link]
17. Capt. Father Warren wrote:

Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn, Van Jones, Kevin Jennings, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, and the list goes on.  I don’t particularly look at these folks as mere political opponents because they are not operating in the same universe of ideas that the majority of America operates in, has operated on, wants to operate on.  The above list looks at the Constitution as a hindrince, they look at freedom of speech as something to silence, they believe mankind is perfected through bigger and bigger government, and they are perfectly content to collapse the current system in order to usher in their utopian vision of socialism, marxism, redistribution, by whatever means they can use to achieve it.

If someone seeks to break into my house and hurt my family, they will be defeated soundly in their attempt.  No compromise.  If someone is trying to destroy my country, same deal.

July 1, 1:02 pm | [comment link]
18. Alta Californian wrote:

Yes, Bro. Michael, absolutely, it works both ways.  I had friends who thought that Bush would try to cancel the 2004 election on some trumped up fear of terrorism, then claim emergency powers to rule as dictator. I told them it was more than absurd and that this sort of rhetoric was more harmful to our country than anything Bush had ever done. I have been personally appalled by much of the media’s treatment of Michelle Bachmann.  She was clearly referring to the fact that John Wayne’s parents were from Waterloo.  For them all to suggest she was talking about Gacy was simply atrocious.  Much of the criticism of her and Palin is legitimate, but a great deal of it is not, and I’m often the first person to say so.

Deacon Warren, arguing with you would be pointless, because you’re partisan hatred has pushed you beyond reason or Christian charity.  But I will say this, the claim is made repeatedly by tea party types that just about everything since the New Deal has been unconstitutional.  Well the Constitution itself addresses that, by creating a mechanism by which laws can be judged on a constitutional basis.  That mechanism is called the Supreme Court, which since Marbury v. Madison has had the authority to rule on such matters. New Deal programs and the like have been repeatedly upheld by the Court as consistent with the constitutional powers delegated to Congress.  Of course you could argue that Marbury was a mistake, but then you would be throwing out everything that has happened in this country since 1803.  I don’t see how you can do so and still claim to love this country more than the liberals do. Pax vobiscum.

July 1, 1:39 pm | [comment link]
19. Capt. Father Warren wrote:

And so we come to the end of the road.  #18, not being able to participate in the arena of ideas with facts to defend any positions he might want to take, falls back on the oldest tactic in the liberal playbook; demonizing.  Instead of offering facts to disprove my assertion that we have radicals to defeat [#17], rather than offering facts to refute my claim that socialist organizations are seeking to destroy this country [#12], or facts to show that my assertion that the Obama administration is a threat to this country [#2], he instead labels me a “partisan [filled with?] hatred” and apparantly a person lacking in “reason” or “Christian charity”[????].

If being passionate about this country, the Constitution, freedom and liberty, and wanting to make sure the opportunities I have enjoyed are enjoyed by my children and grandchildren makes me a “partisan [filled with?] hatred”, then I wear that label proudly. 

Just remember, in this time of severe recession, the one thing that has not had to cut back, has not had to shrink, has not had to “tighten its belt”, is government.  And a giant, unrestrained government is the biggest threat to liberty we face.

July 1, 6:01 pm | [comment link]
20. Alta Californian wrote:

Why should I try to reason with you?  No amount of evidence will lessen your partisan rancor. I could point out that government is actually cutting, everywhere. Obama himself cut a budget deal with Boehner to prevent a government shutdown, a deal which included a wide variety of cuts. Obama compromised during the lame duck by agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts (and didn’t those have a jolly effect on the debt to begin with). The President has seemed quite willing to compromise on a wide range of issues. If he is a socialist out to destroy the country why did he not insist on single-payer or even the public option?  If anything he is being hit a great deal by the left for not being liberal enough. Not only is Obama not a threat to the country, but I personally believe the word of many an economist (granted that you can find as many who disagree) who believe the actions taken by this administration prevented a much worse catastrophe, a Second Great Depression. But I’ll eat my hat if you accept one word of any of what I just wrote.  So really, what is the point?  How can I refute facts which you have not offered?  Are we not both just throwing blind assertions at one another?

Besides none of that addresses my fundamental objection.  You don’t view the left as well-meaning people who simply have a different (however abhorrent you may find it) vision from yours.  No, they are evil people who are out to destroy the country, and they must be “purged” from our government. The only one doing any demonizing here is you sir.

July 1, 8:48 pm | [comment link]
21. Alta Californian wrote:

And with that, I wish you a happy Fourth, and hope you enjoy it with your family as I intend to enjoy it with mine. God is still with us, Jesus is still risen, and we still live in the land of the free.

July 1, 8:53 pm | [comment link]
22. John Boyland wrote:

Dear AC: Thanks for giving it a shot.  Yes, I am also disappointed with how incredibly partisan people are.  if George Bush does it, it’s wonderful; if Obama does the same thing, it’s evil; or vice versa. (Although I do note that Capt. Warren while attached to Reagan despises the very similar Bush I and II.)

For example, the Bush I raised taxes, lost the presidency and then Clinton+Gingrich were able to balance the budget; we even had a surplus.  But no one will give credit to Bush I’s tax hike.  The Democrats because they don’t want to give any credit to a Bush; Republicans because they’re allergic to tax raises even though USA is highly undertaxed right now (and they despise Bush I for losing the presidency).

And here I thought that for once, maybe my Republican friends would give Obama credit for identifying the War on Terror (Bush II’s signature policy) as pre-eminent security issue.  But no!  More dangerous than Al Qaeda is Obama’s “socialist agenda.” 

(I do have to agree with St. Nikao that the apostate church is a big(ger?) problem.)

July 2, 10:28 am | [comment link]
23. Br. Michael wrote:

22, no it’s his systematic subversion of the Constitution and rule of law.

July 2, 10:37 am | [comment link]
24. Br. Michael wrote:

For Example:

1.  Waging war in defiance of of the Constitution and law. 

U.S. forces are still flying hundreds of bombing raids over Libya even though the Obama administration claims that American armed forces are only playing a limited role in the conflict.

Since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector took over from the American-led Operation Odyssey Dawn on 31 March, the U.S. has flown hundreds of strike missions, according to United States Africa Command (AFRICOM).

The White House originally claimed that U.S. planes were mostly providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and played down the number of bombing raids.

However AFRICOM spokeswoman Nicole Dalrymple said: ‘U.S. aircraft continue to fly support missions, as well as strike sorties under NATO tasking.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010505/Air-Force-Navy-flying-thousands-missions-Libya-Obama-says-U-S-playing-limited-role.html

2.  His refusal to enforce existing immigration law and deport known illegals.  Effectively granting amnesty to illegals by executive decree notwithstanding that Congress has refused to pass enabling legislation.  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/01/expert-halt-deportation-citizens-same-sex-partner-abuse-authority/

3.  His failure to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which is legally presumed to be Constitutional until ruled otherwise.  His oath of office at least requires him to give it a fair defense.

4. His consideration of simply ignoring the debt limit:

Outside the White House, more and more prominent Democrats are questioning whether the debt limit is even constitutional. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., became the latest Democrat to raise the argument yesterday. If there is no debt deal, and bond markets do panic, what is stopping Obama from just ordering Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to issue more debt? If Obama can just ignore the War Powers Act, why not the debt limit too?

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/morning-examiner-obama-s-debt-deal-desperation#ixzz1QxfWKXtI

From there it’s only a short step to usurping Congresses’ authority to appropriate money and simply ordering the Treasury to print money to pay for what ever the Executive wants.

July 2, 11:21 am | [comment link]
25. John Boyland wrote:

Br. Michael,

Fine, but did you similarly complain about abuse by the executive branch during Bush II?  Say, Warantless wire-tapping, and/or signing statements.  If so, better.

My point is that Democrats decry abuse by the executive branch (say, using the War Powers Act) during Bush II, and suddenly go silent when Obama does the same thing, and vice versa with Republicans. It’s laughable.

As a completely pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-tax Christian, I don’t find either party very convincing.  I’m astonished by how many Christians are hoodwinked by Marxism and libertarianism (e.g., Ayn Rand).

July 2, 11:58 am | [comment link]
26. Br. Michael wrote:

John, both Bushs a least got Congressional authorization, although I still think a Declaration of War was required.  I agree with what you say concerning the tendency of both parties to support the illegal actions of their own President.

But I think we are heading into a Constitutional crisis at least equal to that which we went through with Nixon.

July 2, 12:18 pm | [comment link]
27. Br. Michael wrote:

And yes, I did complain about the warantless wire taps and signing statements.

July 2, 12:22 pm | [comment link]
28. John Boyland wrote:

Nice to hear that you objected also to Bush era overreach.  It does look to be interesting this summer (“May you live in interesting times”).

God bless, John

July 2, 12:33 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): Jo-Wilfried Tsonga rallies for upset over Roger Federer at Wimbledon

Previous entry (below): Ed West—The Church of England needs to be cut free of the state and its perverse religion

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)