Bin Laden Son-In-Law Captured
Last night news broke that we had captured Sulaiman Abu Ghaith -- Osama bin Laden's son-in-law. Abu Ghaith was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks and served as a spokesman for Al Qaeda, urging Muslims to wage jihad against the West after the attacks.
His capture is good news. One intelligence expert described Abu Ghaith as being one of the few remaining Al Qaeda leaders "capable of getting the old band back together."
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration made the decision to sneak Abu Ghaith into the country, rather than send him to the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Abu Ghaith appeared in a federal court this morning in Manhattan under intense security.
When the Obama Administration announced plans in early 2009 to close Gitmo and transfer top Al Qaeda terrorists to the United States for trials in civilian courts, there was a huge backlash from the public and the then Democratically-controlled Congress. In May 2009 the Senate voted 90-to-6 to keep Gitmo open. And for good reason!
Senator Rand Paul had to launch a 13-hour filibuster to get this administration to acknowledge that it would be unconstitutional to target U.S. citizens in America with drone strikes. That's because U.S. citizens have rights here. But the administration didn't think twice about bringing bin Laden's son-in-law into the country and giving him all the rights of American citizens. I suspect they read him his Miranda rights too.
As Fox News noted, his trial could last years and, "some of the evidence against Abu Ghaith will be a challenge for prosecutors to bring to court if it is classified." When President Obama first suggested bringing the Al Qaeda thugs to the U.S., New York City officials were opposed to the idea because of the potential security nightmare. Well this isn't just any one of the Gitmo thugs -- it's Osama bin Laden's son-in-law.
As Sen. Lindsey Graham said yesterday, if Abu Ghaith isn't an enemy combatant, who is? He should be in Gitmo, where he can be questioned for intelligence purposes. No doubt he now has a legion of ACLU attorneys advising him to remain silent.
Reagan And Bush Were Right
This week North Korea's Kim Jong Un rejected the ceasefire agreement with South Korea and threatened to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the United States. While North Korea has nuclear bombs, most experts do not believe it has yet mastered the technology needed to put a warhead on a missile. It is tempting to ignore Kim's bluster, but it is dangerous to ignore delusional dictators.
In response to the threat, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "I can tell you that the United States is fully capable of defending against any North Korean ballistic missile attack." That's reassuring, and I certainly hope Carney is correct. But I must have missed his thank you.
If the United States is capable of defending itself against ballistic missile attacks, it is in spite of the left's best efforts. God forbid, but if the day ever comes that when tens of thousands of Americans are saved from such an attack, it will happen largely because of the leadership of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative -- intended to save Americans from nuclear weapons -- was mercilessly mocked by our liberal elites as a "Star Wars fantasy." But the technology took off, leading to the Patriot missile batteries and the Iron Dome system that is protecting Israeli civilians today.
And George W. Bush had the courage to pull the United States out of a bad treaty that limited its potential. He also maintained funding for missile defense against fierce liberal opposition, and negotiated agreements to set up defensive systems to protect our European allies from Iran -- agreements that were later broken.
All Votes Now In -- Obama Lost
That got your attention, didn't it?
No, not Barack Obama, but Roy Abong'o Malik Obama, his half-brother. Malik Obama ran for a local office in Kenya. He had hoped his popular last name might translate into a political career, but he lost, finishing a distant third.
He blames his poor showing on voter fraud and bad publicity, such as this report from a British newspaper.
March For Marriage
On March 26th the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case seeking to define the definition of marriage. Just as it did with abortion, which the left used the Supreme Court to impose its morality on the people, it is once again hoping that the high court will invalidate the will of millions of Americans and force same-sex "marriage" on every state in the union.
You and I may not have a vote in the Supreme Court, but we can still make our voice heard!
Join me in our nation's capital on Tuesday, March 26th for the March for Marriage. I am proud to co-sponsor the March for Marriage along with the National Organization for Marriage and other pro-family organizations.
Please share this report with like-minded friends, family members and fellow worshippers, and encourage them to attend. Visit MarriageMarch.org for handouts, talking points, a schedule of the day's events and more.