Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron does an effective job  describing the danger of “extremism“, not just “violent extremism“, all extremism.  (Cameron Speech Here)
However, anyone interested in actually following, researching and analyzing international action, against radical Islamist extremism, must also note that Egypt’s President Fatah El-Sisi is about two years ahead in confronting the extremist ideology.

Almost everything both Obama and Cameron have stated in the past month can be viewed curiously against their unwillingness to hold such public views while El-Sisi was pushing back against extremism, and doing something about it.
Readers and visitors to the Treehouse community know full well we have watched Egypt intently.  We continue to share that no international leader has done more to confront ALL the tentacles of radicalism than El-Sisi.
Yet he has also been the recipient of marginalization – at best, and admonishment – at worst, as he has carries out a challenging mission to provide secular stability not only to Egypt, but also to the entire region.
When David Cameron says “all extremism” must be confronted, he need to look no further than Egypt to see it confronted not only on the streets but also in politics, in the media, and within the places of worship where hatred is the tenet that fuels the congregation.
Both Cameron and Obama correctly identify and define extremism yet fail to acknowledge the root.   Extremism stems from a culture of hatred, that culture exists because the West will not confront it.   El-Sisi confronts the culture of hatred head-on.
El-Sisi is by no means perfect, nor is Egypt as a whole; however, the intellectual and cultural center of the Middle-East is once again rising like a Phoenix thanks -in no small part- to the grit and policy of one principled man. A man thoroughly committed to the stability of his nation, and to the broader, predominantly Muslim, nations surrounding it.
(more…)

Because hundreds of beheadings, horrific crucifixions, mass murder, rape, brutality and tens of thousands of Ferguson refugees have been seen fleeing Missouri for the safer venues of the Illinois mountains…..  or something.

One of the inconvenient truths liberals and progressive-minded Obama supporters seem to be overlooking is the 2001 and 2002 Authorization’s for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), that President Obama is now using to justify his 2014 attacks inside Syria, was a direct result of President George W Bush going to congress and asking for authorization (ie. a vote) prior to launching attacks on terror entities.
Despite the anxiety it produces for Democrats the fact remains. George W Bush never went to war, or used the military as an offensive weapon, without consulting with congress and seeking approval. Regardless of opinion, no amount of spin can remove this obvious fact.
When Obama uses the military for his versions of “the war on terror” he does not consult with congress.
President Obama used the U.N. to authorize his military campaign in Libya, and never did consult congress even after the legally required 30 day timeline of the War Powers Act. And for Syria, well, President Obama is relying on the Bush AUMF’s without further consult.
For this reason we find ourselves in agreement with the New York Times.

Wrong Turn on Syria: No Convincing Plan – President Obama has put America at the center of a widening war by expanding into Syria airstrikes against the Islamic State, the Sunni extremist group known as ISIS and ISIL. He has done this without allowing the public debate that needs to take place before this nation enters another costly and potentially lengthy conflict in the Middle East. (more…)

In President Obama’s notification to congress you might note his reference to the 2002 AUMF Public Law #107-40 (underlined).

However, has anyone in the media noted that only two months ago, July 25th 2014, he requested that law to be repealed, citing “the 2002 Iraq AUMF is no longer used for any government activities”.?
(more…)

OK, now it’s all beginning to make sense. Let’s take a look at this pretzel logic legal authority to attack inside Syria shall we.    Sheesh.

Unlike Libya in 2011, the U.N. did not have a resolution permitting President Obama to launch offensive military attacks inside a foreign and sovereign nation, Syria. Without a U.N. resolution there was no international law permitting President Obama to attack ISIS inside Syria.
Without a legal basis in international law, President Obama needs to use U.S. law for his Syria ISIS campaign.
So unlike Libya in 2011, and absent of international law to support the legality, for his 2014 Syria attacks to be legal President Obama needed to use US law; specifically, the War Powers Act.
President Obama is using two constructs. #1) The War Powers Act -and- #2) AUMF The 9-11-01 Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
But there’s a catch or two.
First, because President Obama is going to use the War Powers Act, and is not acting to defend the U.S. homeland, and is engaging in offensive military actions, he has to notify congress in writing immediately – and then update in writing within 30 days. It’s how the law works. But note what’s missing.

There is no mention of ISIS, because legally there can’t be. In order for Obama to use the 2001 AUMF he has to be attacking “al-Qaeda”, specifically “al-Qaeda”.
The AUMF only applies to al-Qaeda, not ISIS or any other group or state. (more…)

Tomahawks into Syria as Turkey remains chicken

Just so we are clear on this – There is a HUGE difference between President George W. Bush attacking al-Qaeda (‘War on Terror’) within Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen, and what President Obama is doing now.
The most notable difference is President Bush had authorization and agreement, with each sovereign nation, to attack the terror entity within it’s border; Obama has no such agreement with Syria.
And remember, according to President Obama 2013, the “2003 George Bush war on terror is over“.   OVER!   Not to mention the post 9-11 AUMF was specifically only for al-Qaeda, and ISIS is admittedly, by Obama and al-Qaeda, not al-Qaeda.   So what exactly is the “legal authority” President Obama is using?

Secretary of State John Kerry would not answer that question to congress last week. Senior White House National Security and Foreign Policy advisor Susan Rice would not answer that question last Friday. White House spokesperson Josh Earnest would also not answer that question last Friday.  President Obama’s chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, would not answer that question on Saturday, and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power would not answer that question on Sunday.
The mysterious “legal authority” is said to exist, but has never been outlined.
Yet on Monday the attacks began.
Under what legal authority? We are not under attack, this is not a defensive decision. This is 100% offensive. (more…)

There’s a big difference between thinking of the IRS Targeting Scandal as originating within the IRS, and reconciling the origin as actually within the DOJ.
When you make that mental reconciliation, it all begins to make sense:

How can the DOJ conduct an investigation into unlawful aspects of the IRS targeting of specific 501(c)(4) groups, when the DOJ is the initiating body for the illegality they are seeking to investigate ?

Qatar owns Al-Jazeera media as the PR campaign to manipulate Western public opinion. Qatar finances The Muslim Brotherhood, and the newest terror group, Libyan Dawn. It’s one of the biggest open secrets in Washington DC, and yet no-one does anything. Qatar’s Ruling head is Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani.

George Stephanopolous is horrible for obvious reasons. Again, WHAT LEGAL BASIS ?

Surprisingly, or perhaps not, the media seem to be avoiding a rather obvious question:

Under what authority is President Obama claiming to be able to fly into Syria to attack NI-ISIS?

You might have noted a few, well, probing flights recently outlined by media of Russian incursions into U.S. and NATO qualified defense zone airspace. Yet interestingly no-one seems to be connecting the dots between the Russian pokes, and Obama’s proclaimed Syrian strategy. Remember, Russia is an ally the “state of” Syria, and Bashir Assad.
The U.S. State Department, and the U.S. White House team, have been very careful to note they will not be coordinating any offensive NI-ISIS engagements with Iran or Syria.
For all current intents and purposes the matter with Iran is a non-issue, however the matter with Syria is an entirely divergent situation altogether.
As far as we can tell there is no precedent for hostile U.S. action into the sovereign territory of another nation, even to target terror threats, without a specific agreement in hand before the action. (more…)