As scandals deepen, Obama, his party, and Republicans will militarily intervene in Syria

As three administration-wrecking scandals — Benghazi, the IRS, and the AP phone records — continue to unfold, it will become increasingly clear that President Obama is: (a) stupid; (b) unable to control his felonious subordinates; or (c) a liar and a trimmer. And as this clarity evolves, Obama will engineer a U.S.-NATO military intervention in Syria. This week Obama told the press his administration has fairly solid evidence that chemical weapons were used by Damascus against al-Qaeda and its allies. Obama also said he still wants more and better evidence that Asaad used the weapons. This long has been his standard line.

But then, before closing his remarks, Obama lapsed into his patented weeping-for-humanity mode, saying in an almost off-hand manner enough thousands of Syrians had been killed in the civil war to justify intervention by that American-killing and nation-bankrupting fiction of our bipartisan governing elite’s imagination, the “U.S.-led International Community.” In other words, our beleaguered president already is looking to distract Americans from his administration’s rampant felonies, and what better way to quiet the hounds of just retribution than by consigning U.S. soldiers and Marines to death in a useless intervention in Syria, a place where no genuine U.S. national interest is at stake. One straw in the wind: Friday’s news brought word of Obama’s talking-points-changing, intelligence-leaking lickspittle of a CIA Director, John Brennan, sneaking into Israel to “discuss Syria.”

Odds are that we are going to see the same old story: Obama will intervene militarily in Syria, get Americans worried about the safety of their soldier-children, stoke their patriotism and fierce support for the troops, and — voila — the Obama-butt-kissing media will refocus the victims of the Obama-ites’ domestic felonies on an unnecessary war in the Levant.

The saddest part of the foregoing scenario is that it probably will work. Obama artfully masks his casual willingness to get Americans killed — seen in his zeal for abortion; keeping troops in Afghanistan to die (6 more on 16 May 2013) long after conceding defeat there; and refusing to try to save soon-to-be-dead Americans in Benghazi — with a maudlin “deep concern” for people suffering abroad, in this case in Syria. Obama’s faux concern for those suffering overseas is just another indelible sign of his and his party’s absolute disdain for the needs of everyday Americans. Under Obama’s two secretaries of state — Clinton and Kerry — the United States have dispersed more than $500 million to strengthen the “Syrian Resistance”; which is to say, to strengthen al-Qaeda and its allies. Both secretaries and their master have deceitfully described the aid as “humanitarian,” but as always this funding is military in every way because it frees up the Islamists’ other funds to be spent for weapons.

With Democrats ever ready to leave Americans to fend for themselves, Obama’s diversionary campaign — obscure impeachable offenses by launching an unnecessary war — will be abetted by Senators McCain, Graham, Lieberman, and dozens of other U.S. Senators and Congressman intent on war with Syria. Obama will use these useful idiots to convince the American people of three bipartisan lies: that (a) genuine U.S. interests are at risk in Syria; (b) Americans “owe” the Syrian people U.S. dollars and blood to stop their suffering in a war they started; and that (c) Americans “must” expend their dollars and kids to staunch the anarchy spreading in the Levant in order to protect our “loyal and indispensable ally Israel.” Most of the media — left and right — will concur in and support this self-defeating nonsense and, once again, we will all go off intervening in a Muslim country where we have nothing at risk, thereby prolonging our already losing war with Islam and motivating more U.S. Muslims to stage attacks like April’s in Boston.

Will Americans ever see the plain fact that they are being played for fools? If every Syrian dies tomorrow — along with every Palestinian, Israeli, Saudi, etc. — it matters not a lick to the way we live and conduct ourselves in North America. Is it too bad and very sad that they die? You bet, but it is neither our fault they are fighting nor our responsibility to stop their wars; say a prayer for them, but know their deaths are of their own making and no skin of an American’s nose.

And if some self-righteous Americans want to help these folks, let them open their individual wallets and donate; or let them light candles, pile up bouquets, weep, hold hands, and sing for peace; or, better yet, let them renounce their U.S. citizenship and go abroad to fight alongside those in the countries they love better than their own. In fact, it seems only right that some leaders of the anti-U.S., pro-Israel movement — perhaps people like Limbaugh, Lieberman, Levin, McCain, Hannity, and Graham — set the example for others of their ilk. These fearsome tough guys could buy airline tickets to the Levant; turn in their U.S. passport and acquire — at long last — the passport from their country of first allegiance (if they do not have it already); and then go off to the war they have tried so hard to start from their out-of-harm’s-way safety in North America. I would like to be helpful here and would willingly contribute to a fund to buy Rush, Joe, Mark, John, Sean, Lindsey and all others of their interventionist, anti-U.S., and Israel-First orientation an AK-47 and a thousand rounds of ammunition. Each of these folks could claim their arms as soon as they renounce their citizenship and turn in their U.S. passport. America would be far better off without them.

Sound harsh? Well, think for a moment of the cruel and cynical madness of a situation that finds Americans in New Jersey and New York still flat on their backs from Hurricane Sandy while both U.S. political parties are dumping a half-billion dollars into the hands of al-Qaeda-ism in Syria. And think of the billions going to Turkey, Egypt, and Israel, while America’s infrastructure continues to rot; millions of our kids are undernourished; our borders remain undefended; and thousands of wounded and crippled U.S. military veterans must depend on public charity to assist their recovery. And think of all the money and military lives we have and will waste making Muslim enemies overseas by intervening at bayonet point to promote education, women’s rights, irreligion, and the spread of secular democracy.

It seems likely that today’s preeminent Democratic and Republican foreign-policy motto –“Give and pander to foreigners and to hell with the real interests and welfare of America and Americans” — is not one the Founders had in mind when they created America. Indeed, if the Founders could hear it now, they would have yet another reason to thank Providence for their decision to include the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why are Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity so eager to see more dead Americans?

Last week on FOX, I spoke about the reasons why America is losing the war with the mujahedin and it seems to have rattled and angered Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity. I know this not because I regularly tune into them, but because acquaintances of mine, who have a much higher tolerance than I do for that trio’s vacuity and deceit on this issue, have sent me video clips and transcripts. So to follow up more fully on what I said on FOX, here are few things to remember about the war in which the United States is engaged with an increasing portion of the Islamic world. I will try to keep this as simple as possible to assist Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity.

–a.) America’s war with the mujahedin is preeminently a religious war. The Islamist mujahedin we are fighting — especially the late-Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and its allies — are “good Muslims,” in that they are following religious injunctions that demand Muslims resist foreign intervention, invasion, occupation, and domination. When you hear spokesman for many Muslim organizations in the United States and governments like those in Egypt and Saudi Arabia say that the mujahedin are not “good Muslims” and have “hijacked” the Islamic faith — oddly, the same phrases you hear from Obama, his CIA Director Brennan, Mrs. Clinton, and Senators Graham, Lieberman, and McCain — they are lying and trying to lure Americans into complacency, for they, even more than the mujahedin, dream of forcing the entire world to be Islamic.

–b.) Therefore, the mujahedin are the “bad guys” from the perspective of the United States and — as always — from mine; that is, they attacked us first, they caused the war. The mujahdein, their infrastructure, and their supporters merit destruction as complete as we can possibly inflict for starting a war with us.

–c.) But here is where Rush, Mark, and Sean deliberately cock-up chances for Americans to understand the enemy they face and must defeat; none of the three celebrities seem to know the difference between the words “cause” and “motivate.” Instead of understanding the very simple concept that the Islamists who attack us are reacting to what the U.S. government does and following the duties imposed on them by their faith, Democrats, Republicans, Israeli officials and their U.S.-citizen champions, Neo-Conservatives, and Rush, Mark, Sean, and others of their ilk depict the mujahedin as acting on a religion that demands they attack the United States because of the way we vote, drink, and send girls to school. Although insane, this explanation conveniently makes all Muslims crazy, and gets the United States off the hook; to wit, America did not do anything to offend anyone.

–4.) As Sister Mary Lawrence taught at All Saints grammar school, and which anyone knows who has scuffled on a school playground, every action elicits a reaction. This is not rocket science; if it was, it could not come from me. The reality is, therefore, that the religious doctrine adhered to by the mujahdein needs a trigger to activate it; that is, to motivate the decision to attack us. The U.S. government’s foreign policy in the Islamic World — one that is mirrored by nearly all NATO countries — is that trigger. For example: Invade Libya — get an Islamist-dominated country and get your ambassador and three other Americans killed by the mujahedin. Support Israel and Arab tyrannies for a half-century — get the Islamist attacks of Kenya, Tanzania, the USS COLE, and 9/11. And soon, invade Syria — get an al-Qaeda-like regime in Damascus and the fall of the Jordanian regime. (NB: Are you following, Rush, Mark and Sean?)

–5.) This reality does not excuse or condone mujahedin attacks — those boys need to be destroyed if we can find any part of the U.S. military that has a clue about how to fight and win a war. That said, Washington’s foreign policy is the main motivator of the mujahedin, and the main factor that makes them decide to attack us. Does that make the United States responsible or — in the words of Rush, Mark, and Sean — “to blame” for the mujahedin attacks? No, certainly not; those who attack us have a free will and on them falls the blame for the deaths and destruction that results from their attacks. They merit annihilation.

–6.) So the equation is clear:

–a.) Islam is a faith that requires its adherents to defend their religion and brethren against invasion, occupation, and domination, not unlike the Catholic faith that waged the crusades to retake the Holy Land, and multiple Popes who promised heaven to those crusaders who died killing Muslims;

–b.) Western interventionism usually takes one of the above forms and so triggers a religious responsibility to defend faith and brethren, one which, since the 1980s, has been consistently taken up by the mujahedin. (NB: One notes that Islamist attacks on the United States were almost non-existent until Washington began its long and gradually intensifying history of intervention in the Muslim world in 1973. The fact that Islamism has been a vibrant force in the Muslim world since at least the 1920s, and only began to regularly attack U.S. interests after 1973, suggests that the Islamists needed U.S. actions as the motivating trigger to make them decide to attack America.);

–c.) Because of the motivational force of their interventionist foreign policy, the United States and its Western allies have been repeatedly attacked by Islamists and have allowed their militaries to be shamefully defeated, and all the while they have continued to cultivate more Islamist enemies by continuing the interventionism that is the central and critical factor that motivates the decision of the mujahedin to wage war.

–d.) In simple Sister Mary Lawrence-ish terms, when the United States and its allies are perceived by Muslims to be kicking Islam — rearming the Israelis to kill more Palestinians, kowtowing to the Saudi tyrants, invading Iraq, stealing land and oil from Muslim Sudan and giving it to a new “Christian state,” etc. — the mujahedin kick back as “good Muslims” who are following the duties imposed by faith.

–7.) Now, Rush, Mark, and Sean are reputed to be smart and patriotic men. If the foregoing is correct — and it is — why are they not smart or patriotic enough to help Americans understand why their soldier-children are being killed overseas; why they and their little kids are being killed at marathons at home; and why their civil liberties are being whittled away by a cowardly bipartisan governing elite — corrupted by Arab princes, pro-Israeli U.S. citizens, and political correctness — which is conducting a self-defeating effort to defeat the Islamists while knowingly hiding the fact that they themselves are motivating our Islamist enemies. In short, why are Rush, Mark, and Sean so eager to get more Americans killed, and to keep cultivating Islamist enemies who ultimately will bleed America to death in terms of money, lives, and the growth of tyrannical central government acting in the name of homeland security?

–8.) The answer of course is that Rush, Mark, and Sean have no intention of educating Americans about the Islamist threat they face if they must acknowledge the fact that Washington’s foreign policy motivates the mujahedin to attack us.

–a.) Never from their deceitful mouths will you ever hear that Washington’s unquestioning support for Israel motivates the mujahedin to kill Americans, and that activities of pro-Israel groups in the United States have corrupted not only our politics but also are media. (NB: On this last point, think about Rush, Mark, and Sean.)

–b.) You will never hear from their mouths the truth that almost all people — be they Muslims, Christians, Jews, or Buddhists — dislike being invaded, bombed, or occupied, and more often then not react to such events with justifiable violence, not unlike our Founders did when the British Army invaded and occupied Boston and sought to disarm Americans.

–c.) You will never hear from their mouths that their cheer-leading for Washington’s bipartisan campaign to impose-by-bayonet secular democracy on Muslims is helping to realize Professor Huntington’s “clash of civilizations.” What Dr. Huntington never expected is today’s reality, one that sees the clash he predicted being instigated by secular (pagan?) clerics from Harvard, Yale, and the rest of the Ivy League and not from Islamic universities in Mecca and Cairo.

–d.) You will never hear from their mouths any condemnation of the many tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars that have been wasted — much of it flowing to flim-flamming psychiatrists and the venal hucksters of social science — in trying to figure out what “radicalizes” people like the Boston bombers. The answer is obvious and available for free: U.S. interventionist foreign policy = the motivation that radicalizes Muslims.

And most of all, you will never hear directly from the mouths of Rush, Mark, and Sean what they are implicitly telling Americans; that is, that they hate virtually everything the Founding Fathers thought and prescribed for U.S. foreign policy — in short hand, do not stick your nose in other peoples’ affairs in which you have no interest — and that they do not mind how many Americans get killed as long as Washington keeps pursuing the interventionist foreign policy they believe benefits their friends overseas and their benefactors at home. Indeed, if you reflect on their words, it would not be a surprise to find the fingerprints of Rush, Mark, and Sean — like those of so many U.S. politicians from both parties — on the detonators of those pressure-cooker bombs in Boston.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Scum of America’s Earth are strongly Pro-Israel

Readers of this site will be familiar with the ongoing efforts of a goodly number of U.S.-citizen champions of Israel to pressure media outlets to ban me from broadcasts, as well as to convince my employers to fire me for criticizing the U.S. relationship with Israel. Along with this comes a good deal of personal abuse. Last week, I again voiced my belief that America should not be involved in the Israel-Muslim war and — as night follows day — another tranche of witty, intellectual, and sophisticated notes went to FOX TV and to my e-mail.

I have included a sampling of this campaign below to again demonstrate that the Israel-Firsters will do nearly anything to break someone who questions their blatant disloyalty to America, and to note that my experience over the past eight years strongly suggests that many of the U.S.-citizen supporters of Israel are drawn from that part of American society that is best described as “the scum of the earth.” Indeed, I have written to Ms. Andrea and Ms. Lewis to say that I consider them “Israel-First Traitors.” True to her scum form, Ms. Andrea today has written to FOX and Georgetown University complaining that by speaking the obvious truth about her and Ms. Lewis proves me an “anti-Semite.” All Israelis and supporters of Israeli ought to be very proud of these two.

The “Larry Johnson” referred to several times below runs the blog http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/. He seems to be a hero of the Israel-Firsters, which, I suppose, says a lot.

——————————————————————–

From: Lisa B. Andrea – lisabandrea@yahoo.com

–“You have shitty genetics  You’re a fat, ugly failure and a loser in life unable to find a full-time job  LOL”

–“You have shitty genetics.  You’re an ugly, mentally ill loser.” 

–“A member of the unlucky sperm club, ugly face.  LOL”

–“I’m sure that I’m not the first female to call you creepy and creepy-looking.  No doubt, you’ve been mocked by women your entire life”  

–“Wow, you’re really as creepy as you are creepy-looking and creepy-sounding .  I read your nickname at the CIA was Charles Manson.  I see why.”

–From: Lisa Andrea To: FOX NEWS
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 2:58 PM
Subject: Boston Marathon

XXX: Michael Schuer was really not the best person to have on your show discussing the Boston Marathon terrorist bombing since 9/11 was planned and implemented on his watch.  Seems Schuer is the problem, not the solution.  Oh, and by the way, he is touted as a Phd but it turns out that his doctorate is in British diplomacy from some obscure Canadian college, not in international security or Middle East affairs from Harvard or Princeton.  Lisa Andrea

– “Is “Bea” one of the voices in your head, psycho?  You’re so creepy-looking and so ugly, but, you’re used to being mocked by females.  LOL   

——————————————————————–

–From: Bea Lewis – blewis3h@yahoo.com

–“You’re a mentally ill coward and loser in life fired from his government job and from the Jamestown Institute and you’re unable to keep a fulltime job today. You were rejected for special ops at the CIA because you’re a fat loser and mentally unstable.”

–“Fat Mikey, you’re having a nervous breakdown because you’re an overweight  mentally ill coward with zero military experience who was rejected for special ops in the CIA.  You’re a massive loser in life.”

–“Israel provides immense military assistance and training to the US.  You have zero military experience.  You were even passed over for special ops, fat Mikey.  LOL”

–“Judging from your physique that contributed to being rejected for special ops, impotence is your problem.  And, you’re reduced to being an irrelevant blogger, having left your government bureaucrat job in disgrace after being asleep at the wheel when 9/11 was planned and implemented.     Sucks being you, Mikey.” 

–“Larry Johnson made special ops.  Evidently, your pear-shaped physique and that dumb vacant look in your eyes worked against you.  Unfortunately, they pushed you off into the bin Laden unit which didn’t work out so well for the country due to your total incompetence and lack of intellect.”   

–“Trying to pretend you were in the military by calling interviewers “sir” isn’t amusing, it’s pitiful.  Surely, you could have worked in the mess hall where you could have eaten the left overs.”   

From: Bea Lewis
To: FOX NEWS
Cc: mfs47
Sent: Sat, Apr 20, 2013 1:08 pm
Subject: Viewer Comment

Mr. XXXXX, as covered in the Weekly Standard publication, below, your oddball guest Michael Scheuer actually makes the sick claim that the ulterior motive of the Holocaust Museum is really to influence US foreign policy toward Israel by making Americans sympathetic to Jews.  Would you say this is merely delusional or anti-Semitic or an indication of a severe psychiatric disorder? And, what does putting him on your show say about you?  Bea Lewis

–“Fatman, you’re an undistinguished coward and a loser who never served in the military and was rejected by special ops.” 

From: Bea Lewis
To: FOX NEWS
Cc: mfs47
Sent: Fri, Apr 19, 2013 4:20 pm
Subject: Viewer Comment

Mr. XXXX, your guest Mr. Scheuer came across as rather peculiar and so a quick bit of research revealed this article appearing in the Weekly Standard, whose editors appear regularly on Fox News, painting a rather unflattering picture of Mr. Scheuer, including incompetence contributing to 9/11 and untruthfulness about his resume and in testifying before Congress… http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/084zuzpe.asp?page=1   Your audience deserves better, no?  Bea Lewis

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

U.S. leaders’ fingerprints are on the detonators

While the Tsarnaev brothers apparently conducted the Marathon bombings in Boston, the detonators of those bombs also have the fingerprints of most Democratic and Republican politicians all over them, and those men and women are in a measure responsible for each and every one of the Boston casualties. Why? Because once again it is blatantly obvious from the evidence the authorities have presented to date that the attackers were motivated by what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world and not because of our freedoms, liberties, and gender equality. So before President Obama and Secretary Kerry, Senators McCain and Graham, and most of the mainstream media swing into intense lying mode — which amounts to “those murderous Muslims are crazy and hate liberty” — here are several contact points with reality worth keeping in mind

–1.) To the best of my knowledge, since Osama bin Laden declared war on America in 1996 no Islamist attacker or would-be attacker in the West has ever told the authorities after his arrest that he was motivated to attack by the West’s values, lifestyles, and freedoms. In addition, none of the recovered documents or taped statements by domestic Islamist attackers who died in action have yielded evidence of that kind of motivation. This sort of evidence consistently has shown that the attackers’ overarching motivation to be hatred for U.S. and Western foreign policy toward and intervention in the Islamic world.

–2.) Likewise, no major Sunni Islamist leader has preached jihad against the United States and the West because of its values, lifestyle, etc. That they loathe many parts of what has become the West’s semi-pagan society is clear; secular democracy and feminism are not coming to their precincts anytime soon, even if Obama, McCain, and Hillary Clinton continue to seek to impose them with bayonets. Nearly to a man, Islamist leaders have unrelentingly sought to focus Muslims on U.S. and Western interventionist policies and actions in the Muslim world. And those leaders have no lack of things to focus Muslim attention on. Since 2011 alone, for example, President Obama and the similarly interventionist NATO leaders have invaded two Muslim countries — Mali and Libya; established a new U.S. military base in Muslim Niger; and are on the verge of intervening in Syria. In addition, they arbitrarily stripped Muslim Sudan of 30-plus percent of its territory and 75-to-80 percent of its oil reserves and gave it to a new and Christian “South Sudan.” To paraphrase what Edmund Burke said about the resistance of American colonials to direct British intervention and taxation, Muslims who would not resist this sort of illegitimate intervention would be fit to be slaves.

–3.) On the U.S. and Western side of the equation we find a mindlessness that is startling; productive of dead and wounded Americans; and which increases the power of our Islamist enemies. Given points 1 and 2 above, it is nothing less than amazing that senior U.S. political leaders in both parties and much of the media — as well as their counterparts in Europe — continue to preach that Americans are being attacked because of their lifestyle and freedoms. One would think that someone in the media would ask them to produce the evidence for this contention, which of course they could not do. But no one has asked because these politicians, pundits, and journalists would have to admit that U.S. foreign policy — preeminently our support for the Saudi tyranny and Israel; our invasions of Muslim countries; and our efforts to impose Western political and social views on Muslims and neuter Islam — is the main motivation of our Islamist enemies and that, therefore, U.S. policy has helped to kill and maim military and civilian Americans abroad, as well as in Boston, New York, Arkansas, Fort Hood, Texas, Washington, and the rural fields of Pennsylvania.

–4.) U.S. and Western interventionism also is, in may ways, a two-for for Islamist leaders, their groups, and their ability to attract increasing numbers of young man to their banners. For example, we invade Libya and destroy a viciously anti-Islamist regime. Thereby, we assist in the freeing of thousands of Islamist fighters from Libyan prisons, skilled and experienced men who immediately return to the mujahedin; we facilitate the looting of dozens of arsenals — as we did in Egypt and Tunisia — and so we better arm the mujahedin across Africa; and we deliberately destroy a valuable intelligence ally in our war against the Islamists. And all this in the name of a secular democratic movement that surely exists in the deranged-by-feminism brains of Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice but to no considerable extent anywhere in the Arab world.

–5.) Just as damaging to the genuine national security interests of the United States and Western Europe is the combination of relentless interventionism and feckless, effeminate war-making. Whether the war was emphatically a necessity — as in Afghanistan — or a criminally whimsical choice –as in Iraq and Mali — the U.S. and its NATO allies always lose. And they lose not because their Islamist enemies are stronger or better armed — they clearly are not — but because the U.S. and the West will not kill the requisite number of the enemy and their supporters, and destroy enough of the foe’s resources and infrastructures, to make our the Islamists know for certain that the bloody game they started — their religious war against the West — is not worth the candle. As a result, we have suffered truly staggering loses in Iraq and Afghanistan, as we will in Mali as the Islamist insurgency there evolves and expands. However much President Obama and the war-boys McCain and Graham dress up the effectiveness and describe the success of the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, all of the Muslim world — and especially the young male segment of that population — perceives that the much vaunted U.S. military had its ass kicked and is running home chased by Allah’s warriors, just as the Soviets were evicted from Afghanistan in the 1980s. What better recruiting tool could there be than a perceived reality among young Muslims — underpinned by the reality of U.S. withdrawal-without-victory in Iraq and Afghanistan — that the theoretically omni-powerful U.S. military is an organization that is made reliably contemptible because it is deliberately hamstrung by politicians who are more than willing to wail lamentations and cry crocodile tears over U.S. casualties, but are not willing to protect Americans because they cannot face the reality that the one and only thing that counts in war is victory.

–6.) So as Boston is cleaned-up and the casualties are buried and tended, all Americans have yet another chance to think about how long they will tolerate a war that Washington refuses to win, while it systematically and knowingly providing much of the motivation for those Islamists intent on killing of Americans. Through its bipartisan truckling to the Saudi and other Gulf tyrannies; its intervention in places like Libya and Syria, where we have no genuine national interest and are helping to put Islamists in power; its willingness to accept U.S. military defeat everywhere; and its unquestioning bipartisan support for Israel and thereby the corruption of U.S. politics by AIPAC and the campaign funds provided by pro-Israel U.S. citizens, Republicans and Democrats are helping to kill Americans, their families, and their children.

–7.) There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that the young George S. Patton — then fighting to defend the U.S. border with Mexico — raised a July 4th toast to America’s independence with the words: “May God bless America, and may He damn all of her enemies.” At that point in his career, Patton surely had Pancho Villa and his raiders in mind as enemies, not the bipartisan political leaders of the United States. Given where we stand today in our losing war against Islamist insurgents and terrorists, Patton, if alive, might well enlarge the compass of his definition of America’s enemies to include recent U.S. presidents, senators, and congressman — and he would be right to do so.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

On Syria, Our interventionists ensure America’s luck is running out

For more than two years the Syrian civil war has raged with no impact at all on the United States and its domestic or international interests. Notwithstanding the crocodile tears that have flowed from Mrs. Clinton, President Obama, the European Union, and the usual gang of senatorial war lovers — McCain, Graham, Lieberman, etc. — the Syrian civil war has not troubled genuine U.S. security interests a lick. But that reality is, of course, irrelevant to our bipartisan governing elite, and we now seem headed for yet another mindless foreign intervention.

As he stepped into the Secretary of State’s role, John Kerry must have wondered how he would ever surpass the record of Mrs. Clinton. In her four years in the position, Mrs. Clinton talked constantly, traveled endlessly, further institutionalized the insane, war-causing foreign policy goal of forcing the world to install her view of women’s rights; and scored a breathtaking diplomatic achievement — she bribed the Burmese junta into dealing with Washington and allowing an aging, gad-fly female poet to travel the world. Such of Mrs. Clinton’s predecessors as William Henry Seward, John Quincy Adams, and General George C. Marshall best make way for this unprecedented foreign-policy accomplishment.

After that performance poor Mr. Kerry had to move fast to make his name in history and what better method than that of intervening in a war in which no genuine U.S. national interest is at stake. Smacking his lips and muttering “Syria here I come!” Mr. Kerry met last week with the fundamentally anti-U.S. leaders of the “Syrian Resistance” — AKA: Al-Qaeda and its like-minded allies — and forked over $60 million in “non-lethal aid,” thereby laying the groundwork for greater U.S. participation in that none-of-our-business war.

In this action, Mr. Kerry demonstrated all the usual attributes of our bipartisan governing elite. As noted, we have no life-and-death interests at stake in Syria, so that is where Kerry and our leaders will focus their interest. This, rather than trying to fix, say, our open borders, which are facilitating the ability of Iran and the Sunni Islamists to wage war inside the United States. Kerry’s donation to the Syrian Islamists also underscores the utter contempt he and the governing elite have for the well-being of Americans. In a bankrupt country like today’s United States, Kerry gave away $60 million to America’s enemies, money that could be much better used or simply saved at home, and the waste of which elicited zero negative comments from all those wailing in despair over sequestration. Kerry like all of members of our governing elite defines his own worth and success by how much he can “help” foreigners, Americans be damned.

The swag Kerry delivered to the Syrian Islamists — there would be no telling military resistance to Asaad if it was not for this multinational mujahedin force — also was complemented by the requisite deception of the American people. The money Kerry squandered was accompanied by his bald-faced lie that the donation was non-lethal because it focused on communications gear, transportation assets, and humanitarian aid. In reality all of this aid is absolutely meant to expand the lethality of Syria’s Islamist resistance. Sophisticated communications equipment makes it harder for Asaad’s forces to locate and destroy their foes; trucks and other vehicle make the Islamists more mobile, allowing them to stay a step ahead of the Syrian military and quickly reach targets that they formally had to take lengthy and dangerous hikes to attack; and humanitarian aid is always a key part of lethal assistance. It allows the mujahedin and their Saudi and other Gulf-state backers to care for the resistance’s civilian supporters with U.S. and Western donations and use their own to buy arms. That the aid Mr. Kerry delivered — with that given by the EU and other mindless, do-gooding interventionists — is entirely lethal in nature is clear. It makes us participants in the war and requires Kerry to deliberately deceive the American people by describing it as non-lethal.

So the good luck of Americans vis-à-vis Syria seems to be running out and yet another U.S. military intervention is on the horizon. In addition, Kerry’s ability to deliver $60 million to the anti-U.S. and Islamist Syrian resistance provides another glimpse into the far bigger problem of a federal government that increasingly believes itself beyond the control of the electorate that the Constitution designated as its master. Except for brief episodes of pandering to voters every four years, both parties operate as if the people and the federal government are distinct entities, and that the superior latter knows what is best for the inferior former. This is an idea that would have been abhorrent to the Founders. “Government is instituted for the common good,” John Adams wrote in 1776, “for the protection, safety, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men….”

Kerry’s donation to America’s enemies is yet another example of our bipartisan governing elite’s — which is now, in Adams’s words, one “class of men” — stark unconcern for the nation, its people, and their posterity. Indeed, it is a direct and knowing assault on the citizens’ well-being because funding for the Syrian Islamists came, in part, from the Obama administration’s raising of payroll taxes on working Americans, a process that sadly amounts to business-as-usual for the federal government under both parties; that is: “Take from Americans who are barely getting by and give to foreigners who hate them.”

There is no decency or common-sense, let alone concern and respect for Americans, in Kerry’s action and the modus operandi of our political elites that it reflects. It is, however, more fuel for the growing notion that the resistance movement that America truly needs is one manned and led by U.S. citizens and bent on opposing a federal government that is increasingly and intolerably the open, active enemy of America’s Constitution, laws, economic solvency, and financial and political independence. When a government behaves in such a manner, Adams concluded, “the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right … to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” Some interesting food for thought from Mr. Adams in these troubling days.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment