America has no enemy more dastardly and lethal than the Neoconservative

Those men who wrote our Constitution made it perfectly intelligible to anyone who cared to read it. They also left some flexibility in its articles to ensure that as time passed and circumstances changed the document would remain viable as the indispensable protector of the republic they created and of the liberty of citizens who delegated a limited amount of their sovereign power to the national government through its provisions. And after a long and often  angry ratification debate, the first congress added a bill of rights to the Constitution as that document’s first ten amendments. These amendments were fully as clear as the text — perhaps more so — but less flexible than the body of the document because they dealt with the tenets of republican liberty which, if regularly and deliberately violated by the national government, would require that Americans, to paraphrase Jefferson, demolish the existing government and erect a new one that would better safeguard their liberties and their republic’s security.

In recent decades, however, Americans have been treated to an endless stream of politicians, academics, lawyers, and pundits who describe the opaqueness of the Founder’s Constitution and the need for “experts” to decipher or infer what the document means. As a result, we now have presidents who take the country to war on their whim; politicians who are legally bribed by “campaign contributions” from rich individuals, corporations, labor unions, and foreign lobbies and governments based on an absurd reading of the Constitution; a public that is increasingly endangered by flamboyant blasphemers who seek violence and war under the protection of the First Amendment; and the routine criminality of executive branch officials who refuse to obey their oath of office to execute the laws. We also have the overwhelming majority of both political parties willing to destroy the Fourth Amendment in the name of providing for national security against an enemy they have resolutely refused to either stop motivating or militarily annihilate. Together these realities amount to a more-than-full justification for Americans to recall that, as Jefferson wrote, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

In the midst of America’s third consecutive despotic presidency — each more despotic than its predecessor, and all more than Nixon — the citizenry now sees two singularly courageous individuals standing up and saying the destruction of the Fourth Amendment must stop. The junior senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul, and FOX’s senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, have been and are saying that it is unconstitutional for any congress and/or president to order NSA to collect the electronic communications of all Americans. (NB: Note to Congressman Gowdy: Can’t you get Hillary Clinton’s e-mail from NSA? Or is the unconstitutional collection system rigged so the corrupt elite are exempt?) If the U.S. educational system was not run by people who yearn and work for despotism, and if that system taught civics and history instead of political indoctrination, the senator and the judge would not be so alone in their opposition to tyranny. (NB: Perhaps the sheep-like silence and passivity of much of the public toward this deliberate and cynical violation of their constitutionally protected rights is the best reason for destroying the federal Department of Education at the first opportunity.)

Those who support the destruction of the 4th Amendment, of course, do so because they have knowingly failed to provide for the security of the United States since Osama bin Laden declared war on the nation in August, 1996. The threat from al-Qaeda, and now from its progeny, the Islamic State, exists and is still growing because we have had three presidents who refused to either stop motivating the Islamists to attack us or to annihilate them, their supporters, and their infrastructure with U.S. military power. Instead, they have made Americans pay with the currency of their soldier-children’s lives and limbs and their liberty for the government’s deliberate failure to protect the republic against enemies foreign and domestic. Indeed, the last three presidents and their lieutenants have provided the bulk of America’s domestic enemies, and their transparently unconstitutional and enemy-protecting behavior is ample, accumulated justification for Americans to begin to look for ways to devise ”Guards for their future security.”

Last Thursday evening (21 May 2015) on Bret Baier’s excellent “Special Report”, Judge Napolitano concisely and clearly explained the intention of the White House and Congress to continue their illegal evisceration — it began with the Mr. Bush’s Patriot Act — of the Constitution’s 4th Amendment. Napolitano convincingly made his point and then another panelist — the Neoconservative Charles Krauthammer– replied that he was “dead wrong.” Krauthammer and his Neocon brothers, who labored mightily for the 2003 invasion of Iraq (lost war 1), the 2014 re-intervention (lost war 2), and now for the return ground troops to Iraq to lose again — pray God, three strikes and they are exiled to Israel — have been accurately described by the erudite political scientist Claes G. Ryn as the “New Jacobins”.

The new Jacobin does not want competition in prescribing the right model [of government]. … The new Jacobin is convinced that he knows what is best for all mankind, and if much of mankind shows reluctance to follow his lead, it is to him a sign that injustice, superstition, and general backwardness or a misconceived modernistic radicalism is standing in the way of progress. The new Jacobin is not content with voicing his own ideas and letting the peoples of the world make their own decisions. They must recognize the superiority of his principles. Governments that do not do so appear to him perverse. … The world must be rid of unenlightened, undemocratic societies. If persuasion and diplomatic pressure fail, the forces of democracy should be willing to resort to military means, especially against powers that have the temerity of openly defying the United States. The new Jacobin desires strong, activist government that can enact what he considers virtuous purposes.*

Intolerably, individuals fitting Professor Ryn’s description dominate both American political parties and for decades have made foreign policy for the United States. Since the early 1990s they have brought America constant war and its reliable companion, the steadily broadening erosion of constitutional liberty. The names of these people are well known. Beyond Krauthammer, the following are, to name just a few, members of the Jacobin/Neocon fold: Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Madeline Albright, Lindsey Graham, Jeb Bush, Joseph Lieberman, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama John Boehner, Joe Biden, Bill Kristol, John Bolton, and the 90-plus Senators who did not join Kentucky’s junior senator in defending the 4th Amendment. All of them, to judge by their words, believe it is the absolute right of the United States to intervene politically and militarily abroad wherever and whenever it chooses, and to impose by force what they define as “universal values”.

But their words are lies, there are no such things as universal values. There is only one value common to all men in all times and that is the universal lust for gaining and exercising arbitrary power, and that power is exactly what the Jacobin/Neocon crowd is after. They want power abroad and they want power over the American citizenry at home. They have proven they cannot attain power abroad — having lost every war they started — and they cannot get power at home unless Americans permit them to continue to systematically hollow out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

On that score, however, they are incrementally succeeding, and this success is the reason that Americans must begin thinking about what “new Guards for their future security” might be appropriate. And to ensure U.S. citizens can realistically discuss all options for preventing or destroying tyrannical government at home, the Founders left them the Second Amendment. After all, as Jefferson asked in 1787, “And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

*Claes Ryn, America the Virtuous, 2005, p. 26

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

Garland’s lesson? Democrats, Republicans, and Neocons bring the jihad to America

Since 9/11, Americans have been treated to an ongoing tutorial by the self-professed best-and brightest from America’s universities, media, Christian clergy, and national government explaining how American Muslims become radicalized into Islamist militants. These Muslims, say the country’s brains-trust, are discriminated against by other U.S. citizens; are disenfranchised by poverty; have a hard time transitioning to U.S. society from the Muslim culture they lived in abroad;hate all non-Muslims, or are brain-washed by cynical Islamist leaders and so learn to hate America and become eager to waste their lives in attacking it. These same explanations have been spewed forth by the aforementioned elites ever since the second plane hit the World Trade Center, and now fourteen years they later they are again being served up to explain to the citizenry — really, to mislead the citizenry — what radicalized the Garland, Texas, attackers.

Now each of the foregoing elements may have some peripheral impact on radicalizing young American Muslims, but they would all amount to nothing if the main motivational force — U.S. government policies and actions in the Islamic world — was absent. The attack in Garland, Texas, did not occur because two Muslims were out for a walk and, being bored, decided to kill some non-Muslim cartoonists. The attack occurred because Ms. Geller and her violence-seeking organization announced and then staged an event meant to flamboyantly defame, denigrate, and ridicule the Prophet Muhammad. The Simpson-Soofi attack in Garland was a planned, if poorly executed, operation meant to kill those who seek to humiliate Muslims and their faith by savaging the Prophet. Cause and effect are ever at hand, and in this case the attackers were responding to an attack by Geller et al. that for them and many other Muslims was much more painful than receiving a physical beating.

This cause-and-effect theme has been the constant reality of the U.S. confrontation with Islam since the late-Osama bin Laden began speaking publicly in 1996. He then explained that the mujahedin would continue attacking the United States as long as it maintained a foreign policy that defended Arab tyrannies, unquestioningly supported Israel, attacked and/or occupied Muslim territory, and denigrated the Islamic faith. Bin Laden thus put the U.S. government on notice that its actions and policies would motivate al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups to attack U.S. interests. In response, the U.S. government under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton has intensified and expanded the actions and policies that bin Laden specified as war motivators. In the case of Garland, Ms. Geller’s meeting might have been the immediate reason for the attack, but her nonsense — blasphemy is a non-starter for anyone taught good manners by their parents — pales in comparison to the success that the Clinton-Bush-Obama/Cinton troika has had in maintaining policies that provide the single most important source of motivation for both the worldwide spread of the Islamist insurgency and for the attacks that will eventually become routine events inside the United States.

While the Garland attack, and the sophomoric Geller meeting that prompted it, have almost faded from the media — but not, you can bet, from the mind of the mujahedin — it is worth noting that Ms. Geller’s childish and intended-to-create-violence conference is only part of what is the small, private-sector contribution to the U.S. government’s mindless agenda for motivating the further growth and geographical spread of what is now a nearly worldwide Islamist insurgency. While the zany Ms. Geller and her merry  band of blasphemers were seeking violence in Texas, Washington was:

  • Continuing its so far dismally unsuccessful but clearly ISIS-benefiting U.S. re-intervention in Iraq. So far our generals have managed to graphically revalidate what was already known: air power cannot win a war unless aircraft are dropping nuclear weapons, and that the hundreds of billions of U.S.-taxpayer dollars spent on arming and training the Iraqi army has produced — as in Afghanistan — a miserably incompetent military force that excels only in abandoning its weapons and sprinting away from the enemy. As this is published, in fact, ISIS forces have taken Ramadi.
  • Being perceived across the Muslim world as supporting Israel’s recent decision to build 900 more homes for Israelis in east Jerusalem. And this after the Muslim world had witnessed the spectacle of most of the AIPAC-owned U.S. congressman and senators from both parties showing more loyalty to the Israeli prime minister and the war he wants than to their own country’s president, security, independence, and national interests.
  • Supporting and applauding a coalition of Saudi-led Arab tyrants in their air war on Yemen’s Shia Houthis and, truthfully, any Yemeni who is in the way. The Sunni Arabs will find that air power is insufficient to beat the Houthis, and they will be left to decide whether to commit ground forces. Here is a truly lose-lose situation for the ossified tyrants. If the Saudi-led coalition decides to try to eradicate the Houthis by using Sunni Arab ground forces — and it is not a sure thing that they can do so — al-Qaeda, ISIS, and a large part of Yemen’s Sunni majority will remain heavily armed, as anti-al-Saud as ever, and utterly unwilling to accept any Potemkin Yemeni regime the tyrants try to install. The Saudi-led coalition over the long run may well destroy the Houthis only to see that they have midwifed the birth of an Islamic state in Yemen.
  • Publicly cooperating with Iran in Iraq to fight ISIS, and implicitly with the Syrian Alawites and Shia Hezbollah to do the same. Now this is a piece of stupidity that is so rank that even bin Laden — who deemed U.S. leaders reliably but not suicidally stupid — could not have imagined it. Washington has concocted a policy that puts the United States on the side of apostate Shias and Shia-offshoot groups against the entire Sunni world. Like the 2003 U.S.-led war in Iraq, Washington’s decision to side with the Shias in Iraq and Syria against the Sunni world amounts to the same kind of long-desired but totally unexpected gift that Ralphy received in the Christmas Story movie; that is, a Red Ryder B-B Gun of a policy. And this gift is made more saucily piquant and hilarious for the Islamists by Washington’s bizarre (insane?) decision to simultaneously assist the Sunni Arab tyrants’ as they joyously kill off the Iran-supported Yemeni Shias.

The old saying that when you have dug yourself into a hole it’s best to stop digging has seldom been more applicable than in regard to U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world. Clinton, Bush, and Obama/Clinton are all smart enough to know — they are all Ivy Leaguers, you know — that they have been and still are motivating our Islamist enemies, and yet they are also so divorced from reality and lost in theory that they are unwilling to kill those they have motivated and cannot recognize that America is up to its waist in a religious war — they are Ivy all Leaguers, you know. What to do? Stop U.S. intervention in the Islamic world, reissue President Washington’s 1793 Proclamation of Neutrality, and, as diplomatically as possible, tell Sunnis, Shias, Israelis, American Israel-Firsters, and Europeans to (a) piss off and (b) enjoy stewing in their own lethal juices.

Oh yes, and never again cast a vote for a presidential candidate who graduated from an Ivy League university.

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

General Dempsey errs by telling the truth, but quickly recants

During his term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey has shown a decided inability to differentiate between truth and falsehood when talking to Americans and their congressional representatives, more often than not erring on the side of the latter. Those paying attention, for example, will recall General Dempsey repeatedly telling the media, the citizenry, and the Congress that the U.S. military’s training of the Afghan National Army (ANA) had gone splendidly and the ANA would be ready to operate on its own when President Obama’s withdrawal date arrived. Now, we see that Obama’s deadline has been extended and the stay-behind force increased. General Dempsey, unless he has learned nothing in a long taxpayer-funded military career or is plainly brain dead, knew that what he was saying about the ANA was an absurd lie, but he tugged his forelock and lied for the administration.

This month, however, General Dempsey let slip a snippet of truth and then had to scramble to re-establish the lie that — sooner or later — all parents of America’s military personnel will have to accept, cope with, and, perhaps, avenge. In reaction to the Islamic State’s (IS) advance toward the city of Ramadi in Iraq’s Anbar Province, General Dempsey said that he was not worried about IS taking the city because it was of little importance to the overall war that is occurring in Iraq. In reaction to Dempsey’s statement, Ms. Debbie Lee, the mother of U.S. Navy SEAL Marc Lee who was killed while fighting with his unit near Ramadi in August, 2006, spoke out in a letter of condemnation for Dempsey’s statement, saying that her son died at Ramadi as he was fighting for “freedom” and that Dempsey’s description of Ramadi as being of little importance denigrated her son’s sacrifice as well as that of many other troops. General Dempsey quickly retracted his statement, apologized, and said he honored Ms. Lee’s son and all of the fallen.

Now, one sympathizes with this still-grieving mother and surely shares her pride in her son’s love of and sacrifice for America. But the problem surfacing in this episode is that General Dempsey was telling the truth, and he was telling the truth about events today as well as when Marc Lee was killed in action. Today and during the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, there is not a single village, town, or city in Iraq that is worth the life or limbs of one U.S. Marine, sailor, or soldier. Instigated by U.S. citizens who are the acolytes of a foreign power, George W. Bush started the war in Iraq for no credible reason — even with WMD, Saddam would not have been a threat to the United States — and with the unconstitutional delegation of power from a reliably supine national legislature. Bush and his advisers refused to put enough forces into Iraq to win, and they laid down rules of engagement that made our military personnel targets not killers, both of which guaranteed our Islamist enemy would survive and grow exponentially in size and power. Then, the deeply anti-military Barack Obama was content to let the Iraq war putter along — blithely letting the deaths, severed limbs, and cases of mental distress accumulate — until the political clock struck the hour that would yield the most electoral benefit for himself and his party.

As noted, General Dempsey quickly painted over his awkward revelation of the truth with the usual meaningless but syrupy “We honor your service” boiler plate. The service of young military men and women, of course, can only be honored by their leaders if they ensure that those youngsters’ lives are not knowingly wasted. But in regard to this, their most fundamental responsibility, Dempsey and his fellow general officers have been nowhere to be seen for nearly a decade and a half. Until recently, Americans still held to the hope that U.S. generals were honorable men and women who are trained to do three things: (a) destroy the enemy utterly: (b) bring home alive as many of their troops as possible; and (c) politely but strongly oppose any politician’s plan that threatens to make (a) and (b) impossible, and, if unsuccessful, resign and publicly describe the reason for resignation. Since the 9/11 attacks, it appears that almost no U.S. general officer has done anything but lick the boots of politicians, while saying something akin to “Yes, my genius leader” to presidents who start both necessary wars and unnecessary interventionist wars they do not intend to win; refuse to supply enough troops to make victory certain; and restrict U.S. troops from using enough force to protect their own lives, let alone to apply sufficient savagery to annihilate the enemy.

All told, U.S. general officers — with the admirable exception of General James Mattis, USMC — seem not to have a tenth of the moral courage of the grieving mother who denounced General Dempsey’s words. Indeed, Ms. Lee’s scathingly blunt attack caused Dempsey to do what most U.S. generals seem to do best, cravenly crawl back under the cover of a sanctimonious and cynical lie that protects themselves and their political masters, but which sooner or later will be seen through by the parents of America’s soldier-children. And then, pray God, both presidents and generals will have hell to pay.

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

On the nuclear issue, no one will argue the Iranians into slavery

Americans and Westerners generally have been bombarded with good news, bad news, worried news, optimistic news, and no news about the negotiations of the United States and its partners with Iran aimed at denying Tehran the ability to complete its pretty much built nuclear weapon. The multiple rounds of talks have provided much fodder for the media in their endless search for two things that do not exist: (a) the diplomatic brilliance of President Obama, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton and (b) a gang of powerful fools in Tehran who are willing to allow their nation to be defenseless against three nuclear powers — the U.S., the UK, and Israel — that have threatened Iran’s destruction daily for thirty years. It is funny how we always hear about the Ayatollah’s threat to destroy Israel, but very seldom about Hillary Clinton’s promise to incinerate Iran if it touched a hair on Israel’s pretty little head.

It is extremely likely that Iran will — as its genuine national interests clearly demand — string out the negotiations with Obama, Kerry and their fellow ahistorical European colleagues until it can surprise the world by testing a nuclear device. In speaking about U.S.-Cuba relations this weekend, Obama said that he is uninterested in events that occurred before he was born. This of course is his choice, but it is a choice that could be made only by the kind of a badly educated and naive fool that Obama is seeking but will not find in Iran.

What the world is seeing played out in these negotiations is quite similar to what happened in the 1980s and 1990s when the United States, Britain, and other European nations worked to prevent Pakistan from acquiring a nuclear device. There were public and secret negotiations, inconvenient and at times painful Western economic, military, and political sanctions — that perennial tool of cowards; covert operations to disrupt Pakistani attempts to acquire nuclear components; bribes in the form of more foreign and conventional military aid; and, as always, sanctimonious rhetoric from Western leaders instructing their little brown Pakistani brothers to be good non-nuclear boys. In the end, Pakistan acquired all of the necessary components, tested a device, and is now a nuclear power.

The only question that ever existed about whether Pakistan would attain a bomb was whether it could acquire all the needed materials. Two granite-like and universally known facts existed from the start of the West’s campaign to stop Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons that should have made Western leaders know beyond all doubt that their effort would be a pointless failure: (a) a Pakistani leader had stated publicly that Pakistanis would “eat grass” and otherwise willingly sacrifice to procure a nuclear weapon and was wildly applauded in his country, and (b) there were at the time about 140 million conventionally armed Pakistanis facing a billion Indians led by a nuclear-armed government in New Delhi. Because Pakistan viewed Hindu India as its most lethal enemy — as India viewed Islamic Pakistan — leading Pakistani politicians and their senior generals would have to have been suicidal mad men to stop seeking a nuclear deterrent for their nation’s arsenal. In the case of Pakistan and its nuclear weapon, however, the mad men were those negotiating and threatening Pakistan for the U.S., the UK, and other Western states. Pakistan got its weapon.

As was the case with Pakistan, the U.S. and its partners are faced with — and have, again, ignored — two granite-like and universally known facts vis-a-vis Iran: (a) the nuclear-armed U.S., Britain, and Israel have been publicly gunning for the Iranian regime since 1979 and have publicly insisted that they will tell Tehran what it can and cannot do in providing for its own defense, and (b) the Shia Iranian regime and the international Shia community as a whole — which is composed of about 10-13 percent of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims — is locked in a life-and-death battle with the worldwide Sunni community, which in the nation of Pakistan has an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Faced with these two facts, U.S. and Western citizens have again been deceived by their political leaders and the media. There is precisely no chance that Iran will stop the construction of a nuclear weapon. At this point in history, Iran probably does not have much military fear of the U.S. and Britain, which in recent decades have amply demonstrated that they have only three clear military skills: losing wars; completely failing to train Muslim armies; and cutting their militaries to the bone. The Israelis are another matter, however, and the Iranians certainly believe that Israel will — as it must, if push comes to shove and its survival is at stake — use its nuclear weapons against the Islamic republic. Thus, there is no other sane policy for Tehran to pursue than one that builds a nuclear arsenal.

The second fact is at least as compelling as the first for the Iranian regime. Faced with a Muslim world that has 9 or more Sunnis for each Shia; where Shia minorities are persecuted in almost every Sunni majority country; where the Iranian nation-state is surrounded by the Sunni world and U.S. military bases; where a regional Shia-Sunni war that has been in the making since the seventh century A.D. is now rapidly developing in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria; and where a contiguous Sunni nation named Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal — the Sunni bomb, if you will — that the viscerally anti-Shia Saudis helped to fund, the Iranians would, again, have to be quite insane not to arm themselves to the hilt against a Sunni world that has long hated the Shia far more than the West. Not being insane folks, the Iranian regime probably also assumes — and certainly to be prudent it had better assume — that because the Saudis helped pay for the Pakistani nuclear program, the Riyadh tyranny may well have nuclear devices that can be delivered by aircraft of short-range missiles.

None of the foregoing is meant to support the Iranians; they are tyrannical gang of brutal, violent, and deceitful bastards who cause more trouble than they are worth. That said, they do rule a nation-state and every nation-state has the right to defend itself as, and with whatever weapons, it deems fit. For this reason — and not simply because they are untrustworthy (who is more untrustworthy than Obama?) — Western leaders with even a moderately good education and a minimum of commonsense should have known that Iran will seek a nuclear weapon as long as they face existential threats to their nation’s survival. To think even for a moment that they will negotiate away a chance to get that weapon while the lethal treats they face remain constant is a thought process worthy only of a dope-soaked, Harvard sophomore wandering about San Francisco in the late 1960s and expecting to attain perpetual peace by flashing the piece sign and tearing-up a draft card.

In 1775, the great conservative Edmund Burke told the British Parliament, the ruling ministry, and King George III that the American colonists who opposed Britain’s unrelenting intervention in their commercial, economic, judicial, and political affairs could not be talked out of their discontent. “No body of men,” Burke said in his speech, “will be argued into slavery.” History shows that Burke’s conclusion was valid about the Americans, and history also will show that the Iranians — bastards though they are — will not be argued into the slavery that would be shackled onto their nation by any treaty that effectively prevented them from becoming a nuclear power while the existential Israeli and Sunni threats continue to exist.

For those reasons, Obama, Cameron and their other well-educated sidekicks went wide-eyed into a set of negotiations armed with the absurd belief that any and every problem can be solved by compromise, and there they encountered across the table Iranian negotiators who only knew how to play a zero-sum game, and were experts at it. Obama, Cameron, and their diplomats are far outclassed in this contest and will lose, even if a treaty is signed. Iran is sure to become a nuclear power.

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

Starring in a lethal remake of “Duck Soup” — Europe’s leaders and Barack Obama

One of the more reality-free themes to come out of the story of the Islamic State’s growing strength and purposeful expansion in Libya and North Africa generally has been the frantic claims by European statesmen — especially those from Italy — that IS intends to use North Africa as a “gateway” to invade Europe. These hysterical fears have even moved the Italians to offer to lead a NATO intervention into Libya to defeat the Islamists. This is the same Italy, remember, that skedaddled from Iraq after a few of its soldiers were killed there by the Islamist fighters. One can only surmise that a Rome-led NATO invasion of Libya would go just fine so long as the invading force suffered no casualties.

The truth in this affair is that Italy and most of the other European countries long ago surrendered their internal security to a two-man Islamist force. The names of those two Islamist Goliaths are Abu Khalid bin Diversity and Abu Mukhtar al-Multiculturalism, those great shredders of the West’s social cohesion and internal security. The Europeans’ enraptured if lunatic love affair with the two Abu boys has opened the European continent to an enormous number of Muslim immigrants from across the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world. Some came to Europe as economic migrants truly searching for a better life, but many others came to escape the oppression and violence that Arab police states — Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc. — routinely direct against their populations. In particular, many of those who came to Europe and were mindlessly granted resident or asylum status were men who had joined and/or fought in Islamist groups opposed to the tyrannical Arab governments which are – or were — among the most beloved allies of Europe and the United States. Addled by the theories of diversity and multicultural, Europe, in essence, welcomed as easily assimilated and soon-to-be loyal citizens those who had been persecuted by tyrants that Europe had long supported and armed. This approach to immigration, for those few Americans and Europeans still having a trace of commonsense, seems to present a prima facie case for a diagnosis of severe mental pathology.

By welcoming large numbers of Muslim men and their families who had been oppressed by Europe-supported Arab tyrants, European governments long ago established the beachhead and gateways for the entry into Europe of the Islamist movement’s vanguard, al-Qaeda, and now for the Islamic State (IS), which increasingly appears to be the jihad’s main force. Indeed, both al-Qaeda and IS command a force-in-being in Europe thanks to its governments unrelenting and suicidal allegiance to the policies of the two Abus. These forces are now quickly growing in numbers and military skill as many thousands of Europeans — born-Muslims and converts to Islam — travel overseas for military training and combat experience, and then return home patient and prepped for further combat. Europeans leaders need not worry that IS and al-Qaeda are setting up gateways to and beachheads in Europe because they themselves have been building them  for decades. What they need to worry about is when they will be activated to produce insurgent warfare in Europe, as well as how their populations will react to that violence and to the governments that willingly and knowingly facilitated it.

With the policies of the Abus holding sway in Europe — or, rather, enslaving the European mind — one more piece needed to fall into place to ensure the Islamists could carry their jihad easily into Europe. In a move that makes one to think that Allah may well be on the side of the mujahedin, the Marx Brothers of contemporary international affairs — Barack Obama, David Cameron, and Nicholas Sarkozy – militarily intervened in Libya and eliminated Gadhafi and his regime. (NB: No offense is intended to the endlessly creative Marx Brothers. Their just-noted and highly educated successors may produce more antics and mayhem, but they are attended only with stupidity, tragedy, and death, never intelligence, mirth, and joy.) The three leaders thereby destroyed one of the West’s more important Arab counter-terrorism assets and gave — as time will surely show — all of North Africa and the Sahel states to the Islamists, as well as a Mediterranean coastline stretching from Egypt to Morocco from which to smuggle fighters and weapons into Europe at a thousand different points and at times of their own choosing.

For the Islamist movement, all’s well that ends well — and in the Islamist’s North African theater things could have not gone much better. And when the mujahedin entrench themselves and dominate North Africa and the Sahel and then begin an insurgency in Europe, the new Marx Brothers — with Hollande replacing Sarkozy — will tell the soldiers they send to fight them that they are fighting and dying for such unobtainable abstractions as freedom, liberty, democracy, and women’s and human rights for Muslims. That is, of course, precisely what the U.S. and NATO militaries were told when they were sent to fight and die in the Afghan and Iraq wars that their nation’s leaders never had any intention of winning.

How much more honest and precise it would be if today’s Marx Brothers used the estimable Groucho’s words and told each man and woman in their militaries sent to fight the Islamists that “You’re a brave man (or woman). Go and break through the lines. And remember, while you’re out there risking your life and limb through shot and shell, we’ll be in be in here thinking what a sucker you are.”

As Groucho surely knew, and we in the West must begin to recall, there is never a justification for war based on the Western elite’s self-satisfying fervor to obtain abstract goals for foreigners. Foreign policy and war must only be about protecting life-and-death national interests. Going to war to install abroad such abstractions as democracy and human rights clearly reveals U.S. presidents and European prime ministers as the murderers of each soldier sent to fight the Islamists, men and women who are, again in Groucho’s words, risking “life and limb through shot and shell.”

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