To Barack Obama: Americans obey laws, never the whims of men

Having been taught by my parents and my faith never to pray for anything bad, or for anything bad to happen to another person, I have for more than 60 years obeyed that lesson. But I do admit that for the past few years I have stopped each morning before leaving for work to check GOOGLE News with a feeling of what President Obama once called “hope,” a hope that something seemingly beyond reach but very beneficial for America might have happened overnight. Alas, over the course of those years GOOGLE News has never reported what would be most wonderful news for America, that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Valerie Jarrett, Hillary Clinton, and Eric Holder were no longer available to continue their intentional destruction of the United States. I sometimes think that a regular prayer from me toward that end might have helped produce that most glorious issue, but lessons learned young die hard and that one is till strong in me.

So, if happenstance and great good luck are not going to deliver America from the clutches of the above-mentioned six-headed plague, Americans –like their ancestors — will have to do it themselves, by the ballot box if possible but, in the last resort, by whatever means suffice. A first action really ought to be for every family in America not resident on one of the Democrat’s plantations for the mindless, lazy, theoretical, illegal, and Ivy-League educated to purchase weapons and ammunition with which to defend themselves, their families, and their property against the coming felonious wave of unwanted, unneeded, and crime-inclined migrants that Obama and his plague-on-America gang are motivating to cross the southern border. The media is reporting that more than 100,000 American citizens have been killed by the Democrats’ pet illegals, and the more of that kind of human scum that enters the country, the more Americans will be killed. So get yourselves armed and pray that you do not have to shoot at both the illegals attacking you and the body-armored gunmen that the national government probably will send to protect the illegals who are intent on doing you harm.

The next step is in the lap of the governors. I have never understood why there are no state militias under the governors’ sole control — unless called into national service to defend against a foreign enemy — as mandated by the Bill of Right’s 2nd Amendment. I look and look and look but cannot find the amendment that negated that part of the 2nd Amendment, and that is because there is none. Over the years, the executive and legislative branches of the national government have cooperated to simply legislate away that constitutional right from the American people and their state governments in order to monopolize the tools of force and use them to enforce laws — and even executive orders — that Americans oppose and which hurt their home states. I have heard several legal experts “explain” what they called the “perfectly constitutional and legal process” by which the state militias and part of the 2nd Amendment were annihilated. Some pretty fancy talk for sure, but it was just deceitful, Obama-like lawyer prattle.

The U.S. Constitution cannot be altered except by the successful completion of the prescribed process for amending the original document. This was not done, and so all the legislation passed in the past century to destroy state militias is simply illegal, it provides no legal basis for preventing the governors from reestablishing the state militias; indeed, the unamended 2nd Amendment makes it their duty to do so. Unconstitutional legislation, no matter how voluminous and bipartisan, cannot negate a constitutional right.

The governors of at least the southern tier of U.S. states ought to soon meet and initiate efforts to recreate, train, and arm state militias that will be under their control. The governors can then use that force to protect their citizens from the felonious influx Obama is fueling, as well as to protect the viability of their states’ economies, health services, educational systems, and local law-enforcement capabilities. This is serious business, however, and those state militias might at some point have to face and fight the above-mentioned gunmen sent by the national government to protect the illegals and see to it that they are permitted to make a wreck out of any state they choose to focus on.

As always, force must ever be a citizen’s last resort when dealing with the national government, but Obama’s brazen disregard for both the Constitution and the welfare of working, and especially rural Americans; his quite obvious goal of making the United States into a Third World country; and his eagerness to wage war when the mood strikes him, makes a willingness on his part to ruthlessly oppress American citizens in favor of his illegals is something to be expected. I suppose the best Americans can do is reflect on and perhaps mimic the actions of an American militia captain named John Parker, a man who found himself at the head of his unit on Lexington green more than two hundred years ago. Standing face-to-face against the forces of a central government that was oppressing Americans and trying to disarm them, that captain forbid his men from firing first, but he added that “if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

All told, Americans are today seeing what no Americans before them have seen — a president-turned-tyrant acting unconstituitionally to impose his ideology and will on the citizenry, thereby illegally punishing them economically and socially, undermining the effectiveness of their state and local law-and-order regimes, making their elections irrelevant, weakening the bonds of the Union, and alienating whatever sentiments of affection Americans may still retain for their national government. We shall see in the next few years whether President Obama’s diktat on immigration turns out to be a last straw in what Mr. Jefferson once described as “a long train of abuses and usurpations” that required Americans to take up arms and “throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” We should all pray that such is not the case, but if it so turns out, it will be Mr. Obama who, quite knowingly and deliberately, broke the camel’s back and thereby started a fire that will grow hot and bloody enough to consume the plague that he and his colleagues injected into the nation.

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

How long can Americans tolerate Obama’s administration?

What had been a steady but relatively quiet  process of the Executive Branch usurping powers belonging to the American people or their representatives, has in recent months become a noisy, arrogant, and voracious theft. War-making, immigration, healthcare, privacy invasions, property seizures, and industry-wrecking and other environmental matters have, it seems, become the sole prerogative of President Obama and the unconstitutional power he is blithely wielding.

Obama, with Eric Holder’s helpful shredding of the Constitution, also has assumed to himself the power to conduct his long-intended war on white and Asian Americans, who work, raise families, keep their kids in school, and mind their own business, in order to make sure that they are subordinated and outvoted, but can still be taxed at higher rates to fund to his Black constituency; the current insipid, give-us-something-for-free generation of university students and recent graduates; and the millions of illegal Hispanics who are here, have no skills, and so bring no value to America, as well as the millions more that Obama, the Democratic Party, the academy, and the media intend to motivate to illegally enter the United States in hope of having His Majesty Obama smile on them and give them citizenship and lots of free stuff in return for living forever on another Democrat plantation.

The net result of Obama’s studied and incremental rise to the status of tyrant is that ordinary, hardworking Americans now have genuine, honorable, and actionable motivations to reclaim many of the powers that their ancestors delegated to the national government in the settlement of 1787. Indeed, they have more substantive and obvious reasons to reclaim their powers and liberty than did men who acted against British tyranny in 1775, and certainly much more substantive reasons to consider secession than did the Southern secessionists in 1861.

What is the remedy to Obama’s tyranny? Well, as my pro-Israel and other assorted admirers never tire of saying, Scheuer is a bear of little brain — “After all, he went to university in Canada, you know?!” So let me step aside and provide a few pertinent comments by men we can all agree are far smarter than this aging and, by most accounts, halfwit former-intelligence officer. The following words come from America’s Founders and those whose writings markedly influenced them, and their upshot for Americans was well said by Julius Caesar in his admonition that “heaven helps those who help themselves.”

–CICERO: “For it is not by some accident — no, it is because our own moral failings — that we are left with the name of the Republic, having long since lost its substance.”

–CICERO: “Most foolish of all is the belief that everything decreed by the institutions or laws of a particular country is just.”

–SENECA: “There can be slaine/No sacrifice to God more acceptable/Than an unjust and wicked king.”

–SALLUST: “All human beings who want to be superior to other animals ought to struggle with every resource not to be like cattle passing through life silently.”

–TACITUS: “All that is achieved by submissiveness is that heavier burdens are imposed, as if we found them easier to bear.”

–THUCYDIDES: “I do not blame those who wish to rule, but those who are too ready to serve. It is just as much in men’s nature to rule those who submit to them, as it is to resist those who molest them.”

–DAVID HUME: “The right of self-preservation is unalienable in every individual, much more in every community.”

–REV. RICHARD HOOKER: “Laws therefore are not, which public consent hath not made so….”

–JOHN MILTON: “… turning to tyranny, they [the tryants] may be as lawfully despos’d and punish’d, as they were at first elected.”

–JOHN MILTON: “… justice done upon a tyrant is no more but the necessary self-defense of the whole Commonwealth.”

–ALGERNON SYDNEY: “The perpetual jarrings we hear everyday; the division of the nation into such factions as threaten us with ruin, and all the disorders we see or fear, are the affects of this rupture. These things are not to be imputed to our original constitutions, but to those who have subverted them.”

–ALGERNON SYDNEY: “They [the people] know how to preserve their liberty, or to vindicate the violation of it; and the more patient they have been, the more inflexible they are when they resolve to be so no longer. Those who are so foolish to put them upon such courses, do to their cost find that there is a difference between lions and asses; and he is a fool who knows not that swords were given to men, that none might be slaves, but such as know not how to use them”

–JAMES HARRINGTON: “… the liberty of the commonwealth consists in the empire of the laws, the absence whereof would betray her to the lusts of tyrants.”

–REV. JONATHAN MAYHEW: “For the essence of slavery consists in being subjected to the arbitrary pleasures of others, whether many, few, or one, it matters not.”

–JOSIAH QUINCY: ‘[T]he supreme power is ever possessed by those who have arms in their hands and are disciplined in the use of them…”

–JAMES MADISON: “If there be a principle that ought not to be questioned within the United States, it is, that every nation has a right to abolish an old government and establish a new one.”

–JAMES IREDELL: “The only real security in any country is the jealousy and circumspection of the people themselves. Let them be watchful over their rulers. Should they find a combination against their liberties, and all other methods appear insufficient to preserve them, they have, thank God, an ultimate remedy. The power which created the government can destroy it.”

–ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE: “Like all serious and reflective peoples, Americans have a vindictive temperment. They almost never forget an offense; but it is not easy to offend them, and their resentment is as slow to ignited, as to be extinguished.”

In compiling the foregoing I was struck that it is dominated by Romans, Englishmen, and east-coast Americans, and that I ought to include at least one appropriate viewpoint from Americans resident west of the Mississippi River. Happily, I found a statement that seems to pretty much summarize the foregoing in the American idiom. So here goes:

–TOBY KEITH AND WILLIE NELSON:

Grandpappy told my pappy
Back in my day, son
A man had to answer
For the wicked thing he done
Take all the rope in Texas
Find a tall oak tree
Round up all of them bad boys
And hang ‘em high in the street
For all the people to see

All the foregoing give food for thought, at least to this bear of little brain. Perhaps a bottom line is in order here and I can think of no better one than the following thought from Algernon Sydney. When considering how to remove a tyrannical government, Sydney wrote, “Civil war in Machiavelli’s account is a disease, but tyranny is the death of the state. Gentle ways are first to be used, and ’tis best if the work can be done by them; but it must not be left undone if it they fail.”

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

Obama leads his coalition of Arab tyrants into another losing, Islamist-boosting war

“The real defeatist in America is the man who says this nation cannot survive alone.” Col. Charles A. Lindbergh, 1 July 1941

“There is nothing worse than a belligerent professor.” Walter Lippman

The Founders created a republic that could survive if it was run by honest men of moderate intelligence and common sense, but not one that could survive if run by men and women who are well-educated but also ideologues and pathological liars. Hence, America today is on the verge of being done like dinner.

Since Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in August, 1996, the people of the United States have elected presidents, senators, and congressmen who are neither honest not apparently very intelligent. This kind of electoral result is the chance that voters take in every republican political system, and it is a painful result that, in normal times, can be endured until a more savvy and less dishonest American emerges to win the reins of power and talk frankly and factually to the citizenry.

These are not normal times, however, and the kind of leadership we have had continuously since 1996 is leading the nation into a world war with Islam that will be among the bloodiest ever fought by this country. This war will kill and maim so many American soldiers and Marines that those already killed in Afghanistan and Iraq will form no more than a corporal’s guard for the coming dead.

And why are we getting involved into this war?

–Because two U.S. journalists and one British journalist were beheaded by IS fighters? This a national security threat to neither the U.S. nor the UK.

–Because Christians, Yazidis, and other minorities are being persecuted by IS forces? This is not a national security threat to the United States?

–Because Iraqi, Syrian, and other Sunnis are warring against Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian Shia and Alawites? This is a clear plus for U.S. national security and should be encouraged.

–Because IS forces will eventually threaten and destabilize our “allies” — most large oil producers — in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE? This is only a threat because Obama’s administration has not sprinted the final small distance to U.S. energy self sufficiency.  And, by the way, most of our Arab allies and/or their wealthy citizens are sending arms, funds, and recruits to IS, as well as paying for the intolerant religious education of youngsters — who will become future jihadis — in the United States and its English-speaking allies.

–Because IS is inspiring/funding/ordering local Islamists to attack in the United States, Canada, Britain, and Australia? This is a threat to those countries only because the insane leadership class  in each believes in the fatuous and debilitating myths of multiculturalism and diversity, has made it easy for foreigners who cannot or will not assimilate to enter those countries, and has refused to fully secure national borders.

–Because the fast-growing forces of militant Sunni Islam are threatening Israel? This is true, but it is not a national security threat to the United States. It is a threat only to the politicians in both U.S. parties who are on the take from AIPAC and other pro-Israel organizations.

And why should we have refused to re-intervene in Iraq?

–Because IS is cutting the heads off Westerners to lure America into re-intervening. Why? Because U.S. military intervention in any Muslim country means more donations, recruits, and popular support for IS, al-Qaeda, and other like-minded organizations. U.S. intervention in the Iraq-Syria theater will, over time, make everything it is designed to stop much worse.

–Because we will lose again, and so further add to the Muslim world’s perception that the United States is finished as a superpower, is unwilling to destroy its enemies; and can, with continued patience and sacrifice, be defeated. In addition, the U.S., UK, Canadian, and Australian militaries have proven themselves — in Iraq and Afghanistan — almost completely incompetent when it comes to defeating Islamist insurgents. Until they relearn the art of killing massive numbers of their enemies and their supporters those militaries should stay home and defend borders.

–Because the recklessly lawless Barack Obama has again violated the Constitution by attacking in Syria without congressional approval. He also has created a coalition of Arab tyrannies that will appear to Sunni Muslims as a clear U.S. effort to insure the stability of the Sunni tyrants who oppress them, as well as to protect the hated Shia and Alawite dictators who rule Syria, Iraq, and Iran.

–Because we are BROKE as a nation; re-intervention will be prolonged and extraordinarily expensive; and the goal of IS and all Islamist groups vis. the United States is to complete its economic ruin.

–Because Obama and the national government will further shred the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the name of “protecting Americans” from the Islamist enemies Washington is constantly motivating — through military intervention — to kill them and their soldier-children.

–Because we live in North America and our enemy has neither the naval nor air power to reach us. We also have the capability to incinerate them and their supporters if they find a way to hurt us badly at home. The Islamist enemy’s threat at the moment stems largely from the refusal of America’s bipartisan elite to control the nation’s borders and its willingness to tolerate the entry of enormous numbers of illegal aliens about whose location and intentions we are ignorant. (NB: If another major attack occurs in the United States, it should provoke not only the eradication of the enemy and its supporters, but also something akin to drum-head courts-martial for politicians who have served in the national government since 9/11 and opposed border control. The trials should be conducted with a substantial number of gallows and, as Willie Nelson would say, “all the rope in Texas” standing by and ready to promptly execute the sentences imposed.)

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

Obama-vs-Islamic State: Here comes more debt, more death, and another lost war

“Will you never look at the facts rather than at those who put them to you?” Titus Livy

“You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm as against these terrible hardships of war. War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it; the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.” General William T. Sherman

The sheer incompetence and ignorance of so much of the American media is appalling, and Livy’s damning question, noted above, ought to be asked by all Americans of their country’s journalists.

We have heard endlessly from U.S. officials, generals, and politicians from  both parties that “there is no military solution” to the war the Islamists are waging on the United States. This is, of course, the purest nonsense. There is always a military solution if someone, some group, or some nation-state attacks you. The question should never be, “Is there a military solution to this problem,” it should always to be, “Is this problem a legitimate threat to genuine U.S. national interests that requires war?” (NB: The IS beheading of two journalists, or fifty for that matter, poses no threat to genuine U.S. national interests.) If the answer to the second question is yes, then military solutions are available, and not to use them is plainly a case of criminal negligence by the president, the congress, and the U.S. general officers corps. Why, then, have we almost never heard a journalists ask one of these charlatans why there is no military solution?

Last week Americans heard a refinement of the “there is no military solution to the Islamist problem” mantra from the admiral who is a public spokesman for the Pentagon. This wise fellow told a gathering of journalists something akin to, “We are fighting an ideology, and military power cannot defeat an ideology.” Again, at least as far as I have been able to tell, not a single one of the brilliant journalists present asked a question that challenged this admiral’s rank piece of stupidity. One must conclude that neither the admiral nor the journalists have ever heard of an ideology called National Socialism — Nazism for short — that was utterly defeated by the military power of the United States, the Soviet Union, and Britain. And, closer to home, did the just-mentioned gathering of geniuses ever hear of the American Civil War wherein fellows named Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan used unrelenting military force to annihilate the purveyors of an ideology whose pillars were secession and the right of people to own other human beings? Perhaps the admiral and all his auditors were educated at Ivy League schools. That would explain a lot.

On Wednesday, Americans are to hear President Obama’s 3-year strategy for dealing with the Islamic State (IS) (NB: Five will get you ten that IS will be” contained” in time for Obama to pretend we won before the 2016 election.) My guess is that we will hear some form of the phrase “there is no military solution to this problem,” and again it will be a lie. The Islamic State is right up the U.S. military’s ally. While our politician-palsied military is not worth a tinker’s damn in fighting the mujahedin on the ground, we have in IS an organization that holds a large array of physical assets that can be more or less permanently destroyed from the air. In Iraq and Syria, IS controls oil and gas fields and refineries; cotton and flour mills; power plants and dams producing electricity; and other industrial and agricultural facilities. All of these produce substantial profits for IS operations, and Obama, Kerry, McCain, Cameron and other NATO leaders have all portrayed the current wealth and significant money-making potential of IS as the chief reason we in the West need to be afraid of this particular brand of mujahedin. If this assertion is true, then the supposedly non-existent “military solution” is immediately — and quite obviously — at hand.

So listen to Obama when he speaks and if you do not hear that his strategy is the simple one of having U.S. air power — with or without our vaunted allies — annihilate the profit-making physical assets of IS, as well as whatever IS personnel and civilians who are in the way, you will know that Obama and the Republicans again do not intend to win the war they are getting us into, and that more debt will be accrued and more of our military men and women will be killed and maimed for nothing. It will also mean that Obama and our bipartisan political elite are not seeking to destroy IS, but rather to appear to be doing something about IS while ensuring they do not alienate America’s makers of prosthetic devices or raise the ire of the effete Europeans, the clueless U.S. media, and those so badly educated that they cannot grasp that war means killing the enemy until he is eradicated or gives up.

None of the foregoing should be construed as an endorsement of a U.S.-led war against the IS organization; as long as Washington keeps intervening in the Muslim world, U.S. borders are open, and we are aligned with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and any Shia-dominated Iraqi regime America will be virtually undefended no matter how many mujahedin we kill. And anything more or less than the campaign of annihilation-from-the-air against the targets noted above, means that Obama and both parties are sending the U.S. military not to defend genuine U.S. national interests, but to do the bidding of foreigners and to lose another war, an event that will further motivate Muslims to join and fund IS, al-Qaeda, and other militant groups.

Because under Obama and Bush the United States has been deliberately impotent in the military sense — only fools think America has used its full military power against the Islamists — our best defense at the moment is to do everything we can to encourage but not become involved in the emerging Sunni-Shia sectarian war in the Arab world, and especially that part of it occurring in Syria and Iraq. We must delight in seeing the two Muslim sects tear each other’s guts out, and pray that it long continues. This will give American voters a short window to search for and elect candidates who know that: (a) bipartisan U.S. interventionism and democracy crusading have gotten us into this mess in the Islamic world; (b) that genuine U.S. national interests are few in number, are material matters not abstractions like freedom and women’s rights, and are rarely threatened, so few U.S. wars are necessary; and (c) that when forced to fight, as General Sherman explained, America and mercy are best served by the overwhelming application of lethal force to eradicate the enemy and his supporters in the shortest possible time.

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

America First and survival or an endless losing war with Islam?

“Those Americans who refuse to plunge blindly into the maelstrom of European or Asiatic politics are not defeatist or neurotic. They are giving evidence of sanity, not cowardice, of adult thinking as distinguished from infantilism. They intend to preserve and defend the Republic. America is not to be Rome or Britain. It is to be America.” Gore Vidal, 2004

Last Wednesday afternoon (27 August 2014), Fox’s Neil Cavuto hosted a former senior U.S. government official on the subject of Iraq’s Islamic State organization. For my money, Mr. Cavuto has one of the most informative programs on Fox or any other network, but on this occasion the guest provided no light and only added to our national muddle by describing the Islamist fighters and their leaders as frustrated, angry, and under privileged youth who are in essence brain-washed by cynical Islamist leaders to join the jihad. Sound familiar? Well it ought to. U.S. politicians from both parties and most of the U.S. and Western media have been spewing this nonsense since the early 1990s. Mr. Cavuto’s guest than piped in with the usual mantra that the war against the Islamists cannot be won militarily but only by an ideological confrontation with them that will show young Muslim males how much more pure, noble, and well-meaning America is than are those he called “Islamo-Facists.”

I am not using Mr. Cavuto’s guest’s name because it is irrelevant. The guest could have been almost any American politician, pundit, general, admiral, or senior civil servant and the words would have been nearly identical, and surely identically wrong. This bipartisan U.S. political elite is simply too arrogant, authoritarian, and ill-educated in the discipline of history to craft and conduct a foreign policy that will protect U.S. national security. They leave Americans no choice but to search out and elect men and women who will champion U.S. neutrality and refuse to intervene in matters that are none of America’s concern. In that regard, let us hope Senator Paul gets his meandering policy views straightened out so that he can get squared away with the many millions of his dad’s supporters who are eager to support him.

To begin, we cannot win an “ideological confrontation” with the Islamists. We have already tried that — though Mr. Cavuto’s guest said we had not — and it was an utter failure. The Islamists simply will not buy what Washington’s hucksters present as an alternative to their beliefs and agenda. The Islamists are fighting a religious war against what they deem to be authoritarian regimes that both oppressively rule much of the Arab world — recall Iraq’s Maliki was an elected Shia tyrant and our foreign policy gurus now want to ally America with Syria’s Asaad and the tyrants of Jordan and the Gulf states — and prevent the unity and religious orthodoxy that the Islamists believes Allah demands. Think what you will of the Islamists and their brand of war-making , but they have been in the field fighting since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and their movement has never been larger, more popular, more geographically dispersed, or as well-armed as it is today — 35 years later. Our political elite needs to get a grip on this reality. These men are not fighting for money, fame, or upcoming mid-term elections. They are fighting for their faith and for freedom and self-determination as they define it. And they believe Allah is smiling on their efforts, having allowed them to humiliate and defeat superpowers in Iraq and twice Afghanistan.

And what points, pray tell, could we argue that would drive the Islamists away from these beliefs and perceptions? Should we tell them of the glories of secularism when it is legislatively imposed on a once believing and pious American nation? The glories of a democracy that is controlled from start to finish by money and foreign lobbies? The desirability of making women equal to men by giving them the “right” to kill other human beings? The inspiring reality of a lawless president and attorney general bent on destroying the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments? By offering to share with them the world’s biggest and wealthiest pornography industry? By showing them the uselessness of a government that has wasted all of its citizens resources and now wants to tax them even more? By urging them to abandon faith in God and begin to call their religious leaders “life coaches” as the U.S. military apparently intends to rename their chaplains? If this is what we are trying to sell men fighting for their faith, we are well and truly licked before we start.

So we need to trash the idea of an ideological confrontation that we can win. What to do? Begin by understanding that today’s worldwide Islamist movement would not have been born, or once born gelled, or once gelled steadily grown without unrelenting U.S. and Western intervention in the the Muslim world. Moscow started it by invading Afghanistan in 1979 and then Washington, Britain, France, Germany, and the UN picked up the dictatorial Soviet baton by installing a regime in Kabul that all but excluded the men who had fought for 15 years and finally defeated the Red Army and the Afghan communists. Having watched the mujahedin beat the Soviets, the Muslim world then saw the West intervene to deny the Afghans the fruits of the victory Allah had given them. That Western intervention, by the way, facilitated the rise and then the victory of the Taleban, the organization that is about to accept another Allah-provided victory over the hapless and averse-to-killing-our-enemies U.S. and NATO militaries.

Although Afghanistan is the poster boy for the disasters that always accompany U.S.-led interventions in the Muslim world that are conducted by American presidents who have no intention of winning the wars they start, the list of self-defeating U.S. interventions continues to grow and now also includes:

–The 2003 invasion of Iraq and its famous surge, which, respectively, allowed the flow of mujahedin from South Asia to the Levant and trained the military backbone of the Islamic State.

–The U.S.-backed Ethiopian military intervention in Somalia that destroyed the Islamic Courts regime and opened a path for the rise of al-Shabab and propelled the Islamization of East Africa.

–The U.S.-led Western rejection of the fairly elected Hamas government, ending for all Muslims any belief in the American and European democracy mongers who endlessly preach that the results of “free and fair” elections are final and must be respected by all.

–The U.S.-led Western support for the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt, which — along with Saddam’s overthrow — created a destabilized political environment in which Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities are now being casually slaughtered.

–U.S. support for the removal of a fairly elected Islamist government in Egypt via a military coup, followed by U.S. and Western silence as Egypt’s new military dictator stamps out what Obama and others call “universal Western values.”

–U.S. support for the mujahedin’s effort to oust Asaad’s regime in Syria, which yielded the forces that are now known as the Islamic State

–The Washington-led Western destruction of of Qadhafi’s Libya, which is now delivering oil-rich Libya to the Islamists, and whose looted arsenals and prisons — with those of Egypt and Tunisia — have supplied mujahedin around the world with enormous stocks of modern weaponry and a substantial augmentation of veteran combat leaders, bomb-makers, and money handlers.

–Flamboyant U.S. support for three Israeli wars in the Levant and the very public resupply of Israeli forces with U.S.-made ordnance to be used to kill Palestinians. (NB: The Israelis, of course, have every right to kill as many Palestinians fighters and civilians as they believe their national security requires, but what does America gain by publicly aligning itself with Israeli military actions that kill hundreds of Palestinian kids and are deemed by a billion-plus Muslims — including those young American Muslim men who now fight in the Islamic State’s ranks — as just as barbarous as Americans deem the beheading of Mr. Doyle? By the way, Mr. Doyle’s demise has worked exactly as the Islamic State intended. It wanted the U.S. government to re-intervene in Iraq on the side of those the Sunni world sees as heretical Shia. Using the decapitation of Mr. Doyle as a lure did the trick nicely, making Pavlov’s Obama-Kerry-McCain-Graham dog respond as desired.)

–U.S. support for the French invasion of Mali and Washington’s simultaneous establishment of drone bases in Niger, which provided Malian Islamists and other Islamists across northern and central Africa with a Western military intervention that they have used as their foil in promoting unity among diverse Islamist groupings as well as a spur to their recruitment and fund-raising operations.

There are other examples but the foregoing are enough to provide even aspiring-to-be-Fascist Neoconservatives with an understanding of why so many Muslims — militant, moderate, and nominal — perceive the United States and its allies as being determined to determine how (or if?) Muslims will live, organize their societies, conduct elections, interpret their religion, and supinely refuse to oppose the imposition by military force of what Obama, McCain, Cameron, Netanyahu, et al describe with straight faces as “Western values.” The examples likewise are sufficient to show that the above-named interventions have been costly failures that have left local, regional, and international Islamist forces stronger than when the interventions began.  Finally, a close and thoughtful look at the above list will strongly suggest that if Washington refrained from all of the interventions America’s national security would be far less threatened, and everyday life, economics, and social affairs inside the United States would have been unaffected no matter how the overseas problem worked itself out.

So what do Americans do? As in August, 1996, when Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States, we have only two choices:

–1.) To continue to maintain the status quo in our foreign polices in the Muslim world — meaning steadily intervening and backing tyranny there — and thereby motivate ever greater numbers of Muslims to join the war now being waged by Islamist forces against the United States, its European allies and Israel, and its favorite tyrants in the Islamic world. If these policies and interventions are essential to genuine U.S. national security interests, they, of course, must be maintained and perhaps strengthened and expanded. If national security requires the eternal maintenance of this status quo, it will also mean an endless, increasingly widespread, and unprecedentedly bloody war with Islam. It will also require a massively costly rearmament effort by the U.S. government and the immediate reintroduction of conscription. The Islamist enemy we witlessly motivate has long been too large, talented, and religiously dedicated to be defeated by killing or capturing one jihadi at a time with drones, Special Forces, rendition/interrogation, and thundering but toothless threats that the Islamists will face justice. We are far past facing terrorists. Rather, we are in the midst of fighting an international insurgency, and we are on the way to a world war that the United States will have to fight at home and abroad if the foreign-policy status quo is retained.

–2.)  Or, we can seek America’s survival;

–By closing our borders and strictly enforcing exiting immigration laws;

–By moving to the energy self-sufficiency that plainly is within our reach;

–By bidding the Saudis and the Israelis farewell, henceforth letting them find their own destiny, and further insulating America from their malignant influence by terminating the Saudis’ ability to direct the religious education of young Muslims in the United States and forcing AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbying groups to register as what they are, agents of a foreign power;

–By creating a military that can, after a formal Congressional declaration of war and without “coalition partners,” respond with the utmost barbarity — perhaps as Huns, as Kaiser Wilhelm II once recommended to his magnificent army — against the Islamists and their civilian supporters if they dare attack America or its genuine interests;

–By withdrawing from NATO and letting the arrogantly effeminate, U.S.-resource draining, and militarily feckless Europeans deal with the Russians over the war that the EU’s democracy crusading in Ukraine has yielded.

Such a neutral and non-interventionist policy would be historically appropriate for Americans, would strengthen our national security, and would give our genius political leaders time to do something useful, like solving a genuine national security problem by organizing the construction of a transportation system that can get the water to California that has long been desperately needed  for crop irrigation.

As Mr. Reagan use to say, America’s national government is often more the problem than the solution, and nowhere is this more true than in the foreign-policy realm where Washington and the leaders of both political parties are the most dangerous enemies of our country’s national security. In the Republic’s early years, John Adams warned that the revolutionary regime in France presented an unprecedented threat to the world. “I know of no government ancient or modern,” Adams wrote, “that ever betrayed so universal and decided a contempt of the people of all nations, as the present rulers of France. They have manifested a settled opinion that the people have neither sense or integrity in any country, and they have acted accordingly.”  My guess is that Mr. Adams never imagined that his words could be used today by simply replacing “the present rulers of France’s” with “the present rulers of America and their vassals in Western Europe.”

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