Foes abroad, foes at home — time for Americans to prepare for the fight

Since the Islamic State (IS) arose in Syria and then Iraq in 2011 it has killed few Americans. Most of those killed chose to be on or near the battlefield, either reporting the war or working in civilian activities. They were where they wanted to be, knew the chances they were taking, bet they would survive, and lost the bet. In other words, these Americans were killed because they wanted to be in a battle zone dominated by a brutal enemy, knew the danger attendant thereto, and paid the price of going to a war as a non-combatant. Too bad, but hardly surprising.

The wild, nearly hysterical political, media, and clerical responses to the deaths — especially the executions by decapitation — are mildly amusing and very, very ironic. “The savage IS barbarians cut the heads off of innocents!” tearful politicians and commentators screech, even though most of them would defend to the death the same method of execution if it was conducted under the term “abortion.” Perhaps IS legal experts should go to an Islamic court and argue for a ruling that mirrors Roe-vs-Wade. If successful, IS leaders would have a legal order defining Americans, Westerners, and non-Muslims generally as non-humans — as the U.S. Supreme Court did for the unborn in 1973. Even with such a judgment in hand, however, IS would have a hard time killing the nearly 60 million “non-humans” that to date have been murdered by American women, the ISIS-like members of the American Medical Association, and the always compassionate and life-affirming Democratic Party — as long as the life needing affirmation is not that of infant or a U.S. Marine, soldier, or diplomat serving overseas.

The point here is not only to cite the blatant, mindless, and, may I say, barbaric hypocrisy of those who wail and weep over the Americans who were murdered by IS only because they knowingly went to ply their trades in a war zone, but to point out that no U.S. political leader in either party has precisely described what direct threat IS poses to the United States here in North America. That there is one is certain. But that threat is authored by the U.S. government and its dereliction in controlling U.S. borders and immigration; its adherence to policies that are not only palpably worthless but socially and economically destructive, namely, diversity and multiculturalism; and its chronic addiction to intervention and losing wars in the Muslim world. The threat posed to America by IS and other Islamist groups is the result, to paraphrase George W. Bush, of “fighting and losing to them over there while allowing them to easily come here.” The mujahedin will cause much destruction and death inside the United States, and the U.S. military, with the help of local police, will have to do whatever is necessary to utterly annihilate them and their supporters. Many in both categories will be U.S. citizens.

So there is a threat to the United States from IS and other such groups, but that threat was only made possible by the prolonged indolence, ignorance, political correctness, and wishful thinking of U.S. government under both Republicans and Democrats. Currently, America is unprepared to handle the Islamist violence that is coming its way, but that lack of preparation can be rectified if voters can find and elect a man with common sense, without an Ivy League-education, and who is not a lawyer. As additional parts of the preparation, at least four other steps also are necessary:

–1.) Get out of Iraq and Syria with all possible speed. (N.B.: Ditto for Yemen and Nigeria). IS cannot be defeated without a massive ground force, and such a force can only come from the United States, Britain, Canada, and Australia, none of which has a force of sufficient size, ruthlessness, and effective leadership to do the job. The Arab tyrants we support are scared to death to put their infantry into the field because they know that high desertion rates to IS would result. All of the Arab tyrants’ militaries have been thoroughly infiltrated and propagandized by the Islamists; many of their soldiers identify U.S. interventionism as an attack on Islam and only lack an opportunity to join the mujahedin and fight it; and putting them on the battlefield to kill fellow Sunnis in the interests of the United States, Europe, and Shia Iran would open the floodgates for desertion. A multinational Arab field army on the ground in the Syria-Iraq theater ultimately would be a plentiful source of arms, reinforcements, and intelligence for the Islamic State and other Islamist groups, and any U.S. forces on the ground there would become the deserters’ targets. The beginning of wisdom for America is to get out and let the Sunni-vs-Shia war continue to develop and engulf the region.

–2.) Disengage from the Europeans and let them handle their own Islamist problems. They are now going to have to pay for their own border-and-immigration negligence, their deep, anti-Muslim racism, and their elite’s moronic adherence to the theories of diversity and multiculturalism, even after it has become clear that the policies’ chief products have been the unraveling of Europe’s social cohesion and the specter of seeing their diversity-loving Muslim citizens kill their own countrymen. Let the Europeans also handle Russia. It was their EU’s mindless democracy-mongering that ensured the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, provoked Putin to retake the Crimea, and yielded an on-again, off-again civil war. Putin is no threat to the United States unless Washington allows America to be dragged into a European-caused war with Russia. The European governments, America’s Neoconservatives, and the media on both sides of the Atlantic would push for the United States to lead a military coalition of the so-called “Free World” against Russia, but Americans would do all the spending, fighting, and dying because European governments have systematically gutted their militaries since the Cold War’s end, believing the United States would always rescue them. America helped to save Europe’s bacon twice in the dirty 20th century. Leave them fend for themselves the third time out in what Obama and his European colleagues like to describe as the enlightened 21st century.

–3.) Close the southern border of the United States using the U.S. military.

–4.) Once regular and probably widely dispersed Islamist attacks begin in the United States, the U.S. military, National Guard, and local and state police forces will be unable to be in all the places they are needed to engage and defeat the mujahedin. Had the national government not unconstitutionally deprived the states of their militias, those units would have been a most useful complement to the forces just mentioned. Without them, it will up to the citizenry to defend themselves and their homes, families, communities, and businesses until the cavalry arrives. Fortunately, some parts of the country already have local voluntary militias that are well-armed and determined, if they are needed, to fight terrorists, foreign enemies, and/or lawless domestic foes that ignore the U.S. Constitution. But many more are needed, and Americans must arm themselves as fully as possible, especially with automatic weapons, and especially now that President Obama is banning ammunition for some of those weapons, and so deliberately decreasing the ability of citizens to defend themselves and their property. Obama also is unconstitutionally filling the country with millions of unwanted and unneeded illegal aliens — some of whom are, or soon will be felons — and, in doing so, adds to the Islamists another U.S. government-generated enemy that American citizens will have to defend themselves against.

Pertinent to this issue, the revolutionary patriot Josiah Quincy once said that “supreme power is ever possessed by those who have arms in their hands and are disciplined in the use of them.” It is time for Americans to take those words and the words of the 2nd Amendment to heart and get cracking in terms of arming, organizing, and training. They must also seek the expert assistance for that effort that can come from America’s many retired and U.S. government-abused military veterans.

Time is growing short.

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

When assessing President Obama, love cannot be measured but treason surely can

Mayor Giuliani and all Neoconservatives too often confuse the sound of their own voices with the voice of God and therefore expect the great unwashed American citizenry to believe what they have said and do what they have ordered without a second-thought. When Giuliani said that President Obama does not love America, he may have expected the citizenry to collectively stand up and agree. Well, much of it has not done so, and probably will not unless Giuliani can tie an unmeasurable — “love” — to some recognizable metric. Needless to say, he will not be able to do so. One could, I suppose, turn the table on Mayor Giuliani and his Neoconservative brethren and argue that they do not “love” the United States and are disloyal to it because they are always eager to expend American lives, honor, and treasure to support Israel, a nation which is irrelevant to U.S. national security. American patriots, after all, generally do not knowingly waste American money and lives to serve foreign interests that are counterproductive for U.S. national security.

Anyway, George Washington and his founding colleagues believed that the only way to judge a man’s character, loyalties, and intentions is to observe and evaluate his words and actions, as well as the company he keeps. If Mayor Giuliani had kept the Founders’ admonition in mind, he would have been able to make a telling and easily provable point. He first would have referred to the following passage in the U.S. Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Setting aside the sentence’s non-pertinent first clause, Giuliani could have focused on the clause that explains that treason can be identified and punished in individuals or groups found to be “adhering to their [America's] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” The specifics that support this charge against President Obama are abundant and have been witnessed by tens of millions of Americans.

It was this tack that I took in June 2014 when writing the essay I have included below. Since that essay’s publication, President Obama has continued to adhere to enemies of the United States, and has undeniably given them “Aid and Comfort.”

–He has released at least nine additional Islamist fighters from Guantanamo Bay and sent them to governments that have a substantial and urgent national security interest in getting those fighters out of their territory as quickly as possible, even if that means allowing them back on the battlefield to kill Americans and others.

–He has continued to deliberately lie to Americans by denying that the Islamists are waging a genuine religious war against the United States. By saying publicly that the mujahedin have nothing to with Islam Obama attains a lose-lose result; he reassures the enemy that the leader of the world’s greatest military power does not have a clue about the foe his is up against, and he offends the tens of millions of Muslims who believe that the mujahedin have everything to do with protecting Islam. By angering those Muslims the president certainly hardens their support for the Islamists. The only winners from the president’s seemingly pathological deceitfulness are several of the Democratic Party’s fundamentally anti-American interest groups: the Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States; the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the faculties of Ivy League and other universities that are inexplicably described as elite.

–He and his White House staff have leaked plans for a U.S. military orchestrated and supported Iraqi-Kurdish spring offensive against the Islamic State-held city of Mosul, thereby giving the Islamists several months to prepare to defend the city and pin a humiliating defeat on the to-date feckless Iraqi and Kurd military forces. Indeed, the forewarned Islamic State took its first defensive measure today by seizing nearly 100 Assyrian Christians in Syria. Odds are that if Obama launches his offensive against Mosul, the lives — and perhaps the heads — of those Christians will be forfeit.

–He today vetoed the Keystone Pipeline Bill which will — as part of his larger campaign to prevent U.S. energy self-sufficiency — keep America closely involved with and protective of the Arab tyrants who rule the oil-rich, Arab Peninsula police states. This will promote additional support, volunteers, and donations for the mujahedin which they will use to wage their religious war against America and those tyrants. (NB: The veto also keeps 40,000-plus unemployed or underemployed Americans from getting the kind of solid, middle-class jobs that Obama deceitfully claims he wants for all citizens.  Of course this result does not equate to treason, only to a wicked and savage heartlessness.)

What Obama “loves” — beyond himself — is ultimately an unknowable. What is known and provable is that with his actions President Obama has knowingly aided America’s most lethal enemies, and with his words he has comforted that enemy by deliberately misleading Americans about their foe’s religiosity, motivation, and size, as well as about the treat it poses. Perhaps a politician — or better yet a prosecutor — more serious and able than Mayor Giuliani ought to give it another shot?

——————————————————————————————————

For causing America’s Afghan defeat … indict President Obama

www.non-intervention.com, 11 June 2014

In looking at the trade President Obama made of five senior Taleban political, intelligence, and military officials for the return of a U.S. Army deserter, Sgt. Bergdahl, one is struck most forcefully, I think, by Obama and his lieutenants’ uncaring attitude toward U.S. national security.

The five returned Taleban leaders will significantly assist Mullah Omar’s organization in destroying the Afghan government the U.S. and NATO installed in Afghanistan. That destruction may take a while — all events in Afghanistan take much longer than anticipated — but it will occur, and Afghanistan will become not what it was on 10 September 2001, but something much worse, a state governed by a government that is deeply Islamic, one which is supported by Pakistan and all of America’s allies in the Gulf, and, most important, one that will believe Allah has given it complete victory over the world’s only superpower. From the backwoods, unsophisticated, and almost medieval regime it was in 2001, the Taleban organization that will return to power in Afghanistan will be living, visible proof for all Muslims that Osama bin Laden was correct: The Americans are cowardly paper tigers; that they are so effete that they could not tolerate the loss of less than 200 lives a year; and that the trust of the mujahedin in Allah and their own efforts on His behalf were more than enough to defeat the greatest power in history.

And when the Taleban regime returns to power, it will make Afghanistan a much bigger base than it ever was before in which Islamist fighters from the world over can train, get to know each other, and plan attacks against the United States, its allies, Israel, and the Arab tyrannies. The Taleban and the Islamists they host will be sure that U.S. ground forces will never return, and they will know that the forces Washington may use against them — drones, Special Forces, and CIA covert operations — have already shown themselves utterly unable to stall the growth, spread, and effectiveness of Islamist forces, let alone win a war. The deadly pin-pricks Washington may apply against the new Taleban regime and their Islamist guests will certainly will be a lethal nuisance to them, but they will not slow the growing power and numbers of the mujahedin, and they will remind all Muslims that the world’s greatest power is not manly enough to defend itself in any meaningful way.

The foregoing scenario is not, of course, inevitable, nothing in human affairs is inevitable. Still, it is more than likely to occur, and if it does it will be a long-term national security disaster for the United States. At the moment there seems to be nothing we can do militarily to prevent this event, so the next best option is for Americans to accept that we have suffered a humiliating and comprehensive political-military defeat in Afghanistan and to bring to account those responsible for it, starting — and perhaps ending — with Barack Obama.

How to do this? Well, first, impeachment is out of the question. The Congress is completely unable and unwilling to do anything to protect the American people from what has become the everyday-lawlessness of Obama and Eric Holder. An impeachment proceeding would immediately be identified by the Democrats and their slaves in the mainstream media as an effort by the nasty, racist Republicans to unseat the noble Black man who aspires to help all citizens by becoming America’s first, post-1776 monarch. Impeachment also is the road to perdition because it would give the Democrats’ various colonies of automatons — Ivy Leaguers, Blacks (even though Obama has been their economic scourge), school teachers, illegal immigrants, abortionists, environmentalists, gays, movie stars, most journalists, animal righters, socialists, the voting-rights-for-felons crowd, etc. — a cause to rally around in defense of their liege lord. Indeed, even a successful impeachment would be a defeat for America because the Democrats would not hesitate a second before bringing America to the brink of a race or civil war.

So forget impeachment and, in an odd way, even be grateful that Obama was twice elected to the presidency. His two terms have proven to all Americans that a Black president can be just as big a liar, just as big a child in foreign policy, just as big an incompetent, just as big a pawn of Wall Street, and just as big a demagogue as any White president.

How, then, to proceed against Obama? One way would be for would-be prosecutors to look at Article III, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution. That short section reads: “Treason against the United States, shall consist in only levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

It would, I think, be quite hard, though not impossible, to prove that Obama waged war against the United States. To wage war against America, Obama would have to have some semblance of manliness — he has none — and he would need one of those guns he hates. Indeed, any fair-minded jury looking at a man like Obama could only conclude that he was fit to wage war only against those who cannot defend themselves, like unborn Americans and U.S. soldiers, Marines, and intelligence officers sworn to defend the Constitution.

But treason, as the U.S. Constitution states, can also consist of a citizen of the United States “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” This is the clause that could allow a patriotic prosecutor to help Americans and their wounded country by bringing Obama to book. Consider the following of Obama’s actions — and they are his and his alone — which irrefutably have given aid and comfort to America’s Islamist enemies, and each of which has the constitutionally requisite “two Witnesses to the same overt Act.”

–1.) Ending the CIA’s rendition program and enhanced interrogations with nothing to replace them, thereby partially blinding the U.S. Intelligence Community and allowing the mujahedin to operate more securely and with more aggressiveness.

–2.) Initiating the unconstitutional war that destroyed Qadhafi’s Libyan regime, an important ally in the war against al-Qaeda, and which facilitated the growth of Islamist militancy across the North African region and into Sub-Saharan Africa.

–3.) Authorizing rules-of-engagement for our soldiers and Marines that made them more targets than killers, costing many unnecessary American deaths and leaving countless mujahedin alive to attack us another day.

–4.) Almost completely ending drone strikes since mid-December, 2013, allowing the Taleban, al-Qaeda and their allies time to safely regroup, refit, and meet to plan next steps.

–5.) Giving the Taleban and its allies, in 2010, a promise that most U.S.-NATO forces would be withdrawn without victory by the end of 2014, thereby declaring America’s acceptance of defeat by its Islamist enemies.

–6.) Giving the Taleban and its allies, in 2014. a guarantee that there would be only 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and only 1,000 by the end of 2016, thereby reconfirming his 2010 pledge to Mullah Omar that he would facilitate America’s defeat.

–7.) Returning to the Taleban five senior leaders who will substantively contribute to the Taleban’s destruction of all America and NATO has endeavored to accomplish in Afghanistan since 2001.

Each of the foregoing actions clearly presented a gift of “aid and comfort” to our Islamist enemies. There can be no quibbling on that score. There also can be no credible argument that Obama took the actions with good intentions and never thought that they would produce such intensely damaging “unanticipated consequences” for the United States. The negative impact of each of the foregoing actions on U.S. national security was completely predictable before it was taken, and Obama certainly was warned of that fact by U.S. intelligence officers. Should Obama, under oath, argue that the consequences of the actions were not predictable, he would simply add perjury to his troubles.

In his still invaluable Farewell Address (1796), George Washington warned his countrymen always to be on their “[g]uard against the postures of pretended patriotism.” In my lifetime, no U.S. president has been more of a sham patriot than Barack Obama, a man with zero respect for the U.S. Constitution and a man always ready to flout the law with his “phone and pen.” The charge against Obama of giving aid and comfort to our Islamist enemies is an open and shut case. The question for Americans now, I suppose, is whether there is a prosecutor in the country who is ready to do the right thing for our republic, or do all U.S. lawyers and law professors share Obama’s contempt for the Constitution and clear preference for tyrannical government?

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

For the West, it’s time to learn from Osama bin Laden

Despair for America’s future security is a difficult sentiment to subdue as events in the Middle East continue unfolding. The U.S. military can neither win wars – hopefully because of political restraint — nor effectively train Arab armies. The leaders of both U.S. political parties refuse to recognize that ISIS, al-Qaeda, and like organizations are indeed — according to 20-years of their own public words and a quick check of the Koran — waging an increasingly popular religious war against the United States, in large part as a response to Washington’s relentless intervention in the Muslim world. The same political leaders and President Obama and his administration have set themselves up as expert Islamic theologians to endlessly assert that the Islamists are madmen and nihilists who have nothing to do with Islam, which is, more than anything else, a signal that they are determined to help the United States commit suicide by refusing to level with Americans and tell them that they are up to their hips in a deadly religious war in which their own government is the enemy’s main motivator.

Since 2002, I have written four books dealing with Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, and the Islamist movement in general. Each of them is primarily based on the words of writings of bin Laden, his lieutenants, and other important Islamist fighters and leaders. One of the goals of each book was to correlate the convergence of the Islamists’ words and deeds; that is, did bin Laden et al. do what they said they were going to do. Each book found a very high correlation between words and deeds; indeed, it seems likely that the United States has never had an enemy that was and is so willing to tell us in advance what he is going to do, why he is going to do it, and what ends he means to attain. Because of this reality, the Islamist enemy is not at all difficult to understand. When Western political leaders speak of what a complex problem we are facing in the war the Islamists are waging, you can be sure they have either not read what the enemy has publicly said and taken it seriously — a repeat of their predecessors’ catastrophic failure to take Mein Kampf seriously — or that for reasons of political necessity, ideology, or, most likely, faulty educations they simply cannot credit the idea that anyone would be willing to fight and die for their faith in the “enlightened” 21st century.

Because the Islamist leaders have detailed their movement’s motivation, and have then proceeded to do what they said they would do, there is no such thing as “unintended consequences” in this war. The impact of every major post-2001 action taken by both sides in this war was perfectly predictable. For the West that means each of its decisions and actions have yielded perfectly predictable negative consequences. Those consequences could be detailed at length, but it is enough to say that the Islamists’ war against the United States and the West is largely motivated by their interventionist policies and actions in the Muslim world, and the U.S. and Western response to the war the Islamists started has been increased intervention undertaken without any intention of winning and with a willingness to curtail civil liberties in the West in the name of internal security  — a response quietly predicted in the speeches and writings of bin Laden.  The West, in essence, has followed to the letter a script written for its demise, one that has been easily available for reading by all Western leaders since late-summer 1996.

While it is quite late in the game it is worth recalling what bin Laden believed was the one factor that could derail the Islamists’ war against the United States, and perhaps their whole agenda. Bin Laden was very clear that the strategy the mujhaedin had to follow to victory could be divided into three parts. First, to cause enough human and especially economic pain to the casualty-averse, legally hamstrung, and radically impatient United States to drive it as far as possible out of the Islamic world. Second, to thereafter focus on destroying the Arab tyrannies and Israel. Third, to settle the scores with the Shia Muslim heretics. Today, driving the United States from the Islamic world is goal that is close to being accomplished; America has lost two wars there, will lose Obama’s re-intervention in Iraq, and anti-U.S.-Government hatred has grown across the region. On the second point, several of the Arab tyrannies, with U.S., UN, and EU help, are gone, and Jordan and Lebanon probably will be the next to go. These Western-aided victories for the Islamists — and the ones to come — have substantially eroded Israel’s security and yielded a steady flow of new fighters and enormous quantities of modern weapons from the tyrants’ emptied arsenals. Third, in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon it appears that a regional Sunni-Shia sectarian war is being kindled. And that fact would be the great and deeply troubling rub for bin Laden if he was still alive.

For the three-part strategy described above to succeed, bin Laden argued, the parts had to be accomplished seriatim, not in parallel. In short, the al-Qaeda chief believed that the Arab tyrants’ power and ability to rule depended on them continuing their half-century-plus de facto alliance with the United States and its European allies. Thus, the Islamists should push the United States as far out of the region as possible and then turn and work to destroy the Arab tyrannies and Israel. The first part of the strategy is largely complete, and the second is now underway and, I suspect, is further along than the mujahedin themselves can believe.

Notwithstanding this astonishing success, the problem that bin Laden appeared to fear most and believed could be fatal to the Islamists — taking two steps in the strategy at the same time — also is now underway. Bin Laden constantly preached that settling scores with the Shia had to wait until America was driven from the region and Israel and the Arab tyrannies were destroyed. His words of warning took on substance in 2005-2006 when al-Qaeda’s commander in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, began a campaign that focused on indiscriminately murdering Iraq’s Shia, as well some Sunnis, especially those who worked for the U.S.-led occupation and others who would not obey Zarqawi’s orders. Zarqawi’s murderous behavior — including videotaped decapitation — earned him and al-Qaeda enormous enmity from much of the Sunni Muslim world; indeed, the negative Muslim reaction to Zarqawi’s actions has been the only serious strategic threat to al-Qaeda since 2001, for more dangerous than any action that the United States and its allies have been able to generate against it. Fortunately for al-Qaeda, U.S. forces killed Zarqawi. They saved al-Qaeda from having to do so, and allowed bin Laden and his lieutenants to begin a remedial campaign to retrieve Muslim sympathies and support. (NB: It is important to note, I think, that there has been very little outcry in the Sunni Muslim world about the ISIS attacks on Shias in Iraq. There has been much Muslim gnashing of teeth and weeping over the beheading/burning of Western prisoners and the Jordanian pilot — some part of it posturing to placate the West — but nothing similar to the protests that greeted Zarqawi’s binge of Shia slaughter a decade ago. Perhaps times have changed, perhaps ISIS has deliberately refrained from killing Sunnis at the pace practiced by Zarqawi, or perhaps there is support in the Sunni world for finally eradicating Islam’s hated heretics.)

Today, as noted above, the fire has been lit — and lit by Muslims — for a Sunni-Shia war that has been a millennium in the making and will be far larger than anything Zarqawi could have managed. Bin Laden believed that such a sectarian war would derail the jihad against the United States and its allies because: (a) Sunni fighters — especially Salafis and Wahhabis– consider the killing of Shia heretics as an extraordinarily worthy and Allah-pleasing endeavor, and (b) the Sunni Arab governments would become the much-needed sources of the funds, armaments, and safe havens for the Islamist groups fighting the Shia, something that the tyrants are as much in favor of as the mujahedin. These two factors, bin Laden knew, would turn Muslim eyes, efforts, and resources inward toward the Islamic world and so could leave the Arab tyrannies intact and perhaps stronger and even popular if their support allowed the Sunni Islamists to prevail.

Given the combination of the West’s inability to recognize the obvious, that there can be nothing but a military solution to the religious war started by bin Laden and the Islamists, and bin Laden’s well-grounded fear of the mujahedin moving against the Shia while still at war with the West, Israel, and the Arab tyrants, the developing Sunni-Shia war may well be a God-send for the security of the United States and the West. President Obama momentarily slowed the development of the war by re-intervening in Iraq in 2014, but a second chance has now appeared in Yemen, just as ISIS has resumed its offensive. The Sunni mujahedin and the Sunni Gulf tyrannies will not tolerate a Shia state in Yemen. And Iran, while knowing that the Houthis – crammed in northwestern Yemen and only a third of Yemen’s population — will eventually be destroyed, will now have to bear the cost of its rhetoric about being the protector of Shia by supporting an undeniably lost cause in Yemen (along with those in Iraq and Syria).

The stage is thus set for a regional sectarian war, which after nearly twenty years of U.S. and Western Islamist-motivating intervention accompanied by military, diplomatic, and political incompetence, may be the best near-term means for improving U.S. and Western security. For now, the U.S. and NATO governments ought to step aside, let the Sunni-Shia sectarian war take its course, and urgently address the pathetic and steadily worsening mess they have made of civil liberties and domestic security in the United States, Canada, and 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

The U.S. Congress = 535 Agents of a Foreign Power

Now, if someone told you that the Congress of the United States invited a foreign leader to address it without coordinating with the president and seeking his approval, the natural reaction, I think, would be to respond that while such an invitation might be legal, it clearly is a case of the legislative branch arrogantly ignoring the executive’s prerogatives in the conduct of foreign policy. Even though the Obama administration does not have a coherent or commonsense foreign policy, the Congress’s action can only make the Obama-made overseas mess worse and thereby further undermine U.S. security. Constitutional prerogatives ought to be honored — in letter and spirit — by all three branches of government, and so this unilateral congressional invitation ought to set off some alarm bells.

Now, if the same someone went on to tell you that the foreign leader invited to address Congress is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and that he is going to deliver a speech meant to promote the involvement of the United States in an unnecessary war with Iran, the ringing alarm bells ought to become a deafening nationwide clanging. Our elected interventionist representatives are giving a war-wanting foreign leader a superb platform from which to intervene in U.S. politics, and from which he will try to drag/push/force the United States into Israel’s war with Iran. If Netanyahu succeeds at some point in the future, it will be the soldier-children of American parents who will be killed fighting for Israel in a war in which the United States does not have a horse. Iran has third-rate military that is not capable of successfully attacking North America; that is, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards will not be victoriously goose-stepping down the main street of any American city. And, lest we forget, the U.S. military is still the earth’s preeminent military power and if we are attacked by Iran it could render Persia uncomfortably radioactive. If Israel wants a war with Iran, let it rip, but Washington’s only duty in the case of such a war is to stay completely away from it, support neither side, and refuse to publicly comment.

Another reason why Washington must avoid participation in an Israel-Iran is the catastrophic disaster that our immigration and border policies have wrought in terms of allowing Iran’s intelligence operatives, Revolutionary Guards, and their murderous colleagues in Lebanese Hizballah to establish a strong presence in the United States. Iran has been deploying its fighters here pretty much at will since the early 1980s, and now controls a wide-ranging set of capabilities with which to attack in the United States. (NB: These capabilities are supported by the similar ones that Iran has built in Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and parts of South America.) The odds are very much against Iran using these capabilities unless we join in Israel’s war against the Islamic Republic. In that event, Tehran probably would use its U.S. based fighters to cause damage and death in the United States at a level the conventional Iranian military could never achieve. Joining Israel’s war against Iran, then, means Americans will fight a two-front war — one in Iran, the other at home — and would certainly come out the loser in both.

It is important, however, that Americans not misplace blame for this episode by damning either Netanyahu or Israel for taking advantage of the opportunity that the Congress has offered them. Netanyahu is responsible only for Israel’s national security, and that consideration apparently demands that the United States be on-board and fighting when Israel attacks Iran. The Israelis have an absolute right to defend themselves by whatever means they deem necessary, but the United States has no obligation — legal, moral, or security – to join them in their war on Iran. The U.S. government too has an absolute right to defend itself against perceived threats in any manner necessary, but it has an even greater duty – legal, moral, and security — never to become involved in other people’s wars in which no life-and-death U.S. interests are at stake and can only yield ruin for America.

There is much blame to be laid, however, and that blame lies squarely with pro-Israel Jewish-Americans and their organizations. They have been outspokenly critical of both the Obama administration’s failure to supinely do Israel’s bidding and the president’s apparent personal dislike of Netanyahu. The invitation for the Israeli prime minister to speak clearly is meant to demonstrate to the U.S. governing elite the power that the disloyal Israel-Firsters have acquired with — apparently — almost all members of both houses through their campaign contributions, their ability to arrange exclusion from the media, and their vicious eagerness to identify as anti-Semites all Americans who advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy and a resolute hands-off approach to the Middle East. The Israel-Firsters have long experience in deliberately damaging genuine U.S. national interests and silencing American citizens, beginning with their public and covert work with Britain’s information and intelligence services to push the United States into war with Germany before genuine U.S. interests were threatened, and their simultaneous defaming and ultimate destruction of the reputation of America’s last great hero, the courageous non-interventionist, Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh.

What is on the table for Americans to see, then, is constitutional disorder — who runs foreign policy? the extraordinary hyping of Iranian power, which is a marginal threat to the United States; the criminal, multi-decade negligence of U.S. governments in regard to immigration policy and border control that has yielded a serious threat from Iran’s resident operatives in America; and the astounding, disloyal, and possibly illegal anti-American activities of so many Israel-First U.S. citizens, men and women for whom Israel is their country of first allegiance and who have no qualms about suborning 535 U.S. congressmen and senators to serve as agents of a foreign power willing to involve the United States in Israel’s wars.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

If Washington does not change foreign policy and/or destroy the Islamists, Americans must prepare to be enslaved

“Lieutenant al-Kasasbeh’s dedication, courage, and service to his country and family represent universal human values that stand in opposition to the cowardice and depravity of ISIL, which has been so broadly rejected around the globe.” Barack Obama, 3 February 2015 (www.whitehouse.gov)

President Obama’s reality-free statement about the Islamic State’s (IS) burning to death of a Jordanian Air Fore pilot who had bombed the mujahedin before he crashed and was captured is par for the course. In a world where, under Obama’s watch, the military and media power, armaments, manpower, ideological appeal, and geographical reach of IS and other Islamist groups have grown exponentially, the president claims IS and the Islamist movement have been “broadly rejected around the globe.” Over the weekend, Obama also was quoted by Real Clear Politics as saying the United States and the West make too much of the Islamist movement because, after all, it is not an “existential threat.” This statement came after a month in which the West saw three important NATO leaders — Cameron, Harper, and Hollande — respond to the lethal Islamist attacks in Paris and Ottawa, not by killing the enemy mercilessly, but by seeking stronger internal security measures that will further constrict the civil liberties of their own citizens. That shoe does not yet seem to have fallen in the United States, but probably only because Obama and Eric Holder — with broad Republican support — have already shattered the protections afforded to civil liberty by the 4th Amendment.

If common sense might for a moment be used in place of Obama’s theoretical fantasizing, the ever tightening noose around civil liberties in the United States and Europe –  the latter is too bad, but irrelevant to U.S. interests and typical of the authoritarian EU — seems to indeed pose an existential threat to the ability of the American people to live as they want to, rather than as they have to. An existential threat does not necessarily have to be nuclear in nature.  Americans have had three consecutive presidents — Clinton, Bush, and Obama — who have been confronted by the Islamists’ mortal and growing threat to the United States and each has refused to kill it with the most powerful and expensive military the world has ever known. Nearly twenty years into this war, it seems crystal clear that the combination of the Islamists’ piety, determination, talent, and ruthlessness with the politically correct moral cowardice of U.S. presidents — not to mention Obama’s tyrannical bent — does indeed yield an existential threat to the American people, their property, their way of life, and their Constitution.

Much more could be said on this issue, but all of it would arrive at the same bottom line; namely, if we are neither prepared to abandon the U.S. foreign policies that are the main motivators of the Islamists nor ready to militarily annihilate the Islamist groups, their civilian supporters, and whatever infrastructure they control, U.S. citizens must accept the fact that continuing Islamist attacks will be used by the U.S. government — under either party — to slowly eliminate their civil liberties in the name of domestic security. Americans gradually will be enslaved in their own land because their presidents and leading politicians prefer that end-product to having to admit that their unchanged policies and deliberately lost wars have allowed the Islamist movement to grow from a lethal nuisance to an existential threat. For Americans, the reality is that of a two-front war, one which they will have to wage against a de facto alliance of their own politicians and the Islamists. Both are equally their enemy; both merit the most severe punishment.

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