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

Now is the time for a quick U.S. de-intervention in Yemen

Winston Churchill once said that the Lord always looks after drunks and the United States of America. And though we hardly deserve it, Providence may have again stepped into the breach and given the United States a second chance to take advantage of a hard, murderous, but very real opportunity in the Middle East.

The overthrow of the Yemeni government sets the stage for a Sunni-vs-Shia conflagration on the Arab Peninsula. The late Yemeni regime is a zero loss to the United States. What President Obama once described as a vital regional ally – media pundits are now echoing this lie – was nothing more than a Arab strong man and his gang who ruled the Yemeni capital of Sana and almost nothing else, men who generously agreed to take hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military equipment, cash, training, and who knows what else. In return, the Yemeni regime allowed what it could not stop in any event: U.S. drone and Special Forces’ attacks that violated Yemeni sovereignty. Silence was the Yemeni regime’s main contribution as Obama’s vital regional ally, and now with that government gone, and none ready to take its place, the attacks can continue because there is no sovereign government to object to them.

What good such attacks would do is another matter. They have killed some important Yemen-based Islamist leaders and may have destroyed some arms caches, but the fact is that Al-Qaeda-on-the-Arab-Peninsula (AQAP) is stronger than ever before. The U.S. attacks in Yemen – as well as those in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and elsewhere – amount to nothing more than make-Americans-feel-good tactical victories that, as always, leave the strategic advantage and momentum with the Islamists.

Today’s reality in Yemen again demonstrates the extraordinary fecklessness of the U.S. government, both U.S. political parties, U.S. and NATO generals, and their EU sidekicks. Expensive support from all of them brought no stability to Yemen; U.S. and NATO-country military training did not create a force that could defend the regime; and Special Forces’ and CIA pin-prick attacks and drone strikes did nothing to slow the enemies’ growth. In addition, two Islamist insurgent organizations – the Houthis and AQAP — have grown larger, stronger, and better armed since the United States and Europe started supporting and publicly praising the Yemeni regime, while simultaneously lying to Americans and Europeans about how our now-deceased key regional ally was beginning to pull its own weight and was a shining example of the success of U.S. and Western policy.

There is, however, one bright spot in this otherwise dismal story. The arrival of the Shia Houthi insurgents as a potent rival of the Sunni AQAP gives the United States another — even if unmerited — chance to step back and watch the marvelously positive impact a regional Shia-Sunni sectarian war would have on U.S. national security. Such a war would hurt the U.S. economy a bit because Obama, Cuomo, and their deeply anti-American party have blocked U.S. energy self-sufficiency, but otherwise there is nothing but upside for the United States.

–First, in Yemen, as in Syria and Iraq before Obama intervened and hurt U.S. interests, all the people that U.S. governments have for forty-five years identified as “enemies” would be killing and maiming each other. In addition, Saudi Arabia would aid AQAP and Iran would aid the Houthis, so the benefactors of al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, Lebanese Hizballah, Bashir al-Asad’s Syria, Iraq’s Shia militias, and the Houthi fighters would be drawing each others blood and spending wastefully. While all of this lethal mayhem is proceeding, the United States could simply watch and “officially regret” a religious war that has been in the making for a millennium, and which, with a little luck, will bleed each side white and move the United States a bit off the Islamists’ bull’s eye.

–Second, the United States should withdraw all of its personnel and moveable physical assets from what the Obama called the Yemen success story. This should be done, of course, because we do not want our personnel to have to fight their way out with the help of the U.S. Marines. But more important, Washington could use Yemen as the opportunity to begin a policy of non-intervention in the Middle East, and thereby begin to sap the Sunni Islamists motivation to attack America. We could publicly say that our withdrawal is evidence of America’s granite-like support for self-determination – a lie, our governing elite loathes the idea for Americans or anyone else – but Obama’s arrogance will need some noble-sounding reason to abandon his now in-flames success story.

–Third, Washington should build on a successful de-intervention in Yemen by beginning the same process in the Syria-Iraq theater. Obama and the Europeans clearly have no intention of defeating the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda there – and U.S. generals clearly have no talent whatsoever in training Muslim armies, witness Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. – and so whatever funding, weapons, and lives that are expended there amount to pure waste. Once U.S. forces leave, the road will be open for a resumption of the Sunni-Shia religious war in the Levant and Iraq that was perking along and expanding nicely until Obama and British Prime Minister Cameron saw themselves as the second coming and launched their avenging if always war-losing angels to save “innocent foreigners” at the expense of decreasing the security of their own nations and citizens. Who knows, two quick de-interventions might cause everyday Americans to press their bipartisan governing elite to abandon the knee-jerk, ruinous, and war-causing habit of intervening in countries where no life-and-death U.S. interest is at stake, as well as to reestablish the tradition of quickly and utterly annihilating those few enemies who pose a genuine threat to U.S. national security.

Because multiple second chances to redress errors, as Churchill said, come only to drunks and the United States, Obama’s Washington ought not to miss the Yemen opportunity to do something that would contribute to rather than erode U.S. national security. Relentless interventionism and open borders have, respectively, earned America a war with an increasing portion of the Muslim world and allowed our Islamist enemies into the United States undetected. A de-interventionist foreign policy and closing the southern U.S. border would head the United States toward a much more effective and Americans-protecting foreign policy summed up in the time-honored and commonsense phrase “America First.”

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 Paris: The cost of Western leaders’ deceit and interventionism will only grow

“We are gathered here tonight because we believe in an independent destiny for America. … An independent destiny for America means … that our soldiers will not have to fight everybody in the world who prefers some other system of life to ours.” Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh, 23 May 1941

Media commentary on the well-planned, professionally executed, and completely successful mujahedin operation in Paris is really quite quaint. Listened to closely, the ponderously somber pundits will have you thinking that it is September, 2001, rather than January, 2015. The canned, 15-year old comments and questions flow freely: “Horrific attack kills 12 innocents”; “the attackers have nothing to do with Islam”; “how are the young men radicalized?”; “an attack on freedom”; “Muslims must condemn the attacks”; “we are not at war with Islam”; “why this senseless violence?”; and, of course, the maddeningly absurd and irrelevant “we will bring them to justice”.

Fortunately, just before this tripe put listeners to sleep, the prize jackass of the week trotted on stage in the person of Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper.
“The fact of the matter is this, ladies and gentlemen,” Mr. Harper told a small audience, “The international jihadist movement has declared war.” Here, then, is one of the main reasons why the West has gotten its collective behind so regularly kicked, humiliated, and defeated since 2001. An important NATO leader, Mr. Harper seems not to know — even though the fine Canadian army along with all NATO militaries were defeated in Afghanistan — that the jihadists declared war on the United States and its vassals in August, 1996. Harper’s ignorance is important because it reminds all Westerners how hard it will be to survive the war the Islamists are waging against them when their leaders are just beginning to think there might be a war at hand fifteen years after the enemy began to fight it in earnest.

The inane gabfest over the Paris attacks will end in a few days and nothing much will change — at least for the Islamists. Western leaders will continuing to thunder about the rule of law, the peacefulness of Islam, the protection of freedom of the press, but will scurry to avoid doing anything that will destroy the enemy in numbers that have any strategic impact whatsoever. They will savor and gloat over the fact that it only took 90,000 French police and military personnel to kill three Islamist shooters. They held an impromptu summit of senior officials to condemn terrorism and have set another, both will promise “unity and future action.” And they will publicly beg the Arab tyrants to do the dirty work they are too embarrassed or cowardly to let their own military and intelligence services do. And, of course, the public purse will be robbed by the whores who masquerade as social science professors. The will descend on Western capitals armed with quack answers about how to solve “the Islamic radicalization of youth,” and legislators will give them gobs of tax dollars just so they appear to be doing something. The sum of all of this will be what it has been since 2001: motion without movement.

The substantive post-Paris changes from Western leaders will come when they inevitably enhance the war they are already waging against their own people and their peoples’ civil liberties, rather than by ordering the hugely expensive Western militaries to annihilate the Islamists, their civilian supporters and funders, and whatever infrastructure they possess. Because it is so utterly unfashionable to kill in the necessary numbers those who are killing you, perpetual adolescents like Obama, Harper, Cameron, Hollande, Merkel, and their colleagues will increase surveillance of their own civilians, their communications, and their bank accounts; make international air travel more intrusive and arduous; and work overtime to silence and/or penalize those citizens who speak the simple, irrefutable fact that an increasing part of Islam is at war with the West, and that that war is motivated not by Western lifestyles but by what Western governments do in the Muslim world — be it invading Muslim countries, coddling Israel, or championing those who blaspheme the Prophet.

In many ways, the Islamists are the Western leaders’ best friends in that they give them credible reasons to progressively eliminate civil liberties and continue building the authoritarian states many of them seem to desire. Obama, in particular, is likely to take advantage of the Paris attacks to further savage the 1st and 4th Amendments of the Constitution. And it will not be long before Obama and his pro-tyranny sidekicks in both parties undertake a renewed campaign to gut the 2nd Amendment, probably claiming that the national government needs to control all arms so that domestic Islamists — or those who come in across the open southern border — cannot assemble an arsenal to use in attacks.

[NB: For two reasons, I think that seldom in American history has it been more important for every American to be armed, and armed with as deadly a weapon (or weapons) as possible. First, as the Paris attack shows, the cowardly refusal of the French and all other NATO regimes to militarily eradicate the Islamists abroad wherever they can be found means more and more attacks in NATO countries. The attacks will occur not because of George W. Bush's nonsensical argument that if we do not kill them overseas we will have to fight them at home -- those who attack at home will have been residents most or all of their lives -- but because Washington and its NATO partners have deliberately lost wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Young Muslims believe Allah has given Islam victory in both places, and, as Osama bin Laden predicted, they are following the strong horse. American citizens need weapons to provide the protection against domestic Islamists for themselves, their families, and their neighborhoods that the national government deems unimportant. Second, if Obama sends his Islam-loving multicultural thugs to unconstitutionally do an inventory of privately held weapons or even to take the guns of law-abiding Americans they merit a heartily discouraging welcome from well-armed Americans.]

There really is not much more to say about the Paris attacks except that Western leaders and their acolytes in the media and churches will keep lying to their public about the Islamist issue.  When you hear those lies and the asinine comments and questions mentioned in the first paragraph, there are five simple facts to keep in mind as a defense against the lethal deceit that dominates the current public debate.

–1.) An increasing portion of the Islamic world is waging war against the West; most of the Islamists who are fighting are adherents of the Salafi sect of Sunni Islam, which is a small but growing, martially inclined, and admired sect that has declared a defensive jihad against the U.S.-led West. On the basis of these facts, it is suicidal madness to pretend that the West is not engaged in a religious war.

–2.) The reformation that the West is urging on the Muslim world is already underway, but it is not a reformation that will be to Western liking. The message delivered by Osama bin Laden and his successors that the most basic relationship in Islam is between the individual Muslim and Allah without an intermediary is obviously gaining ground across the Muslim world. Part of this success is due to the example of bin Laden and the victorious mujahedin, but most of it is due to the recognition by Muslims that the religious scholars who work for Arab governments are on the take, and that they will deliver religious decisions in whatever form their tyrant-employer desires so as not to lose the wealth, position, and status and they have won by selling out their faith.  In this aspect, the current Islamic Reformation mirrors in content and violence the Protestant Reformation that occurred in the West.

–3.) Most of those mujahedin who attack inside Western countries will be residents of those countries. Responsibility for facilitating this phenomena lies strictly with Western governments that for forty years have championed the immigration of foreigners who never intend to assimilate, and who in some cases mean to harm the nation to which they have immigrated. This intent to harm clearly increases with each generation that is born in the country of immigration. This sort of society-killing multiculturalism has been worsened and made unmanageable by the open borders specialized in by the U.S. and the European Community governments.

–4.) The worldwide Islamist insurgency that the West confronts is not susceptible to defeat by a combination of law enforcement methods, Special Forces, and intelligence operations, or by a coalition of Western nations and Arab tyrannies. The first three tools might have been decisive in the late 1990s, but President Clinton refused to use them and let the Islamist problem strengthen and mature. It is now much, much too late to successfully employ these methods as war winners because the enemy is simply too numerous, well-armed, and geographically dispersed; using them today, as I have said before, is like trying to destroy the Wehrmacht one man at a time. The last-mentioned coalition is, on its face, a huge and cynical joke. The West is looking for others to do their war fighting, and the Arab tyrants will not risk internal revolution by seriously injuring the mujahedin, who are fueled by money, volunteers, and prayers from the tyrannies. Indeed, the Saudis and their Gulf partners are experts in the exact opposite of the kind of coalition being called for by the West. In the case of Iraq, the West has on three occasions provided blond, blue-eyed slave soldiers to protect the tyrants by fighting and dying there, while the tyrants have kicked in a few bucks and continued their debauchery while joining the mujahedin in laughing at the fools in Washington, London, Berlin, and Paris.

–5.) The bipartisan, interventionist foreign policy of the United States is today, as it was when bin Laden declared war on America in 1996, the main motivator — along with the West’s relentless military fecklessness — of the Islamist insurgency. Washington’s steady support for Arab tyrannies and the re-installation of one in Egypt; its unnecessary, corrupt, and dead Americans-causing relationship with Israel; and its willingness to invade Muslim countries at the drop of a hat make Washington — next to Allah — the only indispensable ally of the mujahedin. This reality all but ensures the inevitable demise of Western liberties. Western leaders are too cowardly to kill the Islamists and their supporters in the extraordinary numbers that now will be necessary to achieve victory, and yet they will continue to intervene militarily and culturally in the Muslim world and so motivate ever greater number of mujahedin to join the fight. Given this combination, Western leaders, in the name of defense, will crackdown on the liberties of their own citizens while the Islamist grow ever stronger.

When reviewing the five facts above, and knowing that each of them is fully substantiated in public, not secret sources, one can only conclude that Western leaders are pursuing their own political agendas, following the dictates of ruinous theories like multiculturalism, diversity, and uncontrolled borders and immigration, and hold in contempt the clear national interests of the nations they were chosen to govern. “Which is more blameworthy,” George Washington asked a correspondent in 1790, “those who see and steadily pursue their interest, or those who cannot see, or seeing will not act wisely?” The West today, sadly, is dangerously afflicted with both men and women in governing positions who – unless they are stupid — can easily see their nation’s interests but “will not act wisely.”

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

Who’s dumber – Marc Grayson or LINKEDIN?

I had not intended to follow up on my last piece about MARC GRAYSON and his knowing conduct of a fraudulent LINKEDIN site, but the message that LINKEDIN sent to GRAYSON in an effort to try to help him continue perpetrating his fraud, pasted in below, is really priceless. I wonder how many such frauds are being conducted and assisted — hopefully unknowingly — by those who administer this service?

LinkedIn

Hi marc,
We noticed someone just tried to sign in to your LinkedIn account from a location you haven’t used before, so we want to make sure it’s really you.
If you did try to sign in:
Please use this verification code to complete your sign in: 080687
If you didn’t try to sign in, be sure to change your password by clicking the link below.
Thanks for helping us keep your account secure.
The LinkedIn Team
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