Tag Archives: terrorism

And the Islamists Remained…

al-kaseasbeh

Conjuring images of the dying who had clawed at the dank walls of the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Jordanian Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh grabbed at his head, screaming out in agony as he fell to his knees, his body burning, his brain slowly cooking. His Daesh (Islamic State) captors had abruptly abandoned disingenuous negotiations with the Jordanian government for his release, their hostage having actually been killed many days before. Instead, they decided to record al-Kaseasbeh’s purposeful immolation. Having drenched him in accelerant, the savages lit the liquid fuse that set the young lieutenant ablaze. As he writhed, they filmed, indignant to his agony; his humanity. Barbarity for the purpose of terrorist propaganda had been achieved.

Just a month earlier, tens of thousands had taken to the streets in major Middle Eastern cities in support of Islamofascist assassins who slaughtered the staff at Charlie Hebdo. Turkey’s president, Recip Tayyip Erdogan, publicly intimated that the attacks in Paris were justified due to the magazine staff’s transgressions against Muslim sensibilities. And he went further than that, stating, obtusely, that Muslims have “never taken part in terrorist massacres.” Erdogan made these alarming statements as Boko Haram waded through the blood of the 2,000 people they slaughtered in the Nigerian town of Baga, in the name of Islam. So, violent, intolerant Islam is on the march.

Islamists have always been an aggressive faction. Starting with Muhammad and continuing on through the Byzantine-Arab Wars (634-750), the conquests of Persia and Mesopotamia (633–651), Transoxiana (662–751), Sindh (664–712), Hispania (711–718) and Septimania (719–720), the attempts to conquer the Caucasus (711–750), the conquest of Nubia (700–1606) and Anatolia (1060-1360), the incursions into southern Italy, including the conquest of Rome (831–902) and the Byzantine-Ottoman Wars (1299-1453), Muslims have sought to establish control of any and all lands they set foot on, whether by violence or attrition. However, one chapter of Islamic conquest – or bid for conquest – is seldom mentioned in the history books, and perhaps for good reason: World War II.

It is common knowledge – although today that cannot be assumed, given the Progressive Movement’s penchant for “nuancing history” – that during World War II Germany, Japan and Italy allied to form the Axis Powers in their war efforts. There were other affiliate and co-belligerent states (Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Thailand, Finland and Iraq), as well as “client states” (Albania, Burma, China, Croatia, India, Mengjiang, Manchukuo, Philippines, Slovakia and Vietnam), officially considered to be independent countries allied with Germany.

Furthermore, there were key geopolitical players who supported and collaborated with Adolf Hitler, the Nazis and the Axis Powers as a whole throughout the conflict. One such geopolitical player was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Sunni Muslim cleric in charge of Jerusalem’s Islamic holy places, including the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The designation of “Grand Mufti” identifies the bearer as the:

“…highest official of religious law in a Sunni or Ibadi Muslim country. The Grand Mufti issues legal opinions and edicts, fatwas, on interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence…The collected opinions of the Grand Mufti serve as a valuable source of information on the practical application of Islamic law as opposed to its abstract formulation.”

During World War II the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was Haj Amin al-Husseini, who:

“…collaborated with both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the Nazis recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS. On meeting Adolf Hitler he requested backing for Arab independence and support in opposing the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national home. At war’s end, he came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution.”

When al-Husseini first met with Hitler and Ribbentrop in 1941, he assured Hitler that:

“The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies…namely the English, the Jews, and the Communists.”

Al-Husseini’s efforts in recruiting Muslim fighters for the Nazi cause resulted in the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS, the Handschar Brigade. The Handschar earned a reputation for being particularly brutal in exterminating partisans in north-eastern Bosnia. In fact, many local Muslims who stood witness to Handschar viciousness were driven to align with the Communist partisans.

The Grand Mufti was also integral in the organization of Arab students and North African immigrants to Germany into the Arabische Freiheitkorps, an Arab Legion in the German Army, that hunted down Allied parachutists in the Balkans and fought on the Russian front.

It would be right to conclude then that al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, home to one of Islam’s holiest shrines, was a willing collaborator with the Nazis and Adolf Hitler; someone who willingly facilitated the Nazi SS and their “Final Solution”; the genocide of the Jews. Yet, in the end, al-Husseini, perhaps the principle Muslim leader throughout that period, walked away from the conflict paying no price for his murderous deeds.

From Hitler’s Foreign Executioners; Europe’s Dirty Secret by Christopher Hale, pages 373-374:

“By the Winter of 1944, Berlin was no longer a safe haven for men like the Grand Mufti. He had never been a brave man and was often found cowering under tables as the great armadas of Allied bombers pounded the capital of the Reich. His allies in the foreign office, like Erwin Ettel, did what they could to protect their esteemed Muslim guest and tried to coax him to escape Germany to whatever safe haven he chose by U-Boat. The Mufti was simply too timid to contemplate such a journey and held on in Berlin to the very end. At the end of May 1945, the Grand Mufti and his entourage at last picked up and fled. He knew that once the British reached Berlin they would waste little time tracking him down. After many tribulations, they managed to reach Constance in the French zone of occupation. Recalling how well he had been treated after his flight from Palestine, when he escaped to French Beirut from British Palestine, the Grand Mufti surrendered to the French authorities. He was soon relaxing in an opulent villa near Paris…

“The Mufti had little time to enjoy French hospitality. His protectors discovered that an ‘Irgun’ assassination squad had arrived in France. On 28 May 1945, el-Husseini bolted to Italy, then secretly boarded a British ship, the SS Devonshire, bound for the Egyptian port of Alexandria.

“The return of the Grand Mufti electrified the Arab world. At a rally at Heliopolis in Cairo exultant crowds swamped his convoy – and King Farouk offered him appropriately sumptuous accommodations in his ‘Inshas Palace.’ The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, breathlessly declared: ‘The hearts of the Arabs palpitated with joy at hearing that the Grand Mufti had succeeded in reaching at Arab country…The lion is free at last and will roam the Arabian jungle to clear it of wolves. The great leader is back.’”

Today, as we witness the barbarous immolation of a warrior who dared to confront a culture of death, the Islamists remain. In the aftermath of the assassination of those who engage in free speech, as Daesh executes conquest after conquest leaving myriad atrocities in their wake, the Islamists remain. And as leaders of Islamic countries (read: Turkey) advance excuses for the barbarity of Islamist executioners; ideological operatives who slaughter ruthlessly in the name of Islam, the Islamists remain. Little has changed in the violent Islamist world from the days of the Handschar. Indeed, in a time when the president of the United States refuses to consider his country at war with Islamist extremists and the massive movement they represent – and as he maintains a refusal to even speak the phrase “Islamic terrorism,” one can argue that violent Islamists are in a better position today than they were under Hitler.

At the end of World War II, the Allied Powers insisted on attaining unconditional surrender from each of the Axis Powers. Germany, Italy and Japan signed and agreed to unconditional surrender, their satellite nations in tow. Suspiciously absent from the list of Axis power aggressors agreeing to unconditional surrender is Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem; the Muslim facilitator of the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS, the Handschar. Why was this allowed to happen? Who was responsible for allowing this to happen?

I can’t help but feel that had the Allied Powers exacted an unconditional surrender from the Grand Mufti of all forces under his influence; had the Grand Mufti been brought to his knees in capitulation, perhaps – just perhaps – we would not be facing the “emboldened swords” of Daesh on the streets of the Western World and in Islamofascist occupied territories throughout the Middle East. I cannot help but feel that somehow, for some reason, the job of winning World War II was left unfinished…and the rise of violent Islamist terrorism is the price we are paying.

The world – much like in the nascent days of World War II – must once again strive to put aside the geopolitics of the day to come together in a definitive effort to confront the inglorious barbarity of Islamofascism. The peoples of the world must attack Islamofascism militarily, economically, historically and ideologically. Just as we must physically vanquish jihadists who would behead the innocent and set ablaze those who fight against them, so too must we starve them of operating capital globally, even as we correct the fictionalized history of “the religion of peace,” and especially as we deny them the ability to replenish their ranks; especially as we win – unconditionally – the war of ideas for all generations to come.

Today, the smoldering ashes of Jordanian Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh, a warrior who came to the aid of those being slaughtered by Daesh, lay denigrated underneath a pile of rubble, an excruciatingly painful death his reward for humanity’s service. And the Islamists remained. I can’t help but feel that the free world has unfinished business…until no Islamist remains.

‘The Prophet Has Been Avenged’

Charlie Hebdo

Masked gunman stormed the offices of a satirical French magazine, Charlie Hebdo (The Weekly Charlie), and slaughtered 12 people in cold blood. Their perceived “crime” was to have published caricatures of Muhammad. And let’s be clear, this was no act of the deranged. The terrorist gunmen were heard screaming, “Allahu Akbar” as they shot, with one assailant shouting, “The Prophet has been avenged,” as they escaped the scene. This was a terrorist act carried out by ideological barbarians over a cartoon.

Aside from the deadly serious problem Islamists have with invoking violence at every turn – in protest, in conquest, in celebration of their “religion” – this incident stands as a pointed reminder that Islamists purposefully calculate these murderous actions; plotting them meticulously down to the second. But even in the perfection of their plans one thing is always a constant for the Islamist. They are willing to wait a lifetime to affect the moment, a concept antithetical to the Western “sitcom attention span” culture. To wit, the management of Charlie Hebdo was first warned of reprisals for their publishing of the Muhammad cartoons eight years ago.

As Daesh (the Islamic State) continues its conquest of the Middles East – leaving fathers crucified and dismembered, mothers sold into slavery or used as concubines and children’s heads left on pikes as warnings against any refusal of subjugation, Yemeni suicide bombers kill scores each day. As Boko Haram kidnaps, rapes and slaughters Christian girls in Africa, axe wielding “lone wolf” Islamists slash people on subway platforms in New York and “home grown” terrorists are routinely thwarted in their murderous plans, but for the grace of God, by law enforcement around the world. Myriad evidence is provided every day that the Islamic ideology has a potent, malignant and metastasizing cancer for which the patient itself must seek treatment. Yet, but for a very few brave voices, the Islamic community does nothing to address the problem. There is no defense for their inaction or their deafening silence.

One excuse given for Muslim inaction – and “excuse” is an accurate portrayal of the abdication of responsibility practiced by many Muslims around the world, is that the Quran is the literal word of Allah; scripture from which deviation is forbidden. Of course, this contention is absurd for the fact that Muhammad was not literate – he could not read nor write:

“According to the traditional narrative, several companions of Muhammad served as scribes and were responsible for writing down the revelations. Shortly after Muhammad’s death, the Quran was compiled by his companions who wrote down and memorized parts of it. These codices had differences that motivated the Caliph Uthman to establish a standard version now known as Uthman’s codex, which is generally considered the archetype of the Quran we have today. However, the existence of variant readings, with mostly minor and some significant variations, and the early unvocalized Arabic script mean the relationship between Uthman’s codex to both the text of today’s Quran and to the revelations of Muhammad’s time is still unclear.”

For an edict to be literal the transcription can have no variance between versions; no competing narratives. By virtue of the competing narratives between Muhammad’s scribes, and even the Uthman’s codex, the “literal word of Allah,” narrative stands as a patently false one. Yet, the excuse emanating from the Muslim community remains. The facts don’t matter.

It is well past time that true leaders within the Islamic community emerge to brave the slings and arrows – or more accurately the suicide bombings and beheadings – of the Islamist fanatics in order to affect a radical and historical transformation of their beliefs; a reformation of Islam. This reformation can only commence from within the Islamic community for the movement to have any legitimacy.

The declaration of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi calling for a “religious revolution” within Islam is a promising event. And the work of people like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and Dr. Walid Phares to motivate and educate is noble. But until rank and file Muslims take to the streets by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, around the world in protest; until Muslims of every class, sect and faction start rooting out the violent amongst them for punishment and ridicule; until the Muslim community itself starts teaching their children – all over the world – that martyrdom and violent jihad send them to Hell and not to virgins, nothing will change. Islamist conquest will continue. Innocent blood will continue to run in the streets. Liberty and freedom will continue to be denied.

As we contemplate the slaughter in France – a slaughter that happened in the name of Muhammad and because of a cartoon, let’s also contemplate the concept of “enough.” We, as a people emanating from the free world, must say, “enough.” No more excuses. No more “religion of peace.” Enough. Enough.

Islam Needs A Reformation and to Denounce Extremism

6a00d8341c60bf53ef014e60557d9c970c-600wi

It must be extremely disconcerting to Muslims to see their religion defined by the extremists of their faith. Regrettably, history is replete with examples of small minorities of adherents defining public perception of a sect. Christianity is often disparaged for the violent crusades of the Middle Ages. But Christianity went through a reformation, renouncing genocidal practices engendered and fostered by theological dogma. Likewise, at some point, the violent extremism within certain fringe groups who claim to represent the ideals of Islam, must be rejected by the whole if it is to ever be believed to be the “religion of peace.”

islam_religion_of_peace_022It’s critical to make a distinction between the faith of Islam, and Islamic extremism. Islam, as a religion, is faith-based, while the sectarian-defined extremism of the Wahhabist movement, or Salafi, is more of an Islamo-Fascist political movement. Even though it has its theological roots in Islam the religion, they are more of a politically ideological sect within Islam that goes far beyond what is reasonable in their interpretations of key scriptures in the Koran and the Hadith or sayings of Mohammed.

Abdallah Al Obeid, the former dean of the Islamic University of Medina and member of the Saudi Consultative Council, confirms that this is politically ideological, rather than sectarian. He calls this extremism a “political trend” within Islam that “has been adopted for power-sharing purposes.” He says it cannot be called a sect because “It has no special practices, nor special rites, and no special interpretation of religion that differ from the main body of Sunni Islam.”

Lt. General Thomas McInerney, who serves on the Iran Policy Committee, said a few years ago in an interview, “Islamic extremism is an ideology just like Fascism and Communism, and it must be fought in much the same way. The West has not acknowledged this and consequently we have not educated our population that it is an ideology rather than a religion. This is confusing people because of our tolerance for the diversity of religion.”

Islam-DominationGeneral McInerney declared in the same interview, “Islam needs a reformation just like Christianity had, plus they need a cultural renaissance to bring them into modernity. This must come from within driven by moderate Muslims.”

Dr. Tawfik Hamid, an Egyptian scholar and reformed terrorist, who maintains that his religion has been hijacked by the extremists, wrote a historically insightful book titled “The Roots of Jihad” in 2006, where he describes our challenge with the jihadists. He wrote that Islamic Terrorism has the support of the majority of Muslims and that Islam must be reformed to become a religion of tolerance. Muslims are killing more of their own people than westerners, and until the Muslim world acknowledges this and destroys this cancer from within there will be continued conflict that will continue to spread. This, he states, is catastrophic for the Islamic religion.

Dr. Juhdi Jasser, who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, expressed his frustration last week in an interview. He expressed consternation that the talking points of the administration have been based on the oft repeated line that “the Islamic State is neither Islamic nor a state,” referring to ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria). The President, Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel have all reiterated the statement over the past week.

6a00d8341c60bf53ef014e60557d9c970c-600wiDr. Jasser takes umbrage at their fallacious premise. “Please, if anybody in the administration is listening, stop telling us Muslims what is Islamic. I mean, so he’s saying this is compounding the sin? How about when he shakes the hand and hugs the king of Saudi Arabia for their being the custodians of the Holy Mosque and yet they have imprisoned apostates, liberals, [and] Muslims. They’re a misogynistic nation that treats women as third class citizens. Or the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, or the Islamic Republic of Iran. Hundreds of millions of Muslims running governments all over the world that line their prisons and torture Christians and Jews and Muslims, and that’s Islamic? And ISIS sort of came out of thin air? ISIS is a by-product of those ideologies. And to deny it and dismiss it, they’re trying to bury us Reformers from having a seat at the table.”

Dr. Jasser continued, “The main laboratory that we can do our reform work against Sharian government and this draconian law that’s still in the 13th century is in the West. So if the West is too busy being labeled as ‘anti-Muslim bigots’ and is on the defense and we’re all victims as Muslims, you can never have this conversation. So moderate Muslims acknowledge that the Islamic State is a threat, that we don’t want to live in Islamic States. Moderate Muslims acknowledge that Sharia, as is interpreted today, is misogynistic, is anti-Western, anti-freedom. And the Islamists want to not have that conversation and want to marginalize us from the mosques and Islamist representation and our voices.”

Obama-With-MuslimsMuslims worldwide must eventually reject and foreswear the jihadists and their beheading, rapacious, and murdering tactics. The cry must be loud and strong from the faithful to reclaim their religion from the extremists who taint and tarnish it. Reformers like Dr. Jasser and Dr. Hamid must be embraced and supported by their Muslim brethren, as they attempt reformation, and adaptation to the Koran’s standards of moral behavior.

And this reformation must include educational curriculum as well, that teaches primary school children the terrorist mentality. They need to take the reigns of their faith, denounce the 72 virgin myth for martyrs, and expunge those who seek to murder and destroy. By so doing, they can reclaim the heart and soul of their faith. How best to show they are a “religion of peace” than by proving it.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

Feeling the Pain of the Falling Man of September 11th

Feeling the Pain of the Falling Man of September 11th

This article was originally published in a number of publications on September 11, 2002. With a slight edit to reflect our current circumstances, I present it to you as a tribute to the souls lost on September 11, 2001.

Everyone remembers the horrifying images of September 11, 2001. Anyone alive and aware on that date will live with those images the rest of their life. The scenes of havoc and panic, destruction and slaughter, demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that even though the United States military is the best trained and well equipped in the world, our country remains vulnerable to the wicked.

When one accepts the fact — and it is a fact — that the free world, not just the United States, is at war with violent Islamists, this story is all the more chilling and disturbing.

The mainstream media in the United States has taken the images of September 11th, 2001 off the television and out of the newspapers, but for the obligatory image on the anniversary itself. They say that the images are too disturbing, that they incite a want for revenge rather than allow for closure. But they are wrong to do this.

The United States should not and cannot simply forgive and forget just because the our current president fallaciously insisted that al Qaeda was on the run and that the Islamic State is “jayvee.” Facts demonstrate that al Qaeda, the Taliban – and now the Islamic State and Boko Haram; violent Islamists, have been planning and preparing to implement their global campaign of terrorism — their declared war against the Western World — since before 1993, well before September 11th. Their central location for training may have been eliminated but they had prepared for that, splintering like roaches to the four corners of the world, preparing, planning and implementing their battle plans made decades before.

Make no mistake, they are a cunning adversary. They understood that the US would come after them. They planned for this event. Now they have metastasized and their threat is even greater than before September 11, 2001.

This war cannot be about “tolerance” or forgiving, or about understanding the “reasons why” someone would want to murder innocents whether it be with an airplane, a car bomb, a suicide vest or a saif. This battle has to be about freedom and the right of innocents to live their lives in liberty, free of fear from an unholy sect of genocidal totalitarians who offer only oppression, dominance and terror as their bounty.

The Progressive left and the complicit mainstream media would have us believe that it is America that is to blame for her audacity in the promotion of freedom and free markets, liberty and the vision of a world free of dictators who torture, murder and slaughter for power. To that extent, Progressives and the agenda-driven media are dangerous and a direct threat to the existence of our country, teetering on the brink of treason and sedition. They will attack these words by saying that I have intimated that they are not patriotic and un-American.

For the record, I hold the belief that anyone who believes the United States brought the attacks of September 11, 2001, onto itself IS unpatriotic and un-American. I believe that they have become toadies for our enemy and should be treated and opposed as such. While they manipulate the true meaning of the First Amendment’s free speech clause, they attempt to indoctrinate and transform our youth and the less than suspecting among us into believing in the doctrine of self-loathing, an oppressive ideology born of the less than great thinkers of Europe almost a century ago.

In its March 15, 2006 edition, The Mirror, a British publication (the American mainstream media too gutless to publish such truth), revealed the identity of a man who had to make the unimaginable decision of whether to burn to death in the raging fires of the World Trade Center on September 11th or escape the pain of hell on earth by leaping from the top of one of the world’s tallest buildings to his certain death.

The article was titled, Revealing the Identity of the Falling Man of 9/11. Jonathan Briley was “The Falling Man of 9/11.”

I would beg each of you to read the article but The Mirror, along with Esquire and a number of publications who once cared about such things, has taken the article down. You can search his name – Jonathan Briley – and look at the pictures and feel Jonathan Briley’s helplessness, his terror, and then try to imagine the split second of excruciating pain that he felt when his body hit the cement below with such force that he, a human being just seconds before, was left a bloodstain on a sidewalk, slaughtered like road kill by barbarian Islamists.

The people of the United States need to rekindle the flame of emotional anguish about the attacks of September 11th, 2001. We need to seethe. We need to employ the ingenuity and intelligence that is fostered in a free society dedicated to liberty, and scream our ire from the top of the world. Then we need to take definitive action.

If we are to wage war on terrorist; on violent Islamists, then let us be the ones who strike terror into the hearts of our enemies. Let us bring terror to those who blow-up innocents, saw the heads off hostages and threaten the world with words of annihilation and nuclear Armageddon. If we are to be in a war we did not choose to begin then in the memory of all who have fallen in the quest to provide freedom and liberty to the world, let us be the ones who act decisively to end it.

We need to embrace the undeniable truth that the free world is at war and cease pandering to those who would wake up one day in the future ruing the fact that we should have acted earlier.

A pre-emptive strike doctrine for the United States? Eradicating the world of the likes of al Qaeda, the Islamic State, Boko Haram and every other Islamist organization that preaches the conquest and servitude of the “dhimmi”? You’re damn right!

Brother Rachid: A Message To President Obama From A Former Muslim

islam

Brother Rachid, the son of a Moroccan imam, has posted a video called “A Message to President Obama From a Former Muslim” in which he attempts to give the President a crash course in Islamic studies. He begins by telling the president that he is wrong when he said that ISIL speaks for no religion. The former Muslim-turned-Christian further explained that terrorism begins in the schools and Mosques and must be cut off at the root.

“I can tell you with confidence that ISIL speaks for Islam. ISIL is a Muslim organization.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxzOVSMUrGM#t=111

I have had the opportunity and pleasure to meet several former Muslims in my lifetime and they make excellent and powerful Christians. It is a sometimes dangerous conversion as Islam calls for the death of all Muslims who leave the religion. Islam calls for the conversion, subjugation, or elimination of all peoples who fall under its control. Leaving the religion to join another is simply not an option in Islam and frequently leads to the death or imprisonment of those who decide that the teachings of Muhammad are not for them.

Politicians in particular insist that this is not a war of religion or clash of civilizations. We see an endless spewing of “religion of peace” quotes, diatribes on “a nation of immigrants,” and complaints about ethnic profiling at airports. I wish that someone would tell that to the enemy, for that is exactly the war that they are waging.

Is it really helpful to attempt to portray something as something it as not? Is it helpful to attempt to fool the public into believing something that is false or misleading? Are we to believe that there is in fact no direct link between the Islamic religion and terrorist atrocities?

The adherents of militant Islam are not some small, isolated group of malcontents as they are so often portrayed. Millions of Muslims are adherents to the ideology and religious fervor that wages war on the West. The cries of jihad echo in warfare across the globe. It is the ideology of the Arab slavers waging war on Christians in Sudan. It is the call from hundreds of minarets in Saudi Arabia and the gospel of the mullahs of Iran. It is the creed of the border tribes of Pakistan and is the heart and soul of the Taliban. It flourishes in the jungles of the Philippines and the slums of Indonesia. It sallies forth from the green valleys of Lebanon and preaches its hate in the mosques of Europe. And it beheads Americans on the sands of Syria.

Whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Al-Tawhid, Abu Sayyaf, the Taliban, Al-Ansar Islam, Al-Sadr’s militia, Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, Beyyiat el-Imam, Jund al-Shams, ISIL, or the dozens of other militant terrorist groups infesting the globe their methodology, goals, tactics, cruelty, tenacity, and victims are often eerily the same. It is a strange world of martyrdom, jihad, cries of Allahu Akbar! and fantasies of a heavenly reward of seventy-two virgins. They may differ by sect, creed, or nationality but each wages war on the innocent, the Christian and the Jew, the concepts of Liberty and Justice, and Western Civilization itself.

The real question is whether the West has lost its soul or is able to overcome the deplorable liberal cancer that lobotomizes otherwise intelligent people and creates an endless line of apologists, capitulators, and seditionists. If Western Civilization can wake up from its stupefying stupor of suicidal tendencies and deal with the destruction of its culture, identity, and vision then it has a fighting chance against those who believe only in conversion, subjugation, or death at the hand of the armies of Allah.


Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

Winston Churchill – The River War, volume II pp. 248–50 (1899)

 

Never forget that many of us saw, way back on Sept. 11, 2001, that the enemy of the Americans was the same enemy that was fighting Israel, and India, and Russia, and Indonesia and the Philippines, and infiltrating Europe, and advocating in America, and throwing acid in the face of unveiled women across the world, and preaching fanaticism in Saudi Arabia, and blowing up statues in Afghanistan, and manning the madrasses in Pakistan, and pushing propaganda on al-Jazeera, and blowing up schoolchildren in Tel-Aviv, and beheading young men… – blogger D.F.V.

The Questions Aren’t Ridiculous to Ask Anymore

The Questions Aren’t Ridiculous to Ask Anymore

Not too long ago if you supposed that President Obama was sympathetic to his Islamic experience as a child, inside the beltway Republicans would cringe and Progressives would howl. Non-engaged and no- and low-information voters would immediately call you a conspiracy theorist, an Obama-hating racist and other assorted kneejerk labels. But given the incredible inaction and indecisiveness on Mr. Obama’s part with regard to the Islamic State, this question not only needs to be braved, but has become one we all need a definitive answer to.

In a 2007 New York Times article, Nicholas Kristoff wrote:

“‘I was a little Jakarta street kid,’ [Mr. Obama] said in a wide-ranging interview in his office…Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated…, Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’

“Moreover, Mr. Obama’s own grandfather in Kenya was a Muslim. Mr. Obama never met his grandfather and says he isn’t sure if his grandfather’s two wives were simultaneous or consecutive, or even if he was Sunni or Shiite.”

Mr. Obama intended, from the very beginning, to bring a new perspective to the American people about the Islamic culture. His 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt, was titled “A New Beginning.” In that speech Mr. Obama said:

“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

But as Victor Davis Hanson points out in his article “Obama’s Hazy Sense of History”:

“President Obama doesn’t know much about history…In his therapeutic 2009 Cairo speech, Obama outlined all sorts of Islamic intellectual and technological pedigrees, several of which were undeserved. He exaggerated Muslim contributions to printing and medicine, for example, and was flat-out wrong about the catalysts for the European Renaissance and Enlightenment…”

I would sign on to what Mr. Hanson is selling, if in fact Mr. Obama isn’t either executing the Progressive tactic of purposefully re-writing history, exhibiting an open sympathy for the Islamist movement (this would be the only transparent thing that has ever come out of his administration), or both. And while many people allude to the notion that Mr. Obama might be apathetic to his responsibilities as President of the United States, others, looking at myriad events taking place around the world and on our own doorstep, simply label Mr. Obama as inept and wholly unqualified. Again, I would sign on to these theories if I could be assured that Mr. Obama and his advisors aren’t purposefully re-writing history and facilitating the advance of the Islamist movement.

The truth of it all is this. I cannot be sure, anymore, that Mr. Obama isn’t purposefully re-writing history and actively helping the Islamist movement. We have come to a moment in time, given the real-time events that are unfolding, when Mr. Obama must prove to the American people that he is not facilitating the Islamist cause. And make no mistake; the stakes are high, perhaps even higher than the bar set by the al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001.

American intelligence and law enforcement agencies are openly acknowledging that they are very concerned with the Islamist-sympathetic demographic here in the United States. The New York Times reports:

“American intelligence and law enforcement agencies have identified nearly a dozen Americans who have traveled to Syria to fight for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria…As ISIS has seized large expanses of territory in recent months, it has drawn more foreign men to Syria, requiring more American and European law enforcement resources in the attempt to stop the flow of fighters, senior American officials said… ISIS has become more attractive to would-be militants because, unlike Al Qaeda, it has seized territory that it rules by strict Islamic law. ‘ISIS is able to hold itself up as the true jihad,’ said a senior American official.”

Brietbart.com reports that the Texas Department of Public Safety has issued a memo warning that ISIS is taking advantage of the porous Texas-Mexico border in an effort to execute campaigns of terrorism against Americans on American soil. They also report that the US Border Patrol is taking the information seriously, with one Laredo Section Border Patrol agent saying they have credible information that ISIS is “attempting to find individuals and groups in Nuevo-Laredo Mexico to assist in gaining entry into the United States.”

Even Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, an individual intimate with the workings of radical Islam (lest we forget that Saudi riches fund almost all of Islam’s expansion into the West), is validating claims that ISIS has the United States, Europe and, in fact the whole of Western Civilization in its crossed-hairs. The Washington Times reports:

“Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has a stark warning to America: The Islamic State’s terror will visit American shores in one month if it is not confronted in Syria and Iraq.

“‘If we ignore them, I am sure they will reach Europe in a month and America in another month,’ the king said Saturday, Agence France Presse reported…‘Terrorism knows no border and its danger could affect several countries outside the Middle East…It is no secret to you, what they have done and what they have yet to do. I ask you to transmit this message to your leaders: Fight terrorism with force, reason and speed.’”

To reiterate, this is the King of Saudi Arabia, the guardian of Islam’s holiest place on Earth, Mecca, saying this.

Yet, Mr. Obama has taken to the presidential podium to admit that his administration has no strategy with which to counter the Islamic State threat. And while his handlers scramble to affect damage control at Mr. Obama’s statement, the reality of the matter is this: damage control is really all this administration is doing about the Islamic State threat. It appears that they are much more concerned about transforming the United States of America into a Socialist Democracy nanny-state than they are with executing the job of government, as well as the chief responsibility of that job, protecting the American people and guarding the homeland. It doesn’t matter what the issue is: securing our citizenry from illegal immigration, protecting our citizenry against foreign-born disease, guarding against violent drug cartels from disseminating death to our people, or violent jihadists courting drug cartels to mule them into the United States, the only angle Mr. Obama and his handlers cover – the only aspect with which this Progressive cabal is concerned – is the political angle.

But Mr. Obama has a response to accusations like mine. The Washington Times reports:

“President Obama told Democrat supporters Friday night that the news media is partly to blame for making Americans worry about emergencies overseas such as advances by Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.

“‘If you watch the nightly news, it feels like the world is falling apart,’ Mr. Obama said at a fundraiser in Westchester County, New York. ‘I can see why a lot of folks are troubled… ‘The world’s always been messy…we’re just noticing now in part because of social media,’ he said.”

The Saudi King warns the world about the viciousness of the jihadists of the Islamic State and Mr. Obama blames social media for ginning up discontent? Seriously? Countless numbers of videos, photographs and eyewitnesses recount Christians and non-Christians alike – even Muslims – being slaughtered at the hands of Islamic State barbarians, women being inducted into sexual servitude and children being cut in half and behead, their tiny skulls impaled on stakes as death markers to all who shall pass, and Mr. Obama says “the world’s always been messy”? Seriously?

A few years ago it might have been condemned and dismissed as Right-Wing demagoguery or conspiracy, but we have arrived at a moment in time when these questions are not only valid, but ones that beg to be asked.

Mr. Obama:

▪ Are you with the American people or against us?

▪ Are you sympathetic to the jihadi Islamist cause?

▪ Or are you just completely over your head in your station; unqualified for the job of President of the United States?

Sadly, regardless of the answers, the song remains the same. We have a vicious, power-hungry, and ideologically and financially emboldened enemy at the gates of Western Civilization and the United States and her people are saddled with a Commander-in-Chief who will do little to impede their progress. This leads to additional questions:

1) Will Mr. Obama’s time in office end before it is too late to do the job he refuses to do?

2) Will the American people be smart enough to elect a leader who is actually qualified for the job in 2016?

God help all of us who brave the pursuit of these answers.

Obama’s “JV” Terrorists

isis-beheads-america-journalist-james-wright-foley-message-to-obama-islamic-state

It is not uncommon to find inconsistencies and even contradictions in U.S. foreign policy. Usually a few years of separation are required to reveal our inconsistency, as in the case of Iran. Rarely do we see such striking contradictions in real time as we do today in the Middle East policies of the Obama administration.

isis-iraq-war-crimes.siISIS occupies the center stage of our current iteration of contradictory policy. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which subsequently changed their name to the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL), apparently now wants to be known simply as The Islamic State (IS). This is the militaristic group that has emerged out of Syria, Al-Nusra, and merged with Al Qaeda of Iraq, to take over significant portions of eastern Syria and northern Iraq.

Threatening to violently take over all of Iraq and Syria, establishing an Islamic caliphate that would eventually cover the world, they have mercilessly spread their destruction from city to city. They behead or conduct mass executions against whoever opposes them (including American journalists), kidnap for ransoms to fund their operations, and have vowed to raise the ISIS flag over the White House. They are well funded from bank robberies, selling oil on the black market, and from kidnap ransoms. They are well trained, militant, and are well armed, predominantly with U.S. equipment.

rightThis is the Al Qaeda-linked group of terrorists that Obama referred to as “JV” (junior varsity) just a few months ago. In an interview with New Yorker magazine in January, the president applied a metaphor, saying of ISIS, that putting on a “Laker’s uniform doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” That “JV” group of militants, now figured to be 10,000 strong (including some westerners and as many as 300 Americans) is now perceived to be the greatest terrorist threat in the world.

During the 2012 presidential campaign, more than 32 times the president claimed Al Qaeda was “decimated” or “defeated.” To acknowledge their resurgence just two years later would not fit with his narrative as slayer of Osama bin Laden and vanquisher of his terrorist group. Consequently, their emerging threat had to be minimized.

But that’s just the tip of the ISIS iceberg for the administration. We have to realize that for the past few years the president has been actively engaged in toppling Middle Eastern regimes; Khadafy in Libya, Mubarak in Egypt, and Assad in Syria. In fact, just over a year ago the president was requesting $500 million to help the “freedom fighters” in Syria topple the Assad regime. The majority of those “freedom fighters” now go by the name ISIS, and the president was poised to fund them.

050913_ObamaBenghaziCoverUp_UFSCOLOREven worse, according to CNN last August, CIA sources have revealed that the Benghazi consulate attack of 9/11/12 was directly linked to a clandestine administration operation providing arms to the rebels in Syria. It wasn’t just the consulate compound in Benghazi that was demolished by the marauding jihadists, but the CIA facility two kilometers away, that housed the cash and weapons caches being smuggled into Syria. Jihadists got all of it.

This clarifies the need of the administration to fabricate a story about a YouTube video causing the “spontaneous demonstration” leading to the assassination of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi. In light of recent developments with ISIS, clearly the administration was displaying their naiveté, or, worse yet, intentionally downplaying the effects of surging jihadist groups, by willfully arming and funding them in their effort to displace Assad.

Clarifying the nature and ideological alignment of ISIS, last week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that ISIS and Hamas are “branches of the same tree.” He explained, “Hamas is ISIS, ISIS is Hamas. They’re the enemies of peace. They’re the enemies of Israel. They’re the enemies of all civilized countries.”

RAMclr-062514-attack-IBD-COLOR-FINAL.gif.cmsThis brings us to current events, with the president now authorizing bombing of ISIS targets in Iraq, and leaving the door open to possible raids even into Syria. So now he’s bombing the same militants that he sought to legally fund through congress, was actively arming and funding through clandestine CIA operations in Benghazi, Libya, and that he has characterized as being “JV” terrorists. And let’s not forget that by leaving Iraq so hastily without a Status of Forces agreement, the administration created the vacuum facilitating the successful march of ISIS across northern Iraq.

Last week Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said, “I think evidence is pretty clear when we look at what they did to Mr. Foley [the American journalist James Foley, beheaded last week by ISIS], what they threaten to do to all Americans and Europeans, what they are doing now, the — I don’t know any other way to describe it other than barbaric. 

They have no standard of decency, of responsible human behavior. And I think the record is pretty clear on that. So, yes, they are an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else.” He concluded, “We’ve never seen anything like it before.”

"We are in your state. We are in your cities. We are in your streets."

“We are in your state.
We are in your cities.
We are in your streets.”

Those who maintain that the U.S. should embrace a non-interventionist foreign policy would have us believe that this is not a concern to us. In social media and elsewhere they promulgate an attitude of, “let them kill each other off.”

It could already be too late for that. Last week Texas Governor Rick Perry said, “There’s the obvious great concern that because of the condition of the border from the standpoint of it not being secure and us not knowing who is penetrating across, that individuals from ISIS or other terrorist states could be [crossing the border] — and I think there is a very real possibility that they may have already used that.” Our southern border is not secure, and clearly anyone of means or resources could easily breach it.

There are signs that they have already done so. ISIS has posted and tweeted photographs of their flag flying in Washington, D.C. and Chicago, with the message, “We are in your cities.” Just this week, the United Kingdom raised their terrorist threat assessment from “substantial” to “severe” in response to the rising danger ISIS poses globally.

In the 1990’s, Al Qaeda declared war on the U.S. We didn’t take it seriously and dealt with terrorist attacks as incidents for law enforcement. We all remember what that led to. And according to Secretary Hagel, this threat is greater. Attorney General Eric Holder announced this week that the FBI would investigate the beheading of journalist James Foley. Is history repeating itself, due to incompetence and an ideologically driven approach to assessing and addressing our exogenous threats? Regrettably, it appears so.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

 

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

ISIS in Chicago

Stunningly (okay, maybe I am not as stunned as I could be), the Obama Administration’s State Department has succeeded in achieving the same stunted intellect toward the threats made by violent Islamists as was held by our government in the days before September 11, 2001. The critical mass moment came in the announcement that State Department rejects the Islamic State’s claim that is it at war with US.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

“The State Department downplayed comments from Islamic State (ISIL or ISIS) leaders that they are at war with America, arguing that their violence is not directed at any particular country or race.

“At a briefing Thursday, a reporter brought up anti-American comments from ISIL leaders: ‘I mean, even they are announcing, ISIL people in their message, whatever, the recorded message, other messages, that now we are in a war with America.’

“‘This is not about ISIL versus the United States,’ State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf objected. ‘They are killing anyone who gets in their way: Sunnis, Shia Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, Iraqis, Syrians, anyone who gets in their way — and now an American.'”

At almost the very same moment, The Washington Times reports:

“Sunni radicals with the Islamic State terrorist group have posted a number of tweets aimed at the citizens of Chicago, including a picture of an unidentified man on Michigan Avenue holding a paper with a handwritten Arabic message: ‘We are in your streets’…

“The location of the tweet was 307 N. Michigan Avenue at the city’s Old Republic Building, Chicago’s WGN network reported Friday. The tweet, dated June 20, allegedly says, ‘Soldiers of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria will pass from here soon.'”

Stupid is as stupid does. But this is a very special kind of stupid. It is an almost exact replication of what happen in both 1996 and again in 1998, when the US State Department – and, indeed, the entirety of the US government – ignored Osama bin Laden’s two declarations of war against the United States. The result of this arrogant attitude came in the slaughter of 2,977 people and an additional 1,140 responders and people who worked, lived or studied in Lower Manhattan at the time who have since been diagnosed with cancer.

One has to wonder. Is the Obama Administration so inept; so ill-qualified to lead, that it simply doesn’t understand the immediate danger our country’s people face? Is it that they are just so incredibly immersed in their ideology that they would be willing to watch our people plummet, burning in the skies, from another skyscraper? Or is it that this administration is literally sympathetic to the Islamist cause?

That last thought would have warranted the “conspiracy theory” label just a year or two ago. Now, frighteningly, it has become a legitimate question.

Chicago next terror target for ISIS?

ISIS threatens Chicago

Just as military leaders are pressuring the White House to expand the fight against ISIS, soldiers of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have posted an image that alludes to a threat against Chicago.

On Twitter, an ISIS supporter or member posted this:

ISIS threatens Chicago

The writing on the card is in Arabic, but reportedly says:

soldiers of the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria will pass from here soon

A Twitter and Facebook battle has been raging between ISIS and those supportive of the United States:

ISIS tweets include:

https://twitter.com/dwalt_aleslam/status/502240371561078784

-AND-

https://twitter.com/Almost12000/status/501846754825097216

With Americans and their supporters posting response tweets such as:

-AND-

The new way to fight the war on terror.

 

NYC ‘Progressive’ Mayoral Candidate Bill de Blasio Linked to Communism, Terrorism and Islam

Wikipedia
Wikipedia

Wikipedia

NEW YORK, Oct. 22, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — A press conference on Thursday, October 24, in the Big Apple will blow the lid off the “Marxist power couple” running for mayor of New York City. That’s how veteran journalist and event organizer Cliff Kincaid describes Bill de Blasio and his wife Chirlane McCray, who took their “honeymoon” in Cuba in violation of the law and are considered the frontrunners to occupy Gracie Mansion when the NYC mayoral election that takes place on November 5.

Kincaid says it is time that de Blasio’s plans to close down police surveillance of potential terrorists be examined in a public forum. “The city that suffered through the 9/11 terrorist attack needs to know what we have uncovered about this so-called ‘progressive’ candidate for mayor,” he said.

In addition to Kincaid, director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and president of the public policy group America’s Survival, Inc., the speakers include:

  • Pamela Geller on Arab/Muslim terrorism, why Islamists support de Blasio, and what the political group “Muslims for de Blasio” wants from the candidate.
  • Tea Party leader Joe Connor on unanswered questions surrounding de Blasio’s role in the Clinton pardons of the FALN terrorists who claimed his father’s murder.
  • World-famous blogger Trevor Loudon on the “democratic socialism” that is coming to New York City if de Blasio wins the mayor’s race.

The event, open to the press and public, will be held in the Hotel Pennsylvania (across from Penn Station), at 401 7th Ave, New York, New York, 10001, in the Gold Ballroom, from12:30 – 3:00 pm.

In advance of the event, Kincaid’s group has posted a 84-page PowerPoint dossier on de Blasio’s controversial foreign connections, as well as a research paper on his wife’s involvement in a Marxist collective. They can be found at www.usasurvival.org. These topics will be discussed in detail at the October 24 conference in New York City.

De Blasio was considered just a run-of-the-mill liberal until the New York Times on September 23 ran a profile of the candidate, disclosing in a matter-of-fact manner his travels to Cuba and Nicaragua, involvement in a communist “solidarity” movement, and embrace of Islam as an emerging political force. Kincaid said his group of speakers will expand on this subject and disclose new and even more startling aspects of de Blasio’s career.

Progressives, Dems Slap the Faces of Benghazi Dead

In a move that illustrates why the overwhelming majority of American’s have grown to despise partisan politics – and come to be understandably offended by the actions of the Left, Progressives and Democrats on the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee executed – under the guise of protest – one of the most insensitive and disrespectful actions in the history of the United States House of Representatives. They staged a pre-planned and organized “walkout” before the testimonies of the families of those slaughtered in Banghazi on September 11, 2012.

Those elected to office are sent to Washington to represent the whole of their constituencies, not just those with whom they agree. By staging this inarguably childish – and ultimately selfish – political theater, they have abdicated their responsibility to represent those with whom they disagree ideologically. This is an abdication of their obligation to the office; to their constituents. It is an action that even their supporters should abhor and, in fact, penalize them for.

The Capitalism Institute reports:

Earlier today, an important hearing regarding the attack on Benghazi was being held by the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee. The parents of the Benghazi heroes who died fighting to protect the US consulate were about to speak.

Then, in a turn of events that’s disgusting even by DC standards, most of the Democrats stood up and walked out. Apparently, they were either protesting or trying to show disrespect — either way, if there was any honor in their districts at all, this would end their careers…

Here’s the list of people who walked out:

Carolyn Maloney (P-NY)
Danny Davis (P-IL)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (P-DC)
Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA)
Jim Cooper (D-TN)
John Tierney (P-MA)
Mark Pocan (P-WI)
Matt Cartwright (P-PA)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM)
Peter Welch (P-VT)
Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
Steven Horsford (P-NV)
Tammy Duckworth (P-IL)
Tony Cardenas (D-CA)
William Lacy Clay (D-MO)

Remember, last week John Kerry stopped the Benghazi survivors from being even questioned by congress.

What were these vicious ideologues trying to prove? That they could be indignant to the point of insulting parents and family who had to receive coffins in place of an embrace from their loved ones as they returned home from serving their country?

What was the statement the country was supposed to take away from their actions? That they are too good to listen to the grief that their political party’s infantile foreign policy has foisted onto these families?

Will these indignant Progressive and Liberal zealots have us believe that there was some “higher principle” to take away from their affront to the aggrieved; some “larger purpose” to their hate-filled and arrogant actions?

Progressives and Liberals would have you believe that their party – the Democrat Party – is the party of compassion and understanding; that the Democrat Party is the political party that commiserates with those affected by “social injustice” and morally transgressed in our country. The actions of these fifteen intellectual reprobates proves – in no uncertain terms – that Progressives couldn’t care less about those they disagree with, even when life has been lost…even when life has been lost in the service of our country…even when life has been lost in the service of our country at their political party’s direction (or indirection, if you will).

The mother of slain diplomat Sean Smith, in probably the most moving comment of the session, asked:

“Every time I see this on TV, I see these bloody fingerprints crawling down the wall of that Benghazi place, and I keep asking everybody…‘Do those belong to my son?!’”

How can any human being – elected to office or not, ideologue or not – care less about this woman’s torture; care less about that singularly important question? What kind of monster(s) ignores this woman’s plea for answers?

With each footstep that each of these fifteen political derelicts took leading to the doors of the committee chamber, we should all remember that those were footsteps that Amb. Chris Stevens, Diplomat Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty will never – ever – be able to take…anywhere…ever.

I think it is safe to say that the actions of these fifteen “lawmakers” exemplify the worst in American politics today.

The sad thing in all of this is that there are people who will vote for these national disgraces again in 2014, dismissing their cruel and unusual actions against the grieving families of the Benghazi dead. To those people I say, when you cast your vote for one of these fifteen, take note of the blood dripping from your hand, because it is there.

I must say, over the years I have become thoroughly disgusted with the Progressive movement for their selfish, narcissistic and ignorant nature. This action seals it.

God bless those who lost their lives in the Benghazi slaughter, for which our Commander-In-Chief offered no aid; for which our President and his Progressive minions have affected no justice. And God protect those who grieve for their loss.

We Need to Be Honest; Dispensing With the Spin

Daquella Manera (CC)

As we consider the anniversary of September 11th – now, both 2001 and 2012, it is important to consider some simple truths. These truths eluded our government and the nation in the early days after September 11th, 2001, because partisan politicians in Washington, DC, erected walls that kept our law enforcement and intelligence communities from honestly informing each other about the threats to our nation and her citizens. Even more disturbingly, today, little has changed. Twelve years after the initial attacks by al Qaeda on our country, most of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations are left unaddressed and an administration has been elected to office that refuses to identify the enemy for their common bond.

Sun Tzu wrote, in The Art of War, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt.”

Before September 11th, 2001, we, as a nation, were unfamiliar with not only Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but also the whole of the Islamist dogma. Now, after the slaughter of four brave Americans in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012, our nation’s leadership, hobbled by the Progressive tenet of political correctness, refuses to accurately identify the enemy; to identify the root cause for the overwhelming number of terrorist acts around the world.

Before September 11th, 2001, we were ignorant of the lesson found in Sun Tzu’s quote. After September 11th, 2012, our leadership simply ignores Sun Tzu’s wisdom.

It is indisputable that with precious few exceptions, the perpetrators of almost every terrorist act in the world today have a direct connection to Islamist jihadis; who, in turn, exist solely under the ideological umbrella of the religion of Islam. Those who argue to the contrary are either uninformed, deniers, fools or intellectually stunted. Yet our current leadership exists so crippled by their ideological dogma that they, purposefully, refuse to identify the obvious enemy; the enemy who has declared, in no uncertain terms, that Islam will reign supreme; that they intend to conquer the world in the name of their religion.

A perfect example of this pig-ignorance comes in the issue of Syria.

Whether you believe President Obama and his team are inept in their foreign policy, unconcerned about anything but the “fundamental transformation” of the United States domestically, or sympathetic to the Islamist cause – or perhaps all three, the notion that there is a side to champion in the Syrian conflict is ignorant folly. Yes, Bashar al Assad is a tyrant, brutal to his own people in his quest to retain power in that country. And it is a distinct possibility that he or his field commanders may have used chemical weapons against civilians as well as rebel forces. But intervening in an effort to champion al Assad’s opposition literally places the United States in an alliance with those who support and fight in the name of al Qaeda, the very people who both slaughtered 2,996 people and injured over 6,000 more on September 11th, 2001, and viciously murdered four Americans, including a US ambassador on September 11th, 2012.

Additionally, each action and non-action taken by this administration has not only decreased the standing of the United States in the Middle East, but has facilitated the rise of Islamists to positions of influence throughout the region. Even the Obama Administration’s objection to the Egyptian military’s deposing of the illegitimately elected Muslim Brotherhood to government, in the aftermath of Mubarak’s fall from power, favored Islamists; those who would establish Sharia law and band together to form a regional caliphate.

So, the base question that each and every American should be asking him or herself is this. What the hell are we doing? Why are we aligning or aiding any faction, movement or government that exists sympathetic or in allegiance to anything Islamist?

Further, why haven’t we had the courage – as a free people – to ask the questions that politically correct Progressives and the intellectually squeamish run from, like:

▪ Why isn’t the Islamist ideology held accountable for the violent actions of those who commit atrocities in the name of Islam?

▪ Why hasn’t Saudi Arabia – the protectors of the most holy locations in the Islamic religion, been held to account for not only the actions of their charge, but for literally exporting the most virulent strain of Islam (Wahhabism) to foreign shores?

▪ Why are our elected officials so adverse to recognizing – and then stating as their positions – that the tenets of Sharia law are not compatible with the freedoms and liberties enshrined in our Charters of Freedom and in Western ideology?

▪ Why – why – are our leaders so frightened of identifying an enemy who has declared war on the West – and the United States and Israel, specifically, for years and years and years…?

▪ Why – why – is the West so terrified of confronting the evil that exists in the Islamist ideology; the evil that cuts the heads of innocents, eats the organs of its foes, burns Christian churches to the ground as they execute priests and nuns; the evil that wants to finish what Adolf Hitler started with regard to the world’s Jewish population?

▪ And why, why, why, do we elect idiot politicians who make excuses for bloodthirsty jihadis, even to the points of denying that “Allahu Akbar!” is an Islamist battle cry and lobbying for weaponry and alliance?

The issue of whether the United States should act because chemical weapons were used in Syria is a serious matter. The use of WMD is something that the entire world community should take very seriously. But when both sides of the conflict despise you; when both combatants in the fight hold you, your nation, your nation’s citizens and the whole of the Western world in contempt, perhaps that fight; perhaps the action needed in the aftermath of the use of those WMD, must come from within that faction’s own world. If the use of WMD is so outrageous to the whole of humanity, perhaps Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain should take action against Syria, the rebels or whoever else is eventually found to be guilty of this atrocity.

To wit, the fact is undeniable: Whoever wins in Syria will not be a friend to the United States and the West, so aiding one side over another is a pretty stupid investment of blood and/or treasure.

And while the debate on the use of WMD in Syria is one that should be undertaken, it should be undertaken with the pre-condition that we in the West – and especially we here in the United States – realize that Islamists are not our friends, evidenced not only by their actions, but by their words; their threats, their promises and their declarations.

The battle – both ideologically and physically – between the West and Islamism is a fundamental battle between good and evil; between the cultures of personal liberty and oppression. Islamism, Sharia and all of the Islamist tenets that entangle that dogma in conquest, oppression, violence and the worship of death, exist as nemesis to the free world; the enemy of freedom itself.

That limp-wristed politicians, Progressives and sympathetic apologists from the West refuse to admit the obvious doesn’t make the fact any less real. It just makes the West – and the people of the West – subject to the dangers, subject to the murderous violence, that Islamism projects onto the world.

On this observance of September 11th, 2001 – and now September 11th, 2012, I, again, offer my condolences to all those directly affected by the loss of life, and offer my appreciation to all those who have answered the call to defend liberty and freedom around the world.

On this observance of the “September 11ths,” I stand unashamed to say, I know who the enemy is…both inside and outside the gates.

Refusal to Answer

500px-Seal_of_Massachusetts_(variant).svg

FOIA MA State Police Letter2

The official Massachusetts State Police statement on the 5 men and 2 women arrested for trespassing near the largest man-made water reservoir in the U.S. just days after the Boston Marathon bombings is “no comment,” but that’s not the end of the story.

Publicly, MSP cannot legally release the names or other information about the 7 individuals because they haven’t been officially charged with any crimes, despite the state police department’s efforts to reverse that decision by a magistrate judge from the East Hampshire District Court which serves Belchertown, MA where the reservoir is located.

Clerk Randal Smith would not release the date of the judicial review of the clerk’s decision, citing statutes that require information be withheld from the public until a complaint is filed. Radio host and blogger Michael Graham has a bit more information, as provided by MSP Spokesperson David Procopio:

“In summary, the Quabbin case has not advanced at the Belchertown District Court since the original MSP appeal in May. At that time, the Assistant Clerk Magistrate determined that there was probable cause, yet ruled that no complaint would be filed. Subsequent to that finding, because we believe the complaint should issue so that there is a record of a charge against these individuals, we requested judicial review of the clerk’s decision (basically asking that a judge at the court review the case and issue the complaints).

We think it is important to create a record within the judicial system that the individuals were observed trespassing at a critical infrastructure site at an odd hour (around midnight or so) and gave the stated reason that they had professional and academic interest in engineering and wanted to observe the water storage structure.

Since that time, we have made periodic inquires to the court to determine the status of the case. After receiving your inquiry, we made inquiry of the court again today. Today’s inquiry resulted in the court telling us that the case will be heard by the Belchertown District Court Justice on either September 25th or October 2nd. When the appeal is heard, the Justice may make a summary finding or take it under consideration for a future finding.”

Perhaps the intense confidentiality and confusion related to the MSP complaint and any information on the individuals involved can be explained by the “on-going criminal matter” as described in the Freedom of Information Act request response from the Office of Chief Legal Counsel for the Massachusetts State Police. See page 2 of the response below.
FOIA MA State Police Letter 1

Major media outlets have largely ignored any follow-up on this story, originally reported at CDN in May 2013. Shortly after the trespassing incident, padlocks were cut at an aqueduct in the area that provides drinking water for the greater Boston area.
_____________________________________________________
To see the early coverage of the trespassing incident, click here:

Questions Remain After 7 Arrested For Trespassing

Massachusetts State Police Unhappy With Clerk Decision
_____________________________________________________

Follow me on Twitter!

TSA Annexes NFL

TSA logic: Coming to an NFL stadium near you.

TSA logic: Coming to an NFL stadium near you.

I never thought I’d live to see the day when you couldn’t bring more than 3 oz. of shampoo into a National Football League stadium. Over the years I’ve grudgingly accepted the ban on explosives, handguns, rifles and vuvuzelas, but this may be the last straw.

The NFL has now decreed that fans (quaintly known in some quarters as paying customers) may no longer bring purses larger than a pack of cigarettes (also banned, BTW) into the stadium. In addition, the ban includes briefcases, fanny packs, coolers, backpacks, cinch bags, computer bags (!) and camera bags. Instead attendees may fill one clear plastic bag no large than 12” X 6” X 12” with their worldly possessions.

NFL officials suggest items that won’t fit inside the bag may be put in your pockets, around your neck or slipped inside a handy body cavity. In its benevolence the NFL is allowing fans to bring blankets inside, as long as you sling it over your shoulder like the infantry in the Army of Northern Virginia did.

The reason for the change is as tiresome as it is irrelevant: “To provide a safer environment for the public and significantly expedite fan entry into stadiums.” The new policy will expedite all right. Once the argument with the TSA–wannabe is over, females will be jettisoning personal possessions into waiting trash bins like shipwreck survivors tossing unneeded weight out of a lifeboat.

How sowing confusion is going to speed up security lines is something of a mystery. Many items formerly contained in a purse will go into pockets instead, where they will trigger metal detectors. This, in turn, will trigger pat–downs, wandings, pocket emptying, possession dropping and possession forgetting. You’ll have all the fun of an airport security line without the bother of remembering to put your tray table in “its full, upright and locked position.”

This season the NFL will be conducting an unintentional experiment in market dynamics. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the descending curve of a fan’s desire to attend the game to cross the rising nuisance curve of petty NFL rules. Commissioner Roger Goodell’s lasting legacy may be as the man who made pro football a studio sport.

Various credulous observers have commented, “I understand the need for increased security when it comes to larger bags. All someone needs to do is mention the 2013 Boston Marathon to silence critics.”

I’ve got a news flash: One couldn’t bring a pressure cooker into a Redskins game before the Boston bombing, much less afterwards. Dan Snyder, Redskins owner, wouldn’t allow the competition with his over–priced hot dogs. And speaking of Snyder, the NFL advised owners to establish a location where females who didn’t get the word could check their purses outside the stadium, like a hotel does with coats, and then pick the purse up after the game.

Snyder — a noted paragon of customer service — provided a little expediting here, too. Women were told to trek back to their cars with their purse or drop it in the trash.

The safety concerns of the majority of fans, and almost all the women, concern being protected from aggressive drunks, hurling drunks, disrobing drunks, cursing drunks and fighting drunks. (For their part the drunks may have some complaints, too but they have trouble remembering.) But ending alcohol sales or increasing patrolling security inside the stadium would cut into owner profits, whereas making you throw your purse in the trash costs Snyder nothing.

When you combine that with the fact you have to leave earlier to catch a football game than you do to catch a flight. The traffic home will be at least as bad as traffic to the stadium. Parking can run you $50. The ticket can cost more than an airline flight. And you have to sit idle while play stops for a TV commercial — the option of sitting at home and watching the game looks better and better. In fact, during the 2011 season almost two million seats went unsold in the NFL.

Airlines don’t worry too much about security irritation because there is no real alternative for long distance travel. But the NFL provides its own alternative: Televised games! Where you see better, eat cheaper, have a smaller carbon footprint and are on a first name basis with the drunks.

I can’t imagine this latest “safety” brainstorm is going to make NFL owners happy if they start losing concession, parking and ticket revenue.

Of course it could be that football fans are intrinsically more dangerous than baseball fans. I went to a Nationals game this week. The guard glanced in my wife’s large, black, opaque bag, saw clear plastic bottles of water and waved her though. It took about 15 seconds. There were no metal detectors and no pat–downs. I didn’t remove my shoes or my belt. Yet the family didn’t feel the least bit unsafe.

Something tells me the clear plastic bag has more to do with mom sneaking a granola bar into the stadium than it does pressure cooker bombs.

It’s enough to make you wonder if Goodell drinks Maker’s Mark bourbon. You may recall earlier this year Maker’s Mark was presented with a problem many companies wish they had in Obama’s economy — more demand for their bourbon than the company could supply at current production levels.

Classical economics offers two choices to a company in this situation: Raise prices until the demand curve crosses the price curve or keep prices where they are, endure resulting shortages and ramp up production for the future.

Instead, the owners decided to water down their bourbon, reducing alcohol content from 90 proof to 84 proof, so as to increase supply at the same price. Customers were outraged and the company quickly backed down and kept the alcohol level the same.

Goodell is diluting the quality of his product, too. But instead of water he adds irritation.

The Left’s blatant lies about nuclear weapons

ReaganPeaceQuote

ReaganPeaceQuote

The Left never ceases to make attacks on what makes America great and strong – including its military power. And by far the most important and powerful component of America’s military power is its nuclear deterrent. Hence, it is the #1 target in the Left’s crosshairs as it seeks to disarm America unilaterally – gutting both its conventional and strategic arsenals, as well as missile defense.

But of course openly seeking to disarm America for its own sake – and to expose it to danger – would be rejected by most Americans. So to get the public to accept unilateral disarmament, the Left has made up a plethora of lies: that it will supposedly make America and the world more secure and peaceful, that others will follow suit and disarm themselves, that lots of money will be saved, that terrorists will be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons, that America’s “moral leadership” will encourage the “world community” to pressure North Korea and Iran into forgoing nukes… There’s seemingly no end to these Leftist fantasies.

I wonder if they’ll also claim that scrapping America’s nukes will solve the problem of obesity in America.

Let’s review the most popular Leftist lies about America’s nuclear arsenal and see if any of them have even a grain of truth.

1. Myth: “Cutting America’s nuclear arsenal, per se, will make America and the world more secure and peaceful. Less is more. Less is inherently better.”

Fact: On the contrary, it would make America and the world less secure and peaceful. It would weaken America’s deterrent against the gravest threats to US, allied, and world security – nuclear, chemical, biological, and ballistic missile attack, against which nothing else can protect (except, to a limited extent, missile defense). It would thus encourage such attacks by America’s adversaries, for whom the consequences of such attack – because of cuts in America’s deterrent – would be much smaller than when America’s nuclear arsenal is large.

To be secure, you MUST have a large nuclear arsenal – at least as large as that of your biggest adversary. This is because:

1) it needs to be big enough to survive an adversary’s first strike, thus deterring him from attempting one in the first place; and

2) it needs to be big enough to hold the vast majority of an enemy’s assets at risk – and there are thousands of such targets that need to be held at risk.

The more nuclear weapons America has, the safer she and her allies are and the more peaceful the world is. It is STRENGTH, not WEAKNESS, that ensures peace and security.

Just ask yourself: has the world gotten more secure and peaceful over the last 21 years, while America has cut her nuclear by over 75%? Of course not. Russia has rebounded, China has become a superpower, multiple rogue states have become grave threats (and are developing nuclear weapons), and multiple wars have engulfed the world.

2. Myth: “It will entice other countries, e.g. Russia and China, to cut and eventually eliminate their own nuclear arsenals.”

Fact: Quite the contrary, there is abundant evidence that they’d only increase, not cut, their nuclear arsenals. As even Jimmy Carter’s SECDEF, Harold Brown, has said, “When we build, they build. When we cut, they build.” He has called nuclear disarmament a fantasy.

Under New START, Russia has INCREASED, not cut, its nuclear arsenal – as it is allowed to, because New START only requires America to cut its arsenal. Previous unilateral American cuts have also failed to entice Russia to reciprocate. The only time Moscow has cut anything was under the old START treaty, signed in 1991. Now it is GROWING its nuclear arsenal and developing intermediate range missiles in violation of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Meanwhile, China, North Korea, and Pakistan, not bound by any treaty, have indeed GROWN their nuclear arsenals since then – China to as many as 3,000 warheads![1]

In addition, Russia is blatantly violating the INF Treaty by developing and testing an IRBM, and also violating the CFE Treaty! How can we trust Russia to comply with New START and reciprocate the newest cuts proposed by Obama when Russia is not complying with existing arms reduction treaties? We can’t!

3. Myth: “It will show America’s “moral leadership” and “moral example” to “the world community” and encourage it to heavily and successfully pressure North Korea and Iran to forego nuclear weapons.”

Fact: On the contrary, there is abundant evidence the world wouldn’t apply sufficient pressure on North Korea and Iran. And of course, these countries, by themselves, will not be impressed by America’s useless “moral example”. How do we know that?

Because we’ve already tried the Left’s useless, suicidal “arms control” policies and they have utterly failed. Since 1991, America has cut its nuclear arsenal by over 75%, from over 20,000 warheads to just 5,000 today – and has unilaterally withdrawn tactical nuclear weapons from South Korea, ships, and submarines, and unilaterally scrapped its most powerful ICBMs, the Peacekeepers.

Yet, the “world community” has utterly failed to significantly pressure North Korea and Iran – who, to this day, have or pursue nuclear weapons (and North Korea intends to grow its arsenal). Iran even recently opened a heavy-water facility that will enable it to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

Why has the “world community” failed to apply meaningful pressure? Because there is no such thing as a unified “world community”! (Despite the Chicago community organizer’s fantasies and those of Ploughshares’ Joe Cirincione.) America’s allies, including the Gulf states, Israel, Japan, and South Korea[2], have always supported strong pressure against Iran and North Korea, and they’d support such pressure regardless of what the US would’ve done.

(In fact, allies are more likely to back the US and be content with mere “pressure” and sanctions if the US provides a large, strong nuclear umbrella to them, and much less likely to back the US if it continues to cut its nuclear deterrent – which will force them to develop their own nuclear arsenals.)

It is America’s adversaries, Russia and China, who shield those regimes from meaningful pressure. And cutting America’s nuclear deterrent won’t impress them at all – it will only make them even MORE unwilling to influence Iran and North Korea, because an America with fewer nuclear weapons is a militarily weaker America (thus fewer reasons to fear it).

4. Myth: “It will lead to a world without nuclear weapons, which is both desirable and achievable.”

Fact: A world without nuclear weapons is neither desirable nor achievable. There is ZERO chance of there ever being a world without nukes. Russia and China have large and growing arsenals – and are growing and modernizing them. Russia is developing an IRBM in violation of the INF Treaty. North Korea, already wielding nukes, intends to grow it (and has the facilities to do so) – and frequently threatens nuclear war. Iran is well on its way to the nuclear club. Worried about Iran, the Gulf states are seriously considering “going nuclear.” Besides them, India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nuclear weapons and refuse to discuss, let alone scrap, them.[3]

As SIPRI recently admitted, no nuclear power is willing to scrap, or even stop modernizing, its nuclear arsenal. (Other than Obama’s America, that is.) SIPRI’s Hans Kristensen speaks of “rampant modernization” of the arsenals of all nuclear powers.

Moreover, Russia claims her nuclear weapons are “a sacred issue” and utterly refuses to scrap or even cut them. It accords them absolute priority in its military doctrine and reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first, even if its adversary doesn’t have nuclear weapons.

The goal of “a world without nuclear weapons” isn’t just “distant”; it’s utterly unrealistic and ridiculous.

The world is not “moving towards nuclear zero”; it isn’t even on the beginning of the road to nuclear zero, and never will be. The world (other than Obama’s America) is going in the EXACTLY OPPOSITE direction: more nuclear weapons and more nuclear-armed states.

Barack Obama’s legacy will not be “a world without nuclear weapons”, or even a planet going in that direction. Barack Obama’s legacy will be a planet going in the exactly opposite direction, and quite possibly, a nuclear-armed Iran.

So there is ZERO chance of there ever being a world without nuclear weapons. A world with unicorns is more likely.

Nor would such a world be desirable. Nuclear weapons should be liked, not hated, because they’ve prevented any war between the major powers since their inception in 1945. They have a superb, stellar record in deterring enemies and preventing war – a record no other weapon system can claim.

And as Sun Tzu taught, the acme of military skill is to win without fighting.

Humanity lived through “Global Zero” – in a world without nukes – for almost its entire history from its dawn to 1945. During that time, there were numerous and horribly destructive wars between the great powers of the time, each one leading to huge casualties among combatants and civilians and to great destruction. Examples included the Peloponesian war, Rome’s wars of conquest, the Hundred Years War, the Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars, and of course, the two World Wars. Not to mention the numerous bloody civil wars such as those in the US (1861-1865) and Russia (1918-1923).

5 million people, including 1 million Frenchmen, died in the Napoleonic Wars. Proportionally to the populations of today, that would be 50 million Europeans, including 10 million Frenchmen. French casualties in these wars were 14% higher than in WW1. In that war alone, about 10 million people died; in World War 2, over 60 million, and its perpetrators attempted the extermination of entire nations (peoples) and even races. The sheer barbarity and murder witnessed during that war is unmatched by any conflict before or after that war.

Since 1945, however – the advent of nuclear weapons – there has been NO war between the great powers. And it is mostly, if not entirely, because of nuclear weapons, which have moderated their behavior and forced them to accept coexistence with each other even if they have diametrically opposed ideologies. Nuclear weapons have taught them that even the most difficult compromise is better than a nuclear exchange.

5. Myth: “It will prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Fact: This claim is so ridiculous, it’s laughable. Scrapping America’s deterrent will do nothing to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons. They can’t steal American weapons, because these are too well protected. And scrapping America’s nuclear arsenal, as proven above (and by real life experience), will do nothing to entice other countries to give up their nukes, nor prevent terrorists from stealing such weapons or buying them on the black market (if it’s possible).

Besides, having a nuclear warhead is not enough. One must also have a delivery system – a missile or aircraft and mate the two. That is too difficult for terrorists.

6. Myth: “America’s nuclear arsenal is too expensive and not worth the cost of maintaining it. And it siphons money away from other defense programs.”

Fact: America’s nuclear deterrent is one of the cheapest parts of its defenses. It costs only 6% of America’s annual budget, thus giving taxpayers a great return on investment – namely, peace and security from the gravest military threats of this world: nuclear, biological, chemical, and ballistic missile attack.

The ICBM leg of the nuclear triad – the cheapest, most ready, most responsive, and most dispersed leg – costs only $1.1 bn per year to maintain; the bomber leg costs only $2.5 bn per year. The entire nuclear arsenal, including all the warheads, missiles, bombers, submarines, supporting facilities, and personnel costs only $32-38 bn per year to maintain, which is only 6.3% of the entire military budget ($611 bn in FY2013, pre-sequestration).

Numbers don’t lie; liberals do.

For that low cost, taxpayers get a large, diverse, survivable nuclear triad capable of surviving even a large-scale first strike and of striking anywhere in the world with any needed measure of power. A triad that gives the President huge flexibility in where, when, and how to strike; a triad that keeps the enemy guessing as to how the US would retaliate.

No, the nuclear deterrent is not siphoning money away from other defense programs. It is certain other, far more expensive defense programs – notably the Junk Strike Fighter and $13.5-billion-per-copy aircraft carriers – that are siphoning it.

7. Myth: “America’s nuclear deterrent is a relic of the Cold War irrelevant to the current security environment.”

Fact: Nuclear weapons are HIGHLY RELEVANT in the 21st century security environment. They protect America and all of its allies against the following three, potentially catastrophic, security threats: a nuclear/chemical/biological attack, a large-scale conventional attack, and nuclear proliferation.

The US nuclear arsenal is the most effective counter-proliferation program ever created. It has discouraged all of America’s allies except Britain and France from developing nuclear weapons, reassuring them that they don’t need to do so because the US provides a powerful nuclear umbrella to them. Such an umbrella is ESPECIALLY needed now – more than ever – given the nuclear threats posed by Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.

Russia has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads (including 1,550 deployed) and up to 4,000 tactical warheads – and the means to deliver all 6,800 if need be. Its 434 ICBMs can collectively deliver 1,684 warheads to the CONUS; its 14 ballistic missile submarines can deliver over 2,200 warheads to the CONUS (while sitting in their ports); and each of its 251 strategic bombers can carry up to 7 warheads (1 freefall bomb and 6 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles). Its Tu-95 bomber fleet alone can deliver over 700 warheads to the middle of America.

China has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver 1,274 of them. Among these are almost 70 ICBMs, 120 MRBMs, over 1,600 SRBMs, dozens of land-attack cruise missiles, six ballistic missile submarines, and 440 nuclear-capable aircraft. While the vast majority of its SRBMs and cruise missiles are reportedly conventionally-armed at present, they could be armed with nuclear weapons anytime, which is called “breakout capability.”

Then there’s North Korea with its nuclear arsenal (which it has announced it will grow) and ICBMs capable of reaching the US, and Iran, which is coming closer to achieving nuclear weapon status everyday. Only nuclear weapons can protect America against these threats. So they are HIGHLY RELEVANT in the 21st century.

Besides deterring nuclear attack, nuclear weapons also protect America’s treaty allies against a large-scale conventional attack – ensuring that it has never happened so far.

8. Myth: “A small nuclear deterrent (minimum deterrence) will suffice; we don’t need a large arsenal. Our arsenal is too big right now.”

Fact: A small nuclear arsenal will not suffice. Not even close. A small arsenal would be very easy to destroy in a first strike – as there would be far fewer targets for the enemy to destroy – thus stripping America of her nuclear retaliatory power. As Robert Kaplan rightly writes, “Never give your adversary too few problems to solve, because if you do, he’ll solve them.”

Destroying a US arsenal of only 300, 400, or even 800 weapons and a few submarines and bombers would be far easier for Russia and China than destroying America’s current arsenal.

It would also be, in and of itself, due to its small size, unable to threaten any credible retaliation because of too few weapons.

Why? Because, with a small arsenal, the US could threaten only a small number of Russia’s and China’s assets (such as military bases or weapon production plants). Yet, both Russia and China have thousands of assets that America must be able to strike in retaliation – and that doesn’t include North Korea and Iran. The 1,550 deployed strategic warhead ceiling is the absolute minimum needed to threaten credible retaliation against Russia and China. The Heritage Foundation estimates the US needs to have between 2,700-3,000 deployed warheads. The explanation why, and a simple discussion of the principles, the “mechanics”, and the needs of nuclear deterrence are here. Also please see my article here. Also see here.

May I remind you that Russia has between 6,800 and 8,800, and China has between 1,600-3,000, nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver all of them?

Thus, all leftist lies about America’s nuclear weapons have been utterly refuted once again. There isn’t even a kernel of truth in them. They’re all blatant lies.

 

Footnotes:

[1] Former DOD chief nuclear strategist Dr Philip Karber estimates China has up to 3,000 nuclear weapons, mostly hidden in its vast, 3,000-mile-long network of tunnels and bunkers. Retired Russian missile force general Viktor Yesin estimates China’s arsenal more conservatively at 1,600-1,800 warheads.

[2] While South Korea was somewhat hesitant to pressure the North under Presidents Kim and Rooh, that era is long over; current President Park is fed up with North Korea’s incessant threats.

[3] Israel, of course, has good reasons to have a nuclear deterrent, as does America.

« Older Entries