Tag: War on Terror

Random Musings

AG Loretta Lynch is on CNN announcing a Justice Department investigation into the Chicago Police Department’s use of force in recent shootings of young black men. It is interesting to hear the CNN pundits prattle on aimlessly and pointlessly that somehow baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, George W Bush, global warming and Chevrolet are at fault! Yes, it is certainly a tragedy! However, I wonder when it will dawn on them and black Americans that this not taking place in “right-wing, earth-destroying, granny-pushing-off-the-cliff, bible-and-gun-clinging-to conservative America , but rather in a longstanding democratic stronghold; a veritable Alinski-inspired Utopian paradise with very strict gun laws … and one that is brilliantly led by an enlightened Obama administration former member, Rahm Emanuel! Keep on drinking that progressive-liberal cool aid!

On a second note:

Under the Obama administration, ISIS (or ISIL or Daesh or man-caused disasters or overseas contingencies or disgruntled workers or whatever the hell he wants to call radical Islamic terrorism) is growing more and more powerful. Meanwhile back in the good old U.S.A., the U.S. Air Force is running out of bombs! Maybe when the Air Force runs out of bombs, they can start dropping Obama’s bullshit on ISIS and bury them in that. I means, it seems to be working on many Americans!

Why I am an Independent Voter!

american-pride-ebook-stories-usa-logo_full

A comment was aimed at me the other day beginning with the words, “You republicans …….!”   Some people just do not get it at all.  It is no longer about Republican versus Democrat.  It is about the destruction of America!

I am not a Republican although I was for a period of time.  The Republican Party has let me down too many times now.  Can you tell me what the Republican Party stands for?  I can!  It stands for nothing.  They make promises to constituents to get elected and then cave on those same issues at the slightest pressure from the White House, the Democrats, or the press.  And, they do this despite having been given a majority in both Houses of Congress by the voters.  So either they suffer from completely deflated balls or they are RINOS.  It really doesn’t matter at this point.  I know there are a few truly conservative Republicans trying to do something to protect Americans but they are hamstrung and attacked by their own party.  This is why I am no longer a Republican.

I can certainly see what the Democratic Party stands for today.  It is obvious if you watch the news.  The current Democratic Party stands for Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby parts, making terrible deals with our enemies while abandoning our allies, giving illegal aliens free rein to steal from, rape and murder American citizens.  You think Trump is wrong?  He may not be the candidate of choice for me, but at least he speaks the truth.  The murder of Kathryn Steinle on the Embarcadero in San Francisco by an illegal alien is only the most recent example of a crime committed by an illegal alien.   Laura Wilkerson’s 18-year-old son was brutally tortured and murdered by a classmate he had offered a ride home.  The classmate would have been one of Obama’s “Dreamers.”

laura-wilkerson

During testimony before the Congressional Judiciary Committee by parents of victims and Texas State Officials, it was revealed that illegal aliens have been involved in thousands of crimes in Texas alone, including nearly 3,000 homicides.  According to the analysis conducted by the Texas Department of Public Safety, illegal aliens committed 611,234 unique crimes in Texas from 2008 to 2014, including thousands of homicides and sexual assaults.  The report describes an alien crime wave of staggering proportions exacerbated by federal officials unwilling to enforce immigration laws. The Texas DPS report says well over 100,000 individual criminal aliens have been booked into Texas jails.

Let’s see.  In light of this illegal alien crime wave and increasing terrorist attacks on American  soil, the Democratic Party stands for disarming law-abiding American citizens.  They also stand for ignoring the rule of law and dismantling or circumventing the U.S. Constitution, dismantling our military, destroying our economy while fudging unemployment numbers, and subjecting U.S. Citizens to being ruled by the United Nations.

As a friend of mine posted:

Can we stop calling those on the far left liberals and progressives? Nice sounding terms but their actual political platform is Statism and Totalitarianism. Obsessed with “correct thought” and “Correct speech”, [and] the sacrifice of individual choice to ideological “experts”.  In no way is this thinking liberal or progressive. It is very regressive, the exact same policies were the foundation of Statist and Totalitarian regimes from Mao to Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler.  Identity politics, class warfare, racial politics, statistical law making, central planning, there is no correlation between these ideas and classical liberalism, or any of the founding documents of this country. These factors were the dominant trends that made people leave Europe and establish a country based on sovereign States, individual liberty and property rights. Our “liberals” fight against State sovereignty, individual liberty and individual property rights. And our population is apparently too poorly educated to understand our own history.

4736dfdea0e9dd131cb3120ab3edc1e3

Nuff said!

Random Liberal Absurdities

Blue Star Outrage

We have now, no doubt, all heard Canton, Ohio military mother who had been ordered by her condominium board to take down a blue star flag honoring her son’s wartime service.  

The flag with a blue star on a white background is a symbol for families with members serving during a time of war. Marlene Gano of Perry Township near Canton vowed her flag would remain in place until the Iraq war was over and her son,  Master Sgt. Richard Gano Jr., was home.

During the dispute with Marlene Gano and her 76-year-old husband, Richard, the condominium management company found itself flooded with dozens of calls and e-mails since the weekend, some asking if they were communists, or run by Al Qaeda, and some even included death threats.

The condo association on Channonbrook Street SW did reverse its course on Monday, and its management company, REM Commercial Association Management, said Marlene Gano could display the flag 

Despite the reversal, the Ganos said Monday that they still plan to move.

“They may say they’re going to back down,“ said Richard Gano, an Army veteran. “But sometime in the future, it may come back up again.”  It seems they did not like the Gano’s Cresh or Christmas candles in the window either.

 

“Always tell the truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said.”

~Mark Twain

 
In 2007, Real Clear Politics published an artice in which Porter Goss places Madame Pelosi right along with the top members of the intelligence committees at a “virtual tour” of CIA interrogation facilities in 2002:

Their article described some of the background to last week’s congressional uproar over the CIA’s destruction of so-called “terror tapes” that had been made during harsh interrogations of captured al-Qaeda terrorists.

It turned out that back in September 2002, four top members of the intelligence committees — including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who is now House speaker — had been given a “virtual tour” of CIA interrogation facilities overseas.

They heard descriptions of some of the harsh techniques that would be used, including the now-infamous practice known as waterboarding.

“Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing. And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement,” former Rep. Porter Goss told the Post reporters.

He attended the 2002 briefing, along with Pelosi, as chairman of the House intelligence committee. He later served from 2004 to 2006 as CIA director.

This should come as no surprise!  

Either Nancy Pelosi, as the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committees, knew of and condoned the use of expanded interrogation techniques such as waterboarding … which makes her a liar!

Or …

Nancy Pelosi, as the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committees, attended these briefings and left clueless … which makes her incompetent.  

You choose!

As a passing thought … it does seem that clueless and incompetent are the two hallmark characteristics President Obama’s uses in selecting his choices for his administrative appointments …  lets see:

Joseph Biden … doesn’t know when to shut up!

Janet Napolitano … can’t keep her secret in-house memos detailing her radical left-wing reportings on the imminent danger posed by freedom-loving, pro-life, law-abiding American veterans an in-house secret!

Eric Holder … using his Attorney General’s Office to pursue political vendettas against anyone and anything that is a viable tool in the war on terror … excuse me, I mean  … overseas contingency operations! 

Check this link out!

And Lastly … we have all seen what Obama’s economic dream team has accomplished:

President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Mr. President … You promised us tax cuts … but it really sounds to me like you are setting us up for massive tax increases!   This would be especially aggrevious and insulting in light of the irresponcibly less than serious nature of your proposed tax cuts!

But hey … America … you got what you voted for!

Radical Islamic Realism

What is the truth about Radical Islam?

To our homegrown rabid anti-American, left-wing, secular-progressive liberal ideologist, facts are very often inconvenient. And … Islamic Jihadists always want to murder anybody who tries to tell the “whole” truth about Islam.

Radical Islam 2

It is vitally important, for those of us who want to see religious freedoms defended in a world where such freedoms are under a very real global assault by a growing totalitarian religious movement with hundreds of millions of adherents, to understand the TRUTH about radical Islamists.

It is true that all Muslims are not terrorists … but right now, almost all terrorists are Muslims! And … I see very few of the non-terrorist Muslims standing up to their radical brothers and sisters, and saying … STOP! Not in the name of our religion!

Radical Islam 4

While there may, in truth, be many moderate and peaceful Muslims, the real question we need to be addressing as a nation is what is the truth about Islam itself? Is it really a religion of peace, or is it, in reality, a religion fully compatible with, and the theological basis for, radical Islamic violence?

How does Islam REALLY compare with Christianity on several important key issues, like the nature of democracy, the treatment of women, and freedom of conscience? If you will take the time to examine each of these areas carefully, you will find there is a very big difference between these two world religions.

Radical Islam 7

For example, we could compare just one important difference … say … the broader issues of politics, democracy and freedom.

Left-wing, secular-progressive liberals like to argue that both radical Islam and conservative Christianity seek to impose a theocracy on the free West. Well, they are only half right. The radical Islamists are absolutely dedicated toward this goal. The imposition of sharia law over the entire globe, or a global caliphate, is definitely spearheading the Islamist agenda.

In fact, Muslims leaders are quite clear about their intentions here. Many Muslim leaders are very open in stating their plan to wage holy war against all unbelievers … until a global Islamic caliphate is created on planet earth.

Radical Islam 10

So …. where are the radical Christians calling for an end to democracy and the establishment of a theocracy?

The left-wing, secular progressives usually point to the Christian Reconstructionists. But what about them? They are very small in number and hardly mainstream in the Christian community. They are mainly confined to the United States, and most leading Christian groups have long-ago distanced themselves from these Reconstructionists.

And … they are not blowing up non-believers!

There is also no global movement to replace secular law with Biblical law. However, in contrast, Islamist jihad is an international movement, with violent activist elements working to achieve their goals in nation-states all around the globe.

And … even if some Christians are arguing for a Christian America, they state that this is to be a voluntary outcome, achieved by Christian evangelism and Christian persuasion. This is hardly at odds with the Constitution.

And for all the left-wing scare-mongering tactics aimed at the Christian Reconstruction movement, many members of this group are really about such harmless agendas as getting more Christians to vote, and to raise their voices in the public arena. Sorry folks, that is simply not an anti-democratic crusade.

In fact, it was Christianity that gave the modern world its notion of the separation of church and state.

This concept goes all the way back to the teachings of Jesus Christ, when he said that we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s. In fact, there has been a long Christian tradition going back to 494 B.C. and Pope Galesius and his two swords theory: the state and the church. Each is ordained by God, and each has its own sphere of authority and influence.

The fact that these two spheres of authority may have sometimes become confused by men does not negate the basic Biblical position that the two are to remain separate, yet overlapping, authorities.

This, of course, is in direct opposition to Islam. There is absolutely no separation of church and state in Islam. There is no “secular” in Islam. Every facet of life is controlled by sharia law and the will of Allah. That is why real democracy is not going to happen in Muslim nations.

Even those Muslim states where a semblance democracy is established, like in Turkey or Indonesia, things are very different form from Western democratic nations. While Muslims in Turkey or Indonesia enjoy the full range of rights and benefits found in many Western nations, Christians are at best second class citizens in these so-called Islamic democracies. The persecution of Christians in Turkey and Indonesia is an ongoing problem, and the condition of dhimmitude, or servant-hood, in which they find themselves, is well documented in these nations.

When the left-wing, secular-progressive liberals seek to minimize the differences between Christianity and Islam in the name of tolerance, political correctness, and/or getting along, they only result in the denigration of Western democratic freedoms, and the quashing of necessary criticisms of radical Islam.

There is a very real war going on … and it really is a clash of diametrically opposed ideologies. This clash between the Judeo-Christian world view and the Islamic world view is about “two fundamentally opposed visions for society: one based on sharia … a true theocracy … and the other based on freedom”.

Muhammad’s teachings, Islam, literally means submission, and all people are to be the slaves of Allah.

Jesus made a radically different claim: “I no longer call you slaves … But I have called you friends.” (John 15:15)

Freedom and personal responsibility characterize the Judeo-Christian view of mankind. Servitude and tyranny are the inevitable results of the Islamic world view. The two could not be more diametrically opposed. It is time that these distinctions are pointed out and shouted to the world, instead of being covered up by left-wing, secular-progressive Christophobes and the appeasers of Islam.

Islam has a recorded history!  America must open its eyes and read it. We must take the time to really understand the Qu’ran, and Islam … both modern and medieval … and not just what the Muslim apologists want you to hear

The facts are the facts, whether the left-wing, secular-progressive postmodern liberal West likes them or not! And … I guess … really, that’s the entire point of this post.

Francis Fukuyama’s AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS

Some folks leaving comments on posts found on this blog have accused me of being a neoconservative, and while I certainly do have some very conservative views, they are “old traditional American conservative values” and there is nothing “neo” about them.

America At The Crossroads

It seemed interesting, however, to take a look at “neoconservativism” and therefore I read Francis Fukuyama’s book America At The Crossroads. I thought I would share my feelings and observations about the book.

Francis Fukuyama

According to Francis Fukuyama, neoconservatives have failed the United States by losing sight of the core principles on which the neoconservative movement was founded. Fukuyama has long been considered by many to be a quiet, but dedicated supporter of neoconservative values. The fact that he now argues the neoconservativism has left its roots behind and changed into something he can no longer support has caused quite a stirring in many political circles. In this critique of Francis Fukuyama’s book, America At The Crossroads, I will examine Fukuyama’s explanation for is change of heart as well as his suggestions for a new focus in American foreign policy based on a policy Fukuyama has chosen to call realistic Wilsonianism.

On the surface, Fukuyama’s America At The Crossroads seems to be a well-thought out explanation for his change of heart that includes a candid look at some commonsense alternative directions for future American foreign policy strategies. In fact, according to a review written by Gary Rosen of the Washington Post, Francis Fukuyama’s new book is “sober, fair-minded, even a bit dry.” I did find it to be a fairly interesting read and had little problem getting through it. I also found myself nodding in agreement with several passages as I was reading them. It was not until I finished the entire book and had some time to digest what I had read that I began to have some problems with several of Fukuyama’s assumptions and ideas.

In his book, Fukuyam starts off by tracing the history of the neoconservative movement from its earliest roots with the anti-communist leftists at City College in the 1930s and 1940s. He continues through the conservative philosophers such as Leo Strauss, Allan Bloom, and Bert Wohlstetter at the University of Chicago and ends his history by defining a set of four broad neoconservative principles for shaping U.S. foreign policy decisions. These four principles are:

  • A state’s internal character can influence their actions.
  • American military power can be used as a tool for moral ends.
  • A fundamental distrust of international laws and institutions.
  • A real skepticism in the efficacy of social engineering.

Fukuyama’s concern is not that these principles are somehow wrong. Fukuyama states that he still supports these same principles. He argues, however, that since 9/11; the neoconservatives who helped in the formulation of the Bush Doctrine have abandoned them. He states that the Bush administration was too focused on the goal of toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq to think about the formidable task of social engineering that would begin immediately after Hussein’s regime fell. According to Fukuyama, the Bush administration “made a judgment that the appropriate response would be largely stick rather than carrot, and asserted a strong relationship between the new breed of jihadists and the old Arab nationalists like Saddam Hussein.” Fukuyama also argues that the Bush administration very badly underestimated the cost as well as the level of difficulty of the reconstruction that would immediately follow any successful military action.

In his book, Fukuyama seems committed to the spread of democracy in the Middle East as an effective means to reduce the threat of any future violence and the spread of terrorism, bit it is obvious that he prefers the use of soft power such as economic development aid, election monitoring, and civil affairs mentoring (the tools of his realistic Wilsonianism) to the use of military force and intervention. Fukuyama argues that radical Islam is simply a direct consequence of globalization. That it is cause by the loss of national identity that occurs naturally as the world shifts to a modern, more pluralistic society. Fukuyama proposes the use of what he describes as overlapping and sometimes competitive international institutions, practicing what Fukuyama terms multi-multilateralism as the best means to effectively end terrorism. He argues that the U.S. should make better use of its ability to lead the world by example, to train and educate, and offer both advise and economic aid to countries to remove the poverty, despair, distrust, and lack of education that he feels forms the breeding grounds for today’s radical Islamic terrorists. While Fukuyama takes power and order seriously, it is very clear that he prefers the carrots to the sticks.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that, although it all sounds perfectly reasoned and sensible, it actually offers nothing new. It is simply a restating (albeit quite eloquently) of the same old song and dance routines applied by the United Nations and like-minded policy makers for years. Francis Fukuyama states in his book that he understands that the United Nations is unsalvageable as a credible means to end Islamic terrorism and its attacks on the Western world. In striving to become all-inclusive, the U.N. has grown far too unwieldy to effectively pass and timely or enforceable security decisions. The U.N. even has states, such as Syria and Libya, which in the past have been associated with radical Islamic groups serving on the U.N. Security Council.

Simply stated, nobody has been able to put forward any kind of remotely plausible alternative strategy for defeating the underlying causes of 9/11 other than the one pursued by the Bush administration. Charles Krauthammer, a right-wing political pundit, states that these underlying causes are, “the cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social-ruin in the Arab-Islamic world – oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism.” Even Paul Berman, a left-wing political pundit who is diametrically opposed to Charles Krauthammer, disagrees with Fukuyama’s assessment concluding that, “neither his (Fukuyama’s) old arguments nor his new one offer much insight into this, the most important problem of all — the problem of murderous ideologies and how to combat them.”

Fukuyama does admit that, when dealing with violent terrorists, the concept of preemption must remain on the table. He also states that while we cannot afford to sit back and wait for the proverbial smoking gun, the United States must also be sure it has its facts straight before deciding on acting unilaterally. But, he also argues that the NSS or National Security Strategy of the United States as developed by the Bush administration is flawed in several ways. According to Fukuyama, the primary problem rests in the lack of any real codification of when and how preemption can or should be used. The NSS, he argues, needs to be modified to include such guidelines because the number of times preemption could be legitimately be used will be few. It should certainly should not be seen as a “green light — to the United States or any other nation — to act first without exhausting other means, including diplomacy,” says Fukuyama.

There are two problems with Fukuyama’s argument. First, it ignore the lessons that need to be understood from past history and the nature of human struggle. One of the oldest tricks in the book is to be seen actively engaging in sincere diplomacy one one hand, while the other hand, launches a decisive sneak attack, i.e. Pearl Harbor. Does Fukuyama not remember Pearl Harbor? Or does he simply believe that radical Islamic Terrorists will simply not use such an effective tool for war out of some sense of fair play?

Second, intelligence gathering is simply the process of sifting through tons and tons of gathered bits of information in an attempt to fins small bits that when put together form a possible clue, and then make an educated guess as to what it all means. The fact that it is not an exact science is certainly evidenced by the misreading of intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq. In fact, many senior members of our government who now advocate cut and run as the proper new policy had access to the very same intelligence reports and yet somehow still voted for the war before they decided to vote against funding the war. The hard fact is that a responsible must always take a “worst case scenario” approach, especially when dealing with the possible threat of terrorists gaining access to and using WMD such as suitcase nukes, dirty bombs, chemical or biological agents, or commercial airliners for the smoking gun. With weapons such as these, death and destruction can be dead in your face long before you can have all your facts straight.

Fukuyama also argues that the Bush administration greatly overestimated both the danger posed by Osama Bin laden and his brand of radical Islam, and its ties to Saddam Hussein and his brutal totalitarian regime. He argues that though the possibility of new assaults by terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction is a real threat, it was wrongly tied to Iraq and the problem of rogue state proliferation.

However, according to Mark Gabriel, a former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, America is facing “the most dangerous enemy to mankind. We are not facing local thugs who seek money or power. We are facing an enemy that is motivated by faith and belief. Mark Gabriel currently resides in the United States and lives in a constant state of fear because of vengeful radical Islamists. His only crime: leaving Islam and becoming a Christian. Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, lives in a secure and undisclosed location. He is an acknowleged expert by many, including highly educated former Muslims, of historical Jihad. In his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And The Crusades), he states: “This conflict, in their view, is destined to end with the hegemony of Islam. In the words of Osama Bin laden, jihad warriors the world over are fighting, ‘so Allah’s Word and religion reign supreme’.” In fact, the radical Islamists have been at war with the United States and the Western world since the 1970s. As a nation, we simply did not notice. It took 9/11 to force some of us to face that reality. Some still have not.

At one time, Francis Fukuyama was arguably one of the world’s most celebrated neoconservatives. he even supported regime change in Iraq. His signature can be found at the bottom of the 1988 letter from The Project for a New American Century sent to then president, Bill Clinton, urging the United States to increase efforts to remove the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein from power. Other neoconservative intellectuals like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan also signed that letter. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and the recently fired defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it as well.

Francis Fukuyama’s change of heart is more likely due to the difficulty the U.S. has encountered in completing its attempted regime change in Iraq, than to as Charles Krauthammer phrased it, a “Road to Damascus moment.” Though well written and intellectually pleasing, he simply offers no new ideas to combat the spread of Islamic terrorism in the world. Fukuyama eloquently revisits the same old soft power, multilateral carrot-stick models that have failed in the past. In my opinion, what Fukuyama fails to grasp is that, though mistakes have indeed been made both in the war on terror and the war in Iraq, the Bush administration had very little in the way of real alternatives when faced with defending U.S. citizens from future terrorist attacks.

Even if many Americans do not, Osama Bin Laden certainly sees Iraq as a central front in his war on the Western world and its leader by invitation, the United States. He has often stated that fact himself on his released audio tapes. In truth, the War on Terror is actually a dangerous politically correct label for what is in reality a war between two divergent and opposing ideologies. One one side we have the United States, democratic ideals, religious tolerance, freedom, and a belief in the dignity of mankind. On the other side we have radical Islam, Sharia, religious intolerance, oppression, and the submission of mankind to Islamic rule. When the only carrot that radical Islamists will except is a Taliban-like global hegemony led by radical Islamists and the re-establishment of the Caliphate as the new world government, it is simply impossible for me to put any faith in realistic Wilsoniansim as the means to security and liberal democratic order (in the classic sense) for the future world.