Monthly Archives: November 2015

An ominious bellwether

The news in Paris should serve as an ominous bellwether.   Perhaps, Europeans will wake up to the threat they’ve invited into their countries.  While the usual abettors of Islamic terror will take to the airwaves to make excuses and assure us that we must not resort to “Islamophobia”, the truth is until we recognize the malignancy within Islam, that lies deep in the heart of Islam, we cannot protect America.  Jihad is not just some ISIS nutcases attacking us, jihad is sanctioned by Islamic legal scholars, as well as the foremost Islamic theologians.  It is deep within Islam, not a fringe interpretation.

I had planned to wait until I finish this important book, but in light of tonight’s attack in Paris, I’m going to freely plug  “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” by Stephen Coughlin.  President Obama’s administration has purged experts, like Coughlin, from key positions within our national security network and replaced them with false narrative promulgators from the Muslim Brotherhood ranks and academia.  Coughlin writes:

“Consider what happens when the typical suicide operation occurs: We see the farewell video of the martyr giving his reasons for carrying out the attack. He is neither white-knuckled nor perspiring. He is calm and very collected. He is a man who has made a decision to die for what he believes in, a decision that— given his worldview— could reasonably be described as rational. Any threat doctrine capable of motivating people to undertake such actions has demonstrated a capacity to inspire intense commitment. Anyone who mocks this commitment or looks down on those able to inspire it is seriously underestimating the nature of the threat, as well as the capability and doctrine of its “soldiers.” The suicide attack occurs; we watch the carnage on the news. Later, news reports carry images of an entire town celebrating the suicide bomber’s becoming a shahid, often translated as martyr. But this is usually only half the story. What happens next is that the reporter will interview a terrorism expert in a book-lined office on a college campus or consult a senior U.S. government official in Washington and then tell viewers that what they just saw— and what Americans have seen for more than a decade— is not real, has nothing to do with Islam, and is too complicated to explain.

Again, the people killing us claim they do so to wage jihad in the cause of Allah, to impose Islamic law and reestablish the Caliphate. It is an unalterable fact that nearly all “violent extremists” with whom the United States is presently engaged in military operations make that very claim. Shahids define Islam as the basis for their motivation before carrying out their attack. This is true regardless of whether their understanding of Islam is correct and regardless of what percentage of Muslims globally agrees or disagrees with that doctrine. “Jihad in the cause of Allah” is what the enemy claims it is doing, to the exclusion of all other reasons, including “underlying causes” such as economic deprivation. The enemy doesn’t just make this claim. What the jihadis say they will do tracks exactly with what they do.”

Coughlin, Stephen (2015-05-04). Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad (Kindle Locations 595-612). Center for Security Policy Press. Kindle Edition.

We should demand our government secure our borders immediately!  Let’s for once learn from an attack on western civilization.   There is no time for waiting for a 2016 presidential candidate to take the reins, no time for accepting our mealy-mouthed politicians making excuses.  Americans need to realize that President Obama’s plans to bring in hordes of “refugees” will assuredly bring in more Islamists.  The truth we must face is that Jeh Johnson, the Homeland Security director, lied to the American people when he assured us that these “refugees” will be thoroughly vetted.  The US government possesses no viable way to vet people claiming to come from Syria, when the US government has no Syrian government to vet these Syrian passport holders and so many of these “refugees” assuredly are lying about their identities.

President Obama will try to downplay the Islamic terror threat to America.  His minions will regale us with lectures about the dangers of “Islamophobia”, but they will not tell us the truth about Islamic terror.  The time to save ourselves draws nigh.

1 Comment

Filed under Culture Wars, Foreign Policy, General Interest, Islam, Military, Politics, Terrorism

America’s future leaders

I read about this video at Malcolm’s blog, waka, waka, waka, so I clicked and watched Neil Cavuto tell Virginia, that sorry, there really is no Santa Claus.  Virginia (in this case college student, million-student march organizer, Keely Mullen) insists that the “1%” will pay for the free college tuition, absolution of student debt and a $15 an hour wage for all campus jobs, she is demanding.  Please note that stunned, deer-in-the-headlight moment at the 50 second mark, when Cavuto intrudes on her fairy tale visions.  Sadly, for America, Mullen just might be representative  of America’s  best and brightest college students…….. our future leaders:

https://youtu.be/Pu1y5g1O3-Y

2 Comments

Filed under Culture Wars, Education, General Interest, Politics

Short Veterans Day Tribute

1 Comment

Filed under American Character, Food for Thought, General Interest, Military

The good, the bad and the buttinski

The Fox News Business  GOP debate is over.  Hooray!!!  This GOP debate covered more substantive issues than the CNBC debate or the previous FOX News debate, with the focus clearly on policy rather than pitting the candidates against each other.

Here’s my quick, completely  amateur rundown.  Jeb didn’t do enough to resuscitate his campaign.  Kasich repeats the same stuff in each debate and it’s too moderate to win over the GOP base.  Trump acted calmer and gave more detailed answers, which came across as more serious answers and less bombast – he did himself some good.  Cruz didn’t hurt himself, but his stentorius delivery, like he’s a Roman orator, comes across as if he’s talking down to people – there’s something cold about it.

Carson gets a “meh” – nothing lost, nothing gained.  Paul gained more support from his small niche of supporters, but did not expand his reach.

So, let me give a gold star to Rubio, because he really shines in the debate format.  He comes across as knowledgeable, upbeat, well-studied on issues, but most importantly – he radiates likeability.

Now, last, here comes the biggest loser – Carly Fiorina.  Her continual interruptions to grandstand and launch into boring soliloquies on her policies diminished her to an angry harpy rather than a Thatcher-esque figure.  For once, I was in complete agreement with Donald Trump, when he complained to the moderators about Fiorina’s continual interruptions, Her dour recitations of her talking points and her arrogance doesn’t project well at all.  She lacks all the likeability that Rubio oozes.  Too bad she wasn’t in the second string debate and Christie in the first string, because he did fantastic in the second string debate.

Still, don’t have a “favorite” and remain uncommitted.  I disliked Trump less and disliked Fiorina a good bit by the time this debate was over.  Then again, I found her whining for days on end to get on the main debate stage as a typical feminist gimmick, where it seemed at some point she’d be borrowing Hillary’s “glass ceilings” lines.  Christie good-naturedly moved to the second string and took it like a man.  Okay, I’ll stop there, ha, ha, ha.

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Politics

An America Monarchy?

On Sundays my family began having Sunday dinner together, since my oldest daughter and four granddaughters moved back to this state in June.  We’re still missing one daughter who lives in another state with her husband, but these dinners with my two sons, my oldest daughter and my four granddaughters almost invariably include my other daughter as my kids live on their cell phones and text back and forth constantly.  Last night, my sons were discussing their views on Hillary Clinton’s private email server and frankly their views surprised me.

Both of my sons have studied The Constitution and yet when discussing this private email server, their comments left me wondering if, at the core, my view is antiquated and obsolete.  They kept insisting that the State Department information on Hillary’s server belongs to the executive branch and since the President is in charge of that, this information belongs to him and he can decide what’s classified or not whenever he wants.  I kept saying, “the information belongs to the executive branch, not to the individual officeholders – it isn’t theirs personally”.  The whole problem Hillary Clinton faces is she treated “official State Department information” as if it belonged to her –  personally.  “Am I off-base?  Is my view, that the President and all of our government officials are merely holders of their offices, sworn to uphold The Constitution and the public trust, in carrying out the duties of their offices, misguided and naively idealistic?  I remember Watergate, in which retrospectively, the gravity seems much smaller than in the callous disregard for national security in this private email server scandal, where Hillary Clinton set up this system in such a premediated manner, to avoid scrutiny of her official business and all the official correspondence she generated on a daily basis.   My sons, on the other hand, just shrug and seem okay with whatever the President decides on her private email server and handling of classified information, saying, “the information belongs to him, he can do whatever he wants.”   He was sworn to uphold the “office of the President”.  Do we now have an absolute monarch, who can do whatever he wants?

The effort to bury this email scandal keeps piling on fresh dirt to cover up the TRUTH as information is unearthed.  The Obama administration seems to have joined the effort, with the NY Post editorial opinion, “Whitewashing Hillary — step one in shutting down the FBI’s probe“:

“Well, whaddya know? Maybe those Hillary Clinton emails didn’t include top-secret information after all.

At least, that’s the conclusion reportedly drawn by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office — overruling the finding of Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough that two Clinton emails (from a sample of just 40) contained highly classified info.

Hmm. Clapper answers to the president — who issued clear marching orders months ago, announcing that Clinton’s server scam was “not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

Oddly, news of Clapper’s finding got leaked to Politico soon after the Washington Free Beacon reported Clinton did indeed, right after taking over at State, acknowledge her responsibility to properly guard classified info — and that “negligent handling” of it could bring criminal penalties.”

Last week on the O’Reilly Factor, Monica Crowley reported information from two “anonymous” sources, so take it for what it’s worth. :

So, justice in America now is reliant on just one man – the FBI Director.  Is this really the state of our constitutional system – justice depends on the FBI Director, James Comey, or the law is whatever President Obama decides it is?  Is Hillary Clinton above the law?

2 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Politics, The Constitution

News from amongst the Syrian rebels

This is a short post with mostly some news links, because frankly I am busy with my needlework and can’t write blog posts and sew at the same time. The Syrian rebels are making the news again. Here’s a news story I mentioned the other day and let’s hope these aren’t part of elusive “moderate Syrian rebels”:

“Hundreds of women locked in cages to act as human shields against Assad’s air-strikes: Rebels parade families loyal to president through streets as horrifying deterrent”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3301364/Hundreds-women-locked-cages-act-human-shields-against-Assad-s-air-strikes-Rebels-parade-families-loyal-president-streets-horrifying-deterrent.html#ixzz3qeD2S6En
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Next there’s this msn report of mustard gas being used in a battle in August. Note the combatants were some Syrian rebel group and the Islamic State, not Assad’s forces. Once again, let’s hope these aren’t part of the elusive “moderate Syrian rebels”:

“EXCLUSIVE-Chemical weapons used in Syrian fighting – watchdog”

Perhaps, someday we’ll get past the delusional reasoning, the hunt to create moderates among Islamists, which Stephen Coughlin, the former Pentagon expert on Islamic law and Islamic terror, explains stems from creating this false narrative of “countering violent extremism” rather than naming the source of that violent extremism. Our government actively refuses to recognize the Islam in Jihad. Here’s an excellent interview where Coughlin explains the problem:

Stephen Coughlin on “Is Al-Qaeda Really the Moderate Alternative to ISIS?” — on The Glazov Gang

On the home front, Carol Brown at the American Thinker wrote a piece:

“Good News and Bad News as the Federal Government Faces Global Jihad”, reporting on legislation being introduced by Senator Ted Cruz in the Senate and Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart in the House that would designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

To understand the mixed nuts in the radical Islamic assortment, it’s important to understand the ideology. Coughlin, mentioned above, was one of the Pentagon’s foremost experts on Islamic law and understanding Islamic terrorism, but in the Obama era, his contract at the Pentagon was not renewed. There’s been an organized and concerted effort to pretend some Islamists are “moderates”, whom we should cultivate (arm in some cases, too it appears). Now, the Cruz/Diaz-Balart legislation will not garner White House support, which promotes the narrative of the Muslim Brotherhood as mostly a secular organization.

To understand the who’s who amongst the Sunni radicals this 2005 link covers The Salafist Movement from it’s inception to present holy terrors:

“The Salafist Movement” By Bruce Livesey

So, to fight the Islamic State, ruthless killers who number in the tens of thousands, President Obama last week ramped up his fight and actually sent his spokesman out to make the announcement that he was sending 50 Special Forces operators into Syria…. That no general stepped forward and resigned in protest to using military force, that has no strategic purpose whatsoever, for a shameless and stupendously stupid PR gambit, demonstrated clearly the sorry state of our military leadership and it also highlighted the callous disregard this President has for the US Armed Forces.  50 – yes, 50 to serve as walking targets for the Islamic State.  Some strategy….

4 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Islam, Military, Politics, Terrorism

Adding it up

Here’s a typical journalist’s report from the Washington Post – this one from June 2015, on a group of refugees’ flight from Aleppo, Syria to Gmünd, Austria. The group consists of 4 adults and one child. So, the reporter, Anthony Faiola, in vivid prose, wrote about the hardships and harrowing experiences, on “The Black Route”,  but I kept jotting down the dollar amounts listed and this does not include food or lodging, only the cost of transportation paid to smugglers and the cost of a smartphone, which is how the refugees communicate with each other and the smuggling network. Here’s the list:

$275 smartphone (article states that is almost 3 months of the one refugee’s pay)

$2,000 per adult (4 adults) paid to Ukrainian smugglers to take them from Turkey to the island of Tilos

$12,000 amount paid to a Syrian smuggler, whom they say absconded with their money

$330 for a 52 mile taxi ride from Thessaloniki to the Macedonian border

$550 each to pay a smuggler to get them from Hungary to Vienna, although the story says they only had half that amount by this point

Now they didn’t pay that $550 each, because that plan fell through, but excluding that $2,750, the story indicates over $20,000 was paid to smugglers to get 4 adults and 1 child to Austria.

$275 was almost three months pay for one of those men, a deliveryman in Aleppo. His niece, another of this group worked as a kindergarten teacher, then there are two other young men, whose occupations aren’t mentioned and the one child. Where did they come up with over $20,000 for this journey? These are the kinds of things I wonder about.

So many of these stories don’t add up, both in dollars and cents, but also in common sense.

6 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Politics, The Media

Some loose foreign policy threads

The mainstream media does a terrible job at gathering the back story required to make sense out of many stories that burst upon the national conscientiousness. Partisan political interests cast deep, dark shadows on the truth and as time passes, public interest wanes and the media moves on, unaware of their failure to ever report the full truth.

Let’s start with the oh so glorious Arab Spring, the media couldn’t talk enough about a few years ago. What happened to the Arab Spring? Where has “democracy” or “freedom” flourished in the Mid-East?

Libya stands as a western intervention where reporting failed to flesh out even the basics. Who exactly were the Libyan rebels facing “genocide” as Hillary Clinton states? Which European leaders were pushing to oust Gadaffi and who vetted the intelligence, which the Obama administration used in making the decision to intervene?  To this day, details remain sketchy at best. Then Benghazi in the messy aftermath and still more questions persist. Hillary Clinton stated weapons were being gathered up by the US in a security effort, but what happened to those weapons?  Where were they being sent? What exactly was the CIA mission in Benghazi? After that hearing where the Democrats declared everything had already been covered in previous investigations, well, I wonder why was ambassador Stevens meeting with a rebel leader from an Al Qaeda affiliate? Congressman Pompeo showed that photo and Secretary Clinton stated she had no idea, but doesn’t that information seem important in light of the attack on the US facility later that day by Al Qaeda-like rebels?

Syria also remains awash in myths and outright lies, so let’s start with the assertion that we should have intervened sooner in Syria? What justification was there for the US to intervene in a civil uprising in Syria at the outset? Of course, as time wore on the Obama administration played the genocide/gross human rights violations card and pushed intervening on the Samantha Power “responsibility to protect” mantra, but truly who were these “moderate Syrian rebels”? The entire reasoning process used with the regime change proponents seems very flawed, so can anyone explain this in simple terms?

The recent dramatic increase of refugees seems like an orchestrated event to destabilize Europe. Who is behind it and who is funding the effort? All of the photos and videos show people with Western-style clothes, coats, hats, shoes, etc.  Who is providing the humanitarian assistance? Who is helping these refugees along the path to Europe? Obviously many aren’t Syrian refugees, but there’s a storyline that Assad is depopulating areas of Syria? Is this true? Today, the British Daily Mail has stories of Syrian rebels fighting Assad using Alawite women and children as human shields – packing them into metal cages and transporting them on the backs of pick-up trucks and tractor trailers, to dissuade Russian and Syrian army bombings.  Are these the rebels McCain and the “Syrian moderate” proponents are supporting?

Does anyone else have questions about these US foreign policy issues?

 

3 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics, The Media

Presidential politics… it’s a laugh

The Legal Insurrection blog has these Bad Lip Reading videos from the political debates posted:

First up, the First Democratic Debate;

Next the First Republican Debate:

3 Comments

Filed under General Interest, Humor, Politics