The War Neither Obama, Nor Any Other Nation Wants to Fight

/in , , , , /by

Two trends have emerged since President Obama’s September 10thAA - Obama Stop ISIS speech regarding his intention to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State.

One is the understanding that he will not commit U.S. troops as “boots on the ground” to fight a force estimated variously between 10,000 and 30,000 depending on intelligence guesswork.

The other trend is the reluctance of any other nation to engage in the warfare that would be necessary to defeat the terrorist army occupying northern Iraq and a swath of Syria.

This was initially signaled at the NATO meeting in Wales and, according to a September 12 page one report in The Wall Street Journal, “A day after President Barack Obama outlined a strategy to combat Islamic State militants, Washington’s international allies didn’t make clear how far they would go to join military operations even as they pledged support.”

Who would support a President who said he had no intention of being “dragged back into a war in Iraq”?

That is not a “strategy.” It’s surrender. It is an admission of a lack of intent to confront what will surely emerge as a major threat to the Middle East and the West.

Word Games

The Obama administration was initially reluctant to even call it a war. It was a “counter-intelligence operation” according to Secretary of State Kerry.  The President and his administration have spent six and a half years labeling terrorist attacks as anything other than acts of war. But 9/11 was an act of war.

The killing of soldiers at Fort Hood was called “workplace violence” when it was clearly a terrorist act. Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told us that the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed our ambassador and three security personnel was just a bunch of militants angered by a video no one ever saw.

In Iraq—a nation now in name only—its military fled from combat with ISIS. The result has been a demonstration of the barbarity of ISIS, killing Muslims and “infidels” alike in large numbers. The videos of the beheadings of two American journalists sent the U.S. a message that dramatically altered the simmering reluctance of Americans to make war on the Islamic State. The beheading of a British citizen will no doubt echo the U.S. population’s desire for revenge and a full-scale war on ISIS.

Middle East expert, Walid Phares, says ISIS’s message is that it has concluded that neither the U.S. nor Great Britain will engage it with troops, preferring only air strikes. No military expert believes that will be sufficient to defeat ISIS.

Turkey, that shares a border with Syria, Iraq and Iran, is fearful for the lives of nearly fifty of its diplomats taken hostage in Mosul when it was captured in June. They have cause, but Turkey has been increasingly Islamic in its outlook for nearly a decade, shedding its secular approach to governance. It has refused to allow the U.S. to use bases there to fight ISIS.

In Europe, Germany said it would not take part in any airstrikes against ISIS. Other EU nations will likely follow its lead. In a similar fashion, Arab nations have not indicated any intention to actively—militarily—participate in what appears to be a “coalition” in name only.

A post by Steve Eichler, CEO of Tea Party, Inc. says it all:

“We are in the gravest of situations. Our military—once the most powerful in the world—is crumbling.

Obama is purging every branch of the US armed forces at an alarming rate.

He’s deliberately crippling our military, setting them up for failure and defeat. Through his actions he is rapidly demoralizing our troops en masse, creating a dangerous situation at home and abroad, leaving our troops, our country and we citizens open to attack.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

Our Army has not trained for six months. Meanwhile there is tremendous domestic and foreign unrest taking place. “To have the Chief of Staff of the Army confess to the world that our Army has not trained for six months is highly disturbing,” says former Florida Congressman Allen West. ‘[It] should make us all sleep less soundly at night.’”

Obama has been destroying our military in every way he can and, other than air power, he has a greatly reduced infantry and other forces with which to wage a ground war in Iraq. ISIS knows this and so does the rest of the world.

Not since the end of World War II and our ascendance as a superpower has America fallen to such a loss and lack of real power both militarily and economically.

The years since Obama’s election in 2008 have been an unqualified disaster for the nation, the West, and the rest of the world. They have looked to the U.S. to lead and now see a U.S. that has twice elected a man whose entire agenda has been to abandon leadership.

To some, his actions reek of treason.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

VIDEO: Moderate Islam: A MYTH! (Featuring Dana Loesch)

/in , , , /by

This is a great video that puts Islam into perspective. Will Ray Rice convert to Islam after sucker punching his girl friend? How about O.J. Simpson? Maybe we need to put Islam in its proper perspective. As President Obama said, “The Islamic State is not Islamic.” What?

Video courtesy of Steve Crowder’s Louder with Crowder:

RELATED ARTICLES: 

White House: We Aren’t Going to Get Into What The “Legal, Academic Definition of War” With ISIS May Be

Geography Lesson for Top Obama Aide: Syria Doesn’t Border Saudi Arabia

UN Small-Arms Treaty: A Major Second Amendment Threat

/in , , , , /by

The assault on Americans Citizen’s rights to own and bear arms in accordance with provisions of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is being threatened by the Obama administration’s support for the UN Small Arms Treaty  This UN Small-Arms Treaty threatens individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme.

The below listed Op-Ed by Admiral James A Lyons’52 USN (Ret) (former Commander of the US Pacific Fleet and the Senior US Military Representative to the United Nations)  is a warning all Americans of the threat ;posed by Obama to void provisions of the Second Amendment by signing the UN Small-Arms Treaty, allowing the UN to control small arms in the United States.

Obama has the support of the elected Democrat Senators to approve the UN Small Arms Treaty.  Those Democrat Senators who agree with Obama, standing for re-election in November should be defeated at the polls.   The endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress in the attachment, running for election in 2014 (three of whom are running for the US Senate), support the rights of all Americans to acquire and bear arms in accordance with the US Constitution. .

Small-arms treaty, big Second Amendment threat

Ceding Senate constitutional authority to the U.N. would be unwise

By James A. Lyons

In a little-noticed action, the U.N. General Assembly on April 2, 2013, adopted by “majority vote” an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) with the objective of regulating the international trade in conventional arms from small arms to major military equipment. The treaty’s lofty objectives were to foster peace and security by limiting uncontrolled destabilizing arms transfer to areas of conflict. In particular, it was also meant to prevent countries that abuse human rights from acquiring arms.

While the record of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty discussions makes no mention of it, the genesis for regulating the unrestrained transfer of conventional arms to conflict areas, Third Worldcountries and human rights violators was a key policy of President Carter’s administration. Shortly after his inauguration in 1977, he initialed a policy of restraint on conventional-arms transfer and linked such control to the human rights record of potential recipients, particularly in Latin America. To implement this policy, the Carter administration proposed to the Soviet Union, the world’s second-leading supplier of arms, that it open negotiations to conclude such an agreement. These meetings were known as the Conventional Arms Transfer Talks.

The first region selected was Latin America, because there was less competition there than anywhere else in the world between the United States and the Soviet Union. As the director of political-military affairs, I was the Joint Chiefs of Staff representative in the U.S. delegation, which was headed by Les Gelb from the State Department. Suffice to say, after four meetings over a 12-month period and the “delusion” that a successful agreement could be achieved, the talks collapsed. The esoteric objectives may sound good in the faculty lounge, but they fail to pass muster in the real world.

The Soviets were always the reluctant suitors in this enterprise. They were not about to restrict the transfer of arms in areas that they viewed to be in their political interests. Certainly, there was not unanimity of purpose in the Carter administration. The Joint Chiefs of Staff viewed the objectives as an unnecessary infringement on our strategy and sovereignty.

For the record, the Obama administration’s Conventional Arms Transfer policy issued on Jan. 16embraces many of the objectives of the Carter administration’s policy, as well as the current U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. However, it makes no mention of either one.

A number of major defects in the U.N. treaty were detailed in a letter sent to President Obama in October 2013 by 50 senators — both Republicans and Democrats. The first problem was that the treaty was adopted by majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly, not by consensus, a condition called for by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. After entry into force, the senators contend, the Arms Trade Treaty can be amended by majority vote of signatory countries, effectively negating the Senate’s constitutional treaty power and handing it to foreign governments. Even the State Department concedes, the senators wrote, that the treaty “includes language that could hinder the United States from fulfilling its strategic, legal and moral commitments to provide arms to key allies such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel.”

Of most concern is the infringement on our constitutional rights, the senators charged. The Arms Trade Treaty “includes only a weak nonbinding reference to the lawful ownership, use of, and trade in firearms, and recognizes none of these activities, much less individual self-defense, as fundamental individual rights.” When coupled with the treaty’s ceding of interpretive authority to other countries, this poses a direct threat to the Second Amendment.

It should be noted that neither of Virginia’s senators, Mark Warner or Tim Kaine, signed the Senate letter against a U.N. treaty that threatens Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, and undermines American sovereignty.

Failing to sign the letter is not the first time Mr. Warner went AWOL on the Arms Trade Treaty. In January 2013, before Secretary of State John F. Kerry signed the treaty, the Senate passed a budget amendment sponsored by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the purpose of “upholding Second Amendment rights, which shall include preventing the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.” Mr. Warner and Mr. Kaine were among the 46 voting “nay” on the amendment.

Supporters of the treaty say there’s nothing to worry about, because the Second Amendment is a constitutional protection, and nothing in a treaty can undermine it. Gun rights champions strongly disagree. “The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, following Mr. Kerry’s signing of the treaty. “This treaty threatens individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme. The NRA will continue working with the United States Senate to oppose ratification of the ATT.”

With 50 senators opposed to the Arms Trade Treaty, we can hope its prospects for Senate advice and consent are small — with or without the support of liberals such as Mr. Warner and Mr. Kaine. The Joint Chiefs of Staff also need to indicate clearly their concern, as it affect our strategy and sovereignty.

ABOUT JAMES A. LYONS

James A. Lyons, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations. 

Bill Maher: To claim that Islam “is like other religions is just naive and plain wrong”

/in , , , /by

I’m no fan of Bill Maher, but he does get it mostly right here. What is ironic is that he would never dare have on his show any of the people who have for years been saying what he says here, and has joined in the vilification and ridicule of them that is universal on the Left.

“Bill Maher ABSOLUTELY CRUSHES Charlie Rose For Comparing Islam To Christianity,” FoxNews.com, September 12, 2014 (thanks to all who sent this in):

BILL MAHER: I saw Howard Dean on TV the other day and he said something along the order, he said the people in ISIS — he said I’m about as Islamic as they are, you know, distancing the vast numbers of Islamic people around the world from them. That’s just not true.

CHARLIE ROSE: It is true.

MAHER: It is not true, Charlie. There is a connecting tissue between —

ROSE: Behind every Muslim is a future member of some radical?

MAHER: Let me finish.

ROSE: I was doing that.

MAHER: There are illiberal beliefs that are held by vast numbers of Muslim people that —

ROSE: A vast number of Christians too.

MAHER: No, that’s not true. Not true. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion you should be killed for it. Vast numbers of Christians do not treat women as second class citizens. Vast numbers of Christians –

It’s not just about numbers, either. No sect of Christianity teaches death for apostasy, or denies the equal dignity of men and women. The death penalty for apostasy in Islam comes from Muhammad (“If anyone changes his religion, kill him”) and is taught by all the schools of Islamic law. The idea that men are superior to women is founded on Qur’an 4:34 and numerous hadiths.

ROSE: I agree with that —

MAHER: — do not believe if you draw a picture of Jesus Christ you should get killed for it. So yes, does ISIS do Khmer Rouge-like activities where they just kill people indiscriminately who aren’t just like them? Yes. And would most Muslim people in the world do that or condone that? No.

ROSE: No.

MAHER: But most Muslim people in the world do condone violence just for what you think.

ROSE: How do you know that?

MAHER: They do. First of all they say it. They shout it.

ROSE: Vast majorities of Muslims say that?

MAHER: Absolutely. There was a Pew poll in Egypt done a few years ago — 82% said, I think, stoning is the appropriate punishment for adultery. Over 80% thought death was the appropriate punishment for leaving the Muslim religion. I’m sure you know these things.

This is because, as I said above, these punishments are founded upon Islamic texts and teachings.

ROSE: Well I do. But I don’t believe —

MAHER: So to claim that this religion is like other religions is just naive and plain wrong. It is not like other religious. The New York Times pointed out in an op-ed a couple weeks ago that in Saudi Arabia just since August 4th, they think it was, they have beheaded 19 people. Most for non-violent crimes including homosexuality.

The death penalty for homosexual activity, although widely ignored in parts of the Islamic world, is also found in Islamic law.

ROSE: I know that they cut the hands off the thief.

That’s in Qur’an 5:38.

MAHER: Right, okay, so we’re upset that ISIS is beheading people which we should be upset about but Saudi Arabia does it and they’re our good friends because they have oil. Okay. But they do it too. This is the center of the religion. I’m not saying –

ROSE: But they’re now fighting against ISIS too. They’re joining us in the fight. As is the Emirates. As is Jordan. They are all Muslim countries.

MAHER: Well, they are both fighting ISIS and they are for ISIS.

ROSE: Well, it’s not the government. I mean, some of them —

MAHER: Certainly the governments.

ROSE: It’s a bit like today about Qatar. The big story today in The New York Times about Qatar. And some guy there is supporting, who is a Muslim —

MAHER: But I mean in Mecca where infidels, non-Muslims, are not even allowed in the holy parts of the city. I mean, right there, we don’t have that example in other religions. They do behead people. Now if they were beheading people in Vatican City, which is the equivalent of Mecca, don’t you think there would be a bigger outcry about it? So this is the soft bigotry of low expectations with Muslim people.When they do crazy things and believe crazy things, somehow it’s not talked about nearly as much.

ROSE: Would you come to the table and debate this with a moderate Muslim?

MAHER: Find one, yes. Find one.

ROSE: I promise you I’ll find one.

MAHER: Find a Muslim —

ROSE: I do believe that what we see with ISIS is not representative of —

MAHER: As I said, connecting tissue.

ROSE: — not representative of the Islamic religion. I don’t think the Koran teaches them to do these kinds of things.

MAHER: Well you’re wrong about that. The Koran absolutely has on every page stuff that’s horrible about how the infidels should be treated. But for example again ISIS says that they should perform genital mutilation on all women 11-46. Would most Muslims agree with that? No. Or carry it out? No.

But genital mutilation is justified by a hadith, and Islamic law prescribes “circumcision” for both men and women.

But as Ayaan Hirsi Ali points out, she says —

ROSE: I wouldn’t expect for her to —

MAHER: And she would know better than —

ROSE: Exactly.

MAHER: But can we really say —

ROSE: She’s been a victim.

MAHER: — women are treated equally in the Muslim world? I mean, their testimony in court is very often counted as half. They need permission to leave the house in some places.

The devaluation of a woman’s testimony is in Qur’an 2:282. The prohibition on leaving the house without permission from a male guardian is also in Islamic law.

ROSE: But a lot of moderate Muslims would say in fact one of the things that we need to modernize is the idea of the way we treat women.

MAHER: But in this country, if you just use the wrong word about women, they go nuts. And all these other countries —

ROSE: As they should.

MAHER: — they’re doing things like making them wear burqas and I hear liberals say things like, ‘they want to.’ They want to. They’ve been brainwashed. It’s like saying a street walker wants to do that.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Doctor who escaped Islamic State: “The most important thing for them was Sharia”

Denmark: No imams want to join anti-Islamic State demonstration

Islamic State jihadi from Denmark takes selfie with severed head

UK Muslima in Islamic State says she will only return to raise black flag of Islam in UK

Raymond Ibrahim: Beheading Infidels Is How Allah ‘Heals the Hearts of Believers’

Obama and Putin

/in , , , , /by

As you tuck your children and grandchildren into bed tonight, take a long hard look at them and consider what they may have to face tomorrow, next week, and in the years ahead. And think for a minute or two about who it is that holds their lives, and yours, in their unsteady hands.

Then picture, if you will, a scene in the White House Situation Room, far beneath the Oval Office, where those who hold our lives in their hands… Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, and Michelle Obama, the entire brain trust of the Obama administration… are seated around a long table. They are discussing the ramifications of sending U.S. military might against the butchers of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), balanced against the impact such actions would have on Obama’s legacy, and the impact they might have on Democratic prospects in the November General Election.

One of the items on the table in front of them is the transcript of a September 11, 2013 New York Times op-ed by none other than Vladimir V. Putin, the president of Russia, who has no qualms about thumbing his nose at Barack Obama as he invades and occupies the Crimean Peninsula and large portions of eastern Ukraine. His decision to communicate directly with the American people through the editorial pages of the Times is a clear indication of how little respect he has for the former “community organizer” from Chicago.

As an indication of the extent to which Obama has fallen out of favor with the leftist editors and publishers who helped elect him, the Times editorial board chose not to waste a single column-inch of newsprint defending Obama against Putin’s well-crafted attack (one popular female comic has quipped that Obama’s approval ratings are now so low that the Secret Service has assigned him a new code name. His new Secret Service code name is Ebola.

Referring to Obama’s plan to wage an “unbelievably small” attack on Syrian forces… as in poking at a hornets’ nest with a very long stick… Putin set a very clever trap for Obama. He wrote, “The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders… will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism (emphasis added)…” Frightened off by those cautions, Obama decided not to attack and yet everything Putin predicted came to pass.

Now that we’ve come to know the bloodthirsty nature of the Islamic State a bit better, Putin appears to be the voice of reason, while Obama dithers, plays golf, and attends fundraisers. And while tens of thousands of men, women, and children are slaughtered by ISIS, a major force in the Syrian conflict, no one in the Obama administration seems to know what to do about it. Given more recent events in Syria and Iraq with the emergence of ISIS, now known as the Islamic State, one would think that Obama might lie awake at night regretting that, instead of drawing pointless red lines in the sand, he’d made some sort of accommodation, either with the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, or with the moderates who opposed him.

What Obama and his “brain trust” apparently failed to comprehend in failing to arm Islamic moderates in Syria, was that the “new wave of terrorism” of which Putin spoke is not likely to be limited to the suburbs of Damascus, the northern provinces of Syria, the north and west of Iraq, or the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. The “new wave of terrorism” that Putin predicted will likely find its way to the streets of New York, Chicago, Washington, and other U.S. cities.

Providing us with a classic example of “do as I say, not as I do,” further proof of why Obama is no intellectual match for the Russian leader, Putin wrote, “We (Russians) are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.”

All of this as Russia sends tanks across the border into Ukraine and provides moral and material support for the pro-Russian rebels of eastern Ukraine. Clearly, his remarks were intended for consumption by the low-information voters who make up much of Obama’s base… at least those who are literate enough to read the editorial pages of the New York Times.

Then Putin played to the uncertainty expressed by Obama, Kerry, and other senior officials, who were always careful to hedge their public statements on the source of nerve gas attacks against Syrian civilians. In each instance, they suggested that they were “pretty sure,” or “almost certain,” that it was the Assad regime that was responsible for launching chemical weapons attacks against innocent women and children.

Putin wrote, “No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons (the Obama administration), who would be siding with the fundamentalists…”

Of course, as Obama told us in his September 10, 2014 address to the nation, “ISIS (the Islamic State in Syria) is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents.” Does he think we’re a nation of fools? Would he have us believe that the butchers who sliced off the heads of two American journalists are just a bunch of disgruntled postal workers?

But not all Russians and not all Russian news media treat Obama with the same diplomatic equanimity expressed by Putin. Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister and former NATO ambassador,Dmitry Rogozin, has been quoted as referring to the United States under Barack Obama as “a monkey with a hand grenade.” Rogozin’s characterization is indicative of the total lack of respect for Obama that is regularly found in the pages of Pravda.

When I worked in Russia during the early to mid ‘90s, some of my Russian friends joked that, during the Soviet era, “There was no Pravda in Isvestia, and no Isvestia in Pravda (where Pravda means “truth,” in English, and Isvestia means “news.” But Pravda has gained new credibility in the West since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

In a September 2013 Pravda article by Xavier Lerma, the writer suggests that “Obama’s buffoonery selling the war against Syria has hit a wall, thanks to President Putin’s firm stance and leadership… Russia, who has slain its Red Dragon long ago, is now facing Puff the Magic Dragon… blowing smoke in his people’s eyes and spreading democracy with bombs… “Puff must face reality and will try to save face. He will blame the Republicans who stand in his way and his worshipers will pity and love him. Playing the race card once again,(he) will bring more power to his throne. The Saudi King, whom Obama bowed to and Bush kissed, will try again and again, demanding Obama attack Syria, trying to bribe Putin, or threatening Russia with terrorists.”

The Pravda article mocked Obama, saying, “Conservative Americans and those in the world are seeing Barry falling apart at the seams when he goes against Putin… President Putin can stand alone and speak without a teleprompter or notes and argue reasonably. He can give interviews anytime without worry because he does not have to try to remember a lie or wonder what to say. He only has to give facts, which are easy to remember.

In summarizing Pravda’s critique of Obama, Vietnam veteran Leon Puissegur suggests that Americans should “take Pravda’s condemnation of Obama as a lesson learned,’ and that we should never vote another person into the office of President who only has experience as a ‘community organizer…Sadly, this great nation, once the envy of the world, is now forced to suffer the humiliation of having our national leader insulted by friend and foe alike.

Yes, Pravda speaks the truth. We have sent a community organizer to represent us in an epic struggle against a tough KGB Colonel. It’s as if we’d sent PeeWee Herman to fight for us, while the Russians sent Mike Tyson.

We should not forget the scene at the South Korean summit n which Obama leaned over toward outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, reassuring him and asking that the Russians give him a bit more time to liberalize the American position on missile defense systems. He said, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

Yes, Obama now has the “flexibility” he coveted and he has used it to set the United States on a downward spiral from which we may never recover. As Jodie Miller of the Media Research Center quipped in a September 2 comedy sketch, “In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, President Obama is threatening to hit back. He threatened to impose the same economic sanctions on Russia that he imposed on America back in 2009.” Like the late Rodney Dangerfield, Obama gets no respect. But then, Dangerfield had a few redeeming qualities.

Obama’s nonsensical approach to ISIS

/in , , , /by

Obama’s ISIS plan: Outsourcing US national security in a chaotic world.

I just finished listening to President Obama delivering his strategy for dealing with ISIS and my summation of what Obama stated is simply: “Outsourcing US National Security in a Chaotic World.”

Lots of you here aren’t career military combat warriors, so let me explain why this speech made no sense. Obama said that we are committed to a counter-terrorism strategy and a systematic campaign — but then Obama stated there will be no U.S. combat mission on the ground — although he is deploying another 475 on top of the almost 1,000 troops there now. Folks, you cannot win a counter-terrorism operation without a combat force – it certainly cannot be won from the air.

And what Obama didn’t explain was who will coordinate close air support for these “coalition” partners on the ground — and of course Obama just recently derided the Free Syrian Army as being “doctors, farmers, and pharmacists.” Our air strikes — and you must understand 150 strikes over a one month period is not a dedicated air campaign — have to be targeted and that means SOFLAM (Special Operations Forces Laser Acquired Munitions) but if there are no American combat troops, none on the ground, then who is doing this critical mission? You cannot destroy a force from 30,000 feet with air power only.

Obama just had to state that this is not going to be another Iraq or Afghanistan. Well, let’s look at that. In Afghanistan a small American force of 600 Special Operators and CIA operatives along with the Northern Alliance routed a Taliban Army of 70,000 along with another 5,000 Al-Qaida enemy forces. That was a successful model which could be used here, but Obama told us again what he was not willing to do.

Now we are going to put our national security trust in surrogate forces? And we’re supposed to send in more trainers for the Iraq Army? Heck, if Obama had supported the generals on the ground and fought to leave a residual force in Iraq, we would have had the trainers there and wouldn’t be in this position! So now we have to go back in because of his ideological intransigence and “redo” it all over again and try to rebuild the relationships, which have now been broken — as many Sunni tribesmen have enjoined ISIS.

And to state that ISIS is not Islamic? You have to be kidding me. ISIS stands for, first word, “Islamic.” Obama continues to deny and refuse to define the enemy, and that folks is not helpful.

President Obama stated that America is safer — but not according to recent American polling — and certainly not reflected by the beheadings of two Americans, Foley and Sotloff.

Obama borrowed the “no safe haven” phrase from George W. Bush. And in a comparative analysis of coalition building ability, George W. Bush had 37 countries in 2003, but so far Obama only has 9 — and as we reported, one of them is Turkey and they’re already waffling about not joining unless we restrain support to the Kurdish Peshmerga Army — a core element of this strategy.

I was glad to hear Obama state that he would cut off funding — I hope he goes after Qatar with a strategy we have offered here. As well, since the Saudi King Abdullah is so worried, then have him foot the bill for this operation. But, there was no reference to our domestic jihadist recruitment problem and a porous southern border that must be sealed.

Another key point Obama failed to address, as he talked about his highest priority being our security — will Obama stop the decimation of our military force, which finds itself at horribly low levels? That is why I believe Obama’s strategy is about “outsourcing” our national security as he degrades and destroys our military capability and capacity, which we have addressed here.

This is not American leadership at its best, it is American acquiescence and incompetence. You cannot destroy an enemy or conduct a counter-terrorism strategy by hoping someone else will execute it, or by air — and how are we going to increase air strikes? Will we have a dedicated air campaign with countless sorties a day?

The finish to this speech was utterly weak; full of empty rhetoric and pabulum which means nothing to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — and it was Russia who sealed the deal to secure Syria’s declared chemical weapons.

Obama asked for our support — he certainly doesn’t secure mine, and he shouldn’t get yours either. Tonight President Barack Hussein Obama proved that polling drives his strategy, because this was supposed to be done midday.

He probably should have, since this was an utter embarrassment and a waste of time. Obama is expanding a combat operation and yet refuses to go to Congress, as George W. Bush did to make a case and secure — by vote — approval. He asked for a blank check for an ambiguous endeavor supporting surrogate forces to handle American business of destroying an enemy who he did not define, which has declared enemy against us.

I fear for my country. We are indeed rudderless amidst a maelstrom.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

If You Want to Get into a Really Big War, Elect a Liberal

/in , , , , /by

If I pointed out that involvement in every major 20th-century conflict the US was part of on liberals’ watch, it might not be entirely fair. True, there was WWI under Wilson, WWII under FDR, Korea under Truman, and Vietnam under Kennedy and Johnson. But the second Great War needed to be fought, four conflicts aren’t exactly a scientific sample, and some could contend that these men were, to some extent, victims of timing and circumstance. It also should be said that with modernity’s characteristic flaw of relativism causing ever shifting social visions, yesterday’s liberals aren’t like today’s. As to this, some may mention that it’s a tad tendentious to limit the conflict timeframe to the 20th century, with George W. Bush getting us into Iraq and Afghanistan. But like his father, Bush was always a traditional statist, an old-line liberal in the mold of JFK. Moreover, our Middle East adventures weren’t quite like Korea or Vietnam: the wars were won fast. The problem was winning the peace.

But, fair enough, the historical record itself isn’t sufficient to indict liberals as warmongers. No matter, though, because I don’t claim liberals are warmongers. They are ignorance and naïveté mongers.

Avoiding disastrous war is the stuff of foreign policy, and foreign policy involves dealing with other humans; as such, it can only be as good as your understanding of human nature. Thus, just as in the schoolyard or the street, your ability to avoid disastrous international fights will be commensurate with your understanding of human nature. Can you read people — some of whom are potential threats — well? Can you differentiate between a gathering storm that needs to be nipped in the bud and a situation exacerbated by meddling? Do you know what’s your business and what isn’t? Can you strike the balance between projecting the strength that deters aggression and seeming as a threat yourself? Complicating matters is that foreign policy is about dealing with foreign human beings, sharing your basic nature but not your basic conception of the world.

Given this, it’s clear that a leader can only avoid unnecessary or disastrous war insofar as he grasps man’s nature. And how do liberals measure up in this area?

During the 1990s budget battles, liberals said that with the alleged Republican “budget cuts,” the elderly would have to eat dog food to afford medicine. Spoofing this, radio host Rush Limbaugh said that he purchased a new can opener for his mother “so that she can get the dog food easier when she has to eat it.” The next day, liberal Congresswoman Pat Schroeder took to the House floor and said, flabbergasted, “[T]his is what it’s come to! …Rush Limbaugh actually said he’s going to buy his mother a can opener so she can have dog food. Wow!”

Yeah, wow. Schroeder took seriously the most obvious of jokes. Talk about an inability to read people. Talk about a foreign human being.

Exhibit B: at a 1990s feminist conference in my area, I made a rather articulate statement during the question-and-answer session, prompting some agitated feminist organizers to subsequently approach me and ask if I represented some group. Finding me unpalatable, they ultimately begged out of the conversation> by offering to send me literature and asking for my address. I consented but quipped, “As long as you don’t send a hit squad to my house.”

You guessed it. Schroederesquely, they took me seriously and said sternly, “We don’t do things like that.” Bizarre. Just bizarre.

Then I think of Charles Jenkins, an American soldier who spent 39 years in North Korean captivity. After finally returning to the US, he said about his arch-leftist captors, “[W]hen you lie they think you are telling the truth, and when you tell the truth they think you are lying. You learn real quick to say no when you mean yes, and yes when you mean no.” I guess the North Koreans are just like our leftists — only more so.

My last example concerns the nuclear-war scare of 1983. When the CIA reported that the Soviets actually thought NATO command-post exercise Able Archer 83 might be a prelude to a nuclear attack, President Ronald Reagan was shocked. Reagan’s deputy CIA director Robert Gates would later write, Was the Soviet leadership so out of touch that they really believed a preemptive attack was a real possibility?

Yes, they were.

They were leftists.

Of course, it’s no put-down to mention that just as the Soviets misread Washington, Reagan and, it appears, all his advisors misread the Soviets. We all fail in this regard at times, mistaking a joke for a serious comment, taking offense when none was intended or something else. Discernment is a continuum. But while some people occupy the Amazing Kreskin end of the scale, others populate the Schroeder end. And having such a person in power can mean the bitter end.

And what of Obama? Is he at all a mind-reader or just a Teleprompter reader?

He misread ISIS, calling it the “JV team.” He misread the tribalistic, Muslim humans in Iraq, saying they had a “sovereign, stable and self-reliant” “representative government.” He misread the Middle East in general, stating “the tide of war is receding.” As the usually sympathetic New York Times wrote about the president, “Time and again, he has expressed assessments of the world that in the harsh glare of hindsight look out of kilter with the changed reality he now confronts.”

Moreover, just last week Obama said in Estonia that an attack on that nation (alluding to Russian aggression) would be considered an attack on all of NATO and be met with the “armed forces of the United States of America.” Huh? As Pat Buchanan pointed out, such a statement about Russia’s sphere of influence is unprecedented and is something Obama’s “Cold War predecessors would have regarded as certifiable madness.” Would the president really risk nuclear war over tiny Estonia? Was it prudent to enter Vladimir Putin’s backyard and saber rattle? Was Obama wise to send the message that he’s either the world’s worst bluffer or its most insane leader?

But, again, liberals are the Braille bunch of human understanding. Just consider their prescriptions for deterring criminals, disciplining children, interpreting sexual inclinations or perceived statuses, encouraging productivity, avoiding nuclear war (unilateral disarmament), dealing with bullies in schools, thwarting school shootings (gun-free zones) or just about anything else that involves understanding man’s nature. Like old Patsy, who mistook a most comedic comment for the most serious callousness, they don’t just get others wrong — they get things completely backwards.

Because liberals live lives of rationalization, something debating them reveals. You can make an airtight point and a leftist not only won’t cede it, he’ll disgorge a completely absurd denial of reality. Of course, that’s what a rationalization is: when you lie to yourself, bend reality for yourself. And when you deny reality habitually, year after year—refusing to see one pixel here, another there, and a thousand others in different places — you never assemble enough elements of reality to see the big picture; this is called being out of touch with reality. Yet living in a Matrix of his own design, the person doesn’t know he’s thus detached. But the consequence is that he has difficulty discerning truth; he misreads people, events, life, the Universe and everything.

What explains liberals propensity for rationalization? Note here that by liberals I mean people who are relativists, who don’t believe in Absolute Truth, because this defines liberals (generally speaking) at the deepest level: the philosophical. And while we all may rationalize, there is a difference. If a person believes in Truth, he’ll likely care about it and be less likely to deny one of its inconvenient or uncomfortable aspects. He’ll be wont to say, “Okay, I don’t like reality here, but, heck, the Truth’s the Truth; I’ll just have to man up and accept it.” He also may understand, or at least sense intuitively, that denial of Truth is a moral defect.

But the person fancying that morality is just values and values are man-made, that everything is relative, approaches things differently. You can’t be denying Truth if Truth doesn’t exist; you’re just denying a different perspective. Moreover, even in matters of outright deception such as peddling forged documents damaging to George W. Bush, what of it? A lie can’t be any worse than the “truth” in a relativistic universe. For everything there boils down to occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

So what can we expect from our detached-from-reality ignorance mongers? Well, pondering this, I’m reminded of a woman whose somewhat liberal husband would be namby-pamby with their son, let him take too many liberties and allow the tension to build, until he would explode and react to the boy inappropriately. That’s the danger with leftists. If anyone would get us into a really big war, it would be someone who misreads situations and other people, fails to take necessary preventive action, and then reacts rashly. It would be a liberal.

Of course, the bigger problem is the detached ignorance mongers who would elect an Obama — twice. But, hey, perhaps they can persevere if they maintain their ability to rationalize. After all, with the onset of a nuclear winter, there would be no reason to worry about global warming.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

I Remember

/in , , , /by

Today, September 11th, is the “day that will live in infamy” for this current generation.

As long as I live, I will never forget going to the II Marine Expeditionary Force current operations center just in time to see the plane strike the second tower. I remember when the call came that the Pentagon had been hit. Most of us on Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune had just completed morning PT and had showered when it all happened. The full spectrum of emotions ran through us all that day – unbelief, bewilderment, confusion, sadness, conviction, and anger. I remember calling my wife Angela and asking if she and the girls were ok, since they still lived just 90 minutes away back up at Ft. Bragg in Fayetteville, NC. She was frantic and crying. I can still remember that night staring up at the sky from my little place in Swansboro, NC and seeing or hearing nothing – no planes, it was eerie.

And here we are 13 years later and still living under the threat of an Islamic terrorist attack. We go through security protocols all because of Islamic terrorist attacks. We just witnessed two Americans beheaded by members of an Islamic terrorist army.

Thirteen years later and it is as though we learned no lessons from 9/11. Our own recalcitrance to define this enemy was demonstrated last night by our president, Barack Hussein Obama, who firmly declared that ISIS is not “Islamic” – then what the hell are they, Amish? Political correctness has placed us in a position where almost half of our country fears another major terrorist attack.

My fellow Americans, we don’t have to live under this specter of Islamo-fascism and jihadism. We cannot go another year – certainly not another 13 – living in fear all the while refusing to admit that they exist. I am tired of being told that we cannot offend folks. I am tired of hearing that it’s not all Muslims. If that’s so, those moderates need to “man up” and kick some extremist arse. Because for 13 years, we’ve fiddled around and played games of winning hearts and minds and nation building and all we got in exchange were two beheaded Americans.

The original “day that will live in infamy” led us to one goal: the destruction of the enemy who attacked us. It was Japanese Admiral Yamamoto who stated that he feared they had awakened a sleeping giant. But the giant that is America is still asleep.

When President Ronald Reagan was asked how he defined victory in the Cold War he replied simply, “we win they lose.” And it was Alexander the Great who said, “I would not fear an army of lions if led by sheep, but I would fear an army of sheep if led by a lion.” America is looking for a lion who will crush the wolves and embolden, unleash and direct the indomitable American spirit that will not cower.

Remember those Americans who lost their lives thirteen years ago today but we must finally commit to never allowing this enemy to cause us to live in fear or alter our lives – we win, they lose – and never again!

Steadfast and Loyal

EDITORS NOTE: If you wish to leave a comment telling us where you were on September 11, 2001, it will help us all to never forget what happened on that fateful day.

Report on Controversial Middle East Curricula in Newton, MA Public Schools

/in , , , , /by

Black_Gold_New_LogoBetween May 2014, and September 2014, Verity Educate analyzed 26 individual pieces of educational material used in Newton public high school curricula related to the Middle East. Parents and community members asked Verity Educate to assess the material for factual accuracy in response to a multi-year controversy. The 26 pieces include handouts, assignments, readings, and one video. All were provided to Verity Educate by students, parents, and community members in Newton.

Verity Educate’s final report is now available. 153 pages long, it addresses over 300 specific points of inaccuracy and inconsistency in the curricula. Some educational materials were found to be without error, but others were replete with factual inaccuracies and sometimes blatant biases.

Verity Educate’s primary finding is:

There has been a demonstrated lack of subject matter expertise in the creation and oversight of these Middle East curricula, and the vast majority of materials used do not originate from authoritative sources or are so altered as to have lost their authority.

Additional findings include:

  • Multiple, easily-refuted instances of inaccurate and false information
  • Academic dishonesty ranging from plagiarism to deceptive editing
  • Material taken directly from a hate-filled, religious, proselytizing website (see more here)
  • Assignments designed to prejudice students towards a radical position of a one-state scenario in Israel/the West Bank/Gaza
  • Neo-Orientalist mistreatment Arab perspectives
  • Repeated biases against Israel, the U.S., and biases that sanitize the ideology and actions of terrorists

Interested in learning more?  Visit our website to request a copy of the report.

Islam is the Face of Evil

/in , , , , /by

“ISIS is not Islamic”, said  Barack Obama as he gave yet another vapid speech to say what he will or will not do next about the threat of Islam. What he said is both idiotic and a lie. ISIS calls itself the Islamic State.

Obama used the word “war” only once, but ISIS is all about war—an Islamic holy war that has been waged since 632 AD.

The one person neither named, nor blamed is the so-called prophet, Mohammad, yet everything being done by the jihadists today is being done in his name.

In his memoir, “Dreams from my Father”, Obama, in the preface to its second edition, wrote: “Nor do I pretend to understand the stark nihilism that drove the terrorists that day (9/11) and that drives their brethren still. My powers of empathy, my ability to reach into another’s heart, cannot penetrate the blank stares of those who would murder innocents with abstract, serene satisfaction.” And therein is the problem that he, as President, and we as citizens must address.

Political correctness is so dominant in the Obama White House that no one in the U.S. government dares say anything that might be deemed critical of a so-called “religion” that sanctions beheadings, amputations, stoning, kidnapping hostages, ransoms, polygamy, and slavery. To anyone deemed an infidel or unbeliever or a Muslim who questions anything about Islam, death is the only option other than dhimmitude, a second-class citizenship.

The pure evil of Islam was seen most recently in the two videos of American hostages being beheaded by the Islamic State, but despite decades of attacks on U.S. embassies, the taking of U.S. hostages in Beirut and Tehran, attacks in Bali, Madrid and London, and the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon, Americans have been slow to realize the intensity and size of the threat that the Middle Eastern and North African nations represent along with wherever else a large Muslim population exists.


As the U.S. and threatened Middle Eastern nations hurtle toward a military confrontation with the Islamic State, the name it has given to territory it has seized from northern Syria and into Iraq, a new book, Fault Lines: The Layman’s Guide to Understanding America’s Role in the Ever-Changing Middle East, ($00.00, Elevate, Boise, Idaho, softcover) provides one of the best, short histories on U.S. involvement and why, at this point, its influence has reached a low point.

Liebich writes of the way the U.S. policy regarding the Middle East changed over the years, particularly in the wake of World War II and the Cold War that followed as the Soviet Union challenged us for the implementation of communism worldwide. Dependent on the flow of oil from the Middle East, much of our strategic interest in the region was based on exercising our influence, often bringing about the removal of leaders whom we regarded as a threat to that necessity. After 9/11 that went into overdrive.

Liebich notes that our concept of nation-building proved costly, not just in the lives of our troops, but which included $50 billion in Iraq “and it didn’t work. Before you can build a nation you have to have a nation and only the citizens of that nation can decide what kind of a country they want to have.” The problem the U.S. encountered was that “In the Middle East, people related much more to the Ummah (the Muslim community) and to their own tribes.”

The problem that George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush, encountered was that “The Middle East is a part of the world where many odd alliances appear. One is never sure who is allied with whom and whatever one thinks may all change tomorrow.”

Liebich takes note of the “Arab Awakening” that followed the U.S. invasion of Iraq that deposed Saddam Hussein. It began “with so much promise” followed by “its subsequent descent into chaos, has drastically changed the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East and North Africa.”

Liebich says “My definition of a vital national interest is one that deals with an existential threat to the United States, and one for which the U.S. is willing to spill its blood and to spend its treasure in order to accomplish its objectives. By this definition, the U.S. has no vital national interest in events in the Middle East.” Written prior to the emergence of the Islamic State, a new existential threat is facing the U.S.

Liebich says our strategic interests in the Middle East for many years included access to stable supplies of oil at reasonable prices; support for the state of Israel; preventing adversaries or potential adversaries from coming to power or achieving influence in the region; improving life for the people of the region; and preventing terrorist attacks on U.S. territories and citizens.

“The region has become the epicenter for terrorist groups, some of which have ambitions for a global reach.” That alone will require a renewed military involvement by the U.S. as we are the only nation with the capacity to alter the facts on the ground.

It comes at a time when the U.S. is close to having developed its oil reserves to a point where the oil of the Middle East will not determine our policies, but it is that oil which other nations such as those of Europe depend upon. China and India need it as well so its protection by and for the West as well as the developing Asian nations affects our decisions. Even Russia whose economy is dependent on oil and natural gas has cast its support for Syria along with Iran.

Everything, though, depends on understanding the true nature and intent of Islam.

Liebich ends his book with a quote from Winston Churchill who said, “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”

Right now, the right thing is the destruction of the Islamic State.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED ARTICLE: Sorry Mr. President, ISIS Is 100 Percent Islamic

Those 9/11 Terror Attack Predictions

/in , , , /by

As we close in on the 13th anniversary of the infamous 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the media is full of predictions about attacks that will occur.

A September 2nd Debka File, an Israeli news agency, reported “Credible information has reached Saudi, British and Australian agencies that two al Qaeda branches—ISIS in Iraq and Syria and AQAP at its base in Yemen—have wrapped up plans to roll out coordinated terrorist spectaculars around the 13th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. According to Debka File’s counterterrorism sources, they are preparing to strike simultaneously in the Middle East and a West European city. Next, they will go for U.S. targets in the Middle East and Europe.”

This report and other factors incline me to believe there will not be a major attack somewhere in the U.S. on what is now officially called “Patriot Day.”  There could be a lone wolf attack along the lines of Major Hassan’s 2009 “workplace violence” at Fort Hood or the Boston Marathon bombing, but the threats being made by the Islamic State and other elements of al Qaeda, while intended to raise fears in America, are likely to be manifested in the Middle East. American outlets there will be on full alert for sure.

The Islamic State, while now wealthy, well equipped militarily, and attracting every lunatic Islamist and wannabe terrorist, is facing an increasingly united group of Middle East nations that have put old enemies like Iran and Saudi Arabia on the same page together. Iran has dispatched troops to Iraq to support the Kurds. When other Middle Eastern nations finally screw up enough courage to actually do something they will wage a war on ISIS in the interest of self-defense, a powerful motive.

As for al Qaeda’s war on America, it was declared in 1996 by the late, unlamented Osama bin Laden and, other than 9/11, it has done little to follow up on that dramatic sneak attack except for a few failed efforts. The U.S. responded by bombing the hell out of Afghanistan and our troops there have been attacking the Taliban ever since. Obama says he will pull them out in 2015. Given events in Iraq, that is a very bad idea.

The Department of Homeland Security has been on alert ever since it was created shortly after 9/11. This is not to say that the U.S. doesn’t need more on-the-ground intelligence penetration of al Qaeda and its affiliates. Indeed, DHS and other government agencies don’t know the whereabouts of several thousand foreign students who are supposed to be at our colleges and universities. They likely do not know who else among those with easy access to the nation is a potential terrorist.

So, yes, that could mean I am very wrong and that 9/11 would be a day for a whole series of attacks for much the same reason our consulate in Libya was attacked that day in 2012. The Benghazi cover-up has been falling apart ever since. The lie that it was caused by a video grows more absurd and obscene very day.

The Israelis have made a far greater and more successful effort than us to infiltrate their enemy’s organizations. Hamas was so rattled by the effectiveness of the Israeli bombing of sites where its rockets were stored and fired from, as well as the killing of a number of its leaders, that they made a public display of executing a number of people they accused of being Israeli spies, whether they were or not. The likelihood was that they were Gazans who had spoken out against Hamas.

After breaking a number of ceasefires, Hamas, running out of any support, accepted the most recent one and Israel thereafter announced the annexation of more West Bank territory for its settlements and, no doubt, for militarization to protect against further attacks. The Israelis know how to deal with their enemies, to prepare, and to take action rather than issue empty threats.

There have even been a number of small events by American Muslims speaking out against barbarity of the Islamic State and the threats leveled at the U.S. That is a hopeful sign, but it needs to increase in numbers and volume. The vast silence of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world is an offense to humanity.

The Arabs of the Middle East are forever making dramatic threats, but they have a record of doing little. When Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq, he waged a war against Iran that ended inconclusively and then invaded Kuwait and was defeated by a U.S. coalition. When he continued to make threats the U.S. invaded again and deposed him.

What followed was an effort in several Middle Eastern nations to rid themselves of their despots. This occurred in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. Only Egypt, after a brief encounter with a Muslim Brotherhood government, rallied again with a military coup that led to the election of a new military leader. The Brotherhood has been banned! Libya is a failed state that has been taken over by Islamic militants. Tunisia has a new constitution as of January and numerous political parties. Its government is battling local militias.

Iraq is in near failure as it tries to unite its Shiite and Sunni factions in a functioning government. Much of the nation has been taken over by the Islamic State in the same fashion as northern Syria whose civil war has killed 190,000 and driven over a million out as refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and anywhere else they could flee. Who has put troops into Iraq to resist the Islamic State? The Iranians!

One threat the President of the United States does not appear to have taken seriously is an Iran with a nuclear weapon and the intercontinental missiles to deliver it. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia are far more aware of the danger this poses and in all likelihood Israel will conclude it must destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and military installations.

The United States has lost virtually all the influence it once had in the Middle East, even if it came from the barrel of a gun. Our Secretary of State, John Kerry, is held in low regard by both the Israelis and Arabs. The President, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton keep insisting that “climate change” is the greatest threat to mankind.

If President Obama does not engage in the destruction—not “containment”—of the Islamic State, its oil wealth will enable it to become a major threat in the Middle East and beyond, including us. They have demonstrated no restraint on their use of violence and pose a threat comparable or even greater than the Nazi regime of the last century.

Will there be attack or attacks in the U.S. on 9/11? We all wish we know the answer, but we don’t.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Men of Ideals 

/in , , , , /by

“You Jews are always complaining of your own suffering, but you get fat off the poor, cheat the simple, exploit the virgin, pollute where you’ve exploited – America is one Big Jew! We are soldiers fighting a war. We are not criminals and we are not vandals but men of ideals.”

Such are the words spoken by a Muslim-Palestinian terrorist in The Death of Klinghoffer, an American opera based on the 1985 hijacking of the passenger liner, Achille Lauro, by the Palestine Liberation Front, and their murder of a wheelchair-bound, stroke victim – the Jewish-American passenger Leon Klinghoffer, on holiday with his wife and daughters.  However, the words came from the mind of librettist Alice Goodman, an anti-Semitic, Jewish apostate-turned-Anglican priest, who found an “artistic” channel for her own animus, hatreds and biases.

Commissioned by five American and European opera companies and the Brooklyn Academy of Music, the composers have turned a heartbreaking event into musical entertainment.  The story is of a malevolent crime of Islamic jihad (a crusade to kill for conquest), presented with consideration for the villains and indifference to the innocent victim.  There is something deeply perverse – nay, depraved – in producing this for showbiz, as I see our once-great civilization sinking into the depths of a fascistic Islamic evil.

It is said that there can only be peace when the Muslims stop revering death the way Jews revere life.  Islam’s militaristic, expansionist, religious, oppressive ideology revolves around subjugation, mutilation, and death – all that is antithetical to our Western civilization.  As a nation we debate about length of prison terms, the death penalty, humaneness for animals, yet there are some will create, perform, and view a callous, political murder as “theater,” as well as provide a venue for slowly Islamizing the American psyche.

Surely, the Muslim Brotherhood would agree with Goodman, composer John Adams, theater director Peter Sellars, and general manager Peter Gelb, that this jihadist show be produced despite protests.  They prefer that we Americans remain silent about the Holocaust; Mohammed’s slaughter of Jews in Mecca and Medina; attacks against Christians in Africa, Indonesia and Europe; Spain’s “Golden Era” of humiliation and punishment; to the constant attacks and massacres of Jews long before the Jewish state became an alibi.  We must remain silent to protect the guilty as they continue to terrorize, spill blood and display severed heads – and whitewash their psychosis.

Have the Jews always complained of their suffering?  They have done more than just complain!  They have built memorials and museums so that others may learn the nature of evil through history rather than through personal experience.

However, when the Palestinians complain to the United Nations of a fictitious apartheid and a fabricated disproportionate war, they reap millions of dollars in benefits – more than enough to sustain their victimhood status and generous proceeds for generations to come.

While the Jews endured and remembered, they sought no revenge but used their energy to build a nation out of desert and malarial swamps – to a state of leadership in technological advancements in science, medicine, publishing, music and art, and more, in 66 brief years – the same number of years it took the Palestinians to create a culture of hate and death, where they abuse their children so that, in turn, they will victimize others.

The opera takes the position of the Palestinians against Israel, but the rhetoric quickly turns to hate of all Jews – and Americans.  Do the Jews get fat off the poor and cheat the simple?  As the labor of Americans – and Jews, specifically – improve their country and raise the standard of living for all citizens, they are among the most generous in the world (tzedakah) – their names noted for endowments to science, medicine and the arts.  The Jewish two percent of the American population is responsible for 30 percent of America’s most generous donors!  Israelis and Americans are among the first responders to disasters around the world, and Israel’s hospitals are renowned for their advanced medical treatment of all, including Palestinians.

On the other hand, Islam’s Five Pillars of Faith include alms-giving (zakat), the obligatory charity based on accumulated wealth, which is meant to ease the economic hardship for other Muslims and to eliminate inequality for followers of Islam only.  “It is not permissible to give Zakat to a non-Muslim…” (Umdat al-Salik, h8.24); neither do they provide help to other countries.  Zakat must be given to Jihad.

Goodman’s accusation of “exploit the virgin” is not merely a vicious lie, but pure projectionism, as no children suffer as much as those under Islam. Despite their perpetual state of threats of war – or perhaps because of it – Israelis are among the happiest nations in the world.  They work to improve their own lives, and the government provides superior defense, protection and shelters for their citizenry.  Additionally, ten years ago, Israel began integrating disabled youth into the Israel Defense Forces  (IDF), allowing these children to overcome their limitations and help prepare them for independent life in Israeli society, the community and the workforce – while they and their parents reap the rewards of joy and pride in accomplishment.

By contrast, under Islam, young girls undergo female genital mutilation (not a safe surgical procedure, but mutilation).  In war, Islamic combatants use children as human shields to increase their death toll to gain sympathy from the United Nations. Child labor was used to construct the underground terrorist tunnels, which also increased the death toll, and children are taught at a very young age to behead a kafir (infidel).  Further, throughout the Islamic world, since the days of Mohammed, they continue the practice of kidnapping girls and boy and raping and selling them into sexual slavery. Daughters may suffer honor killings by their own parents, or endure servile marriages.  All children, and particularly the vulnerable disabled, are intimidated into suicide bombings; their parents are rewarded with $2,500 per martyred offspring.

Finally, the operatic rant claims the terrorists to be neither criminals nor vandals, but men of “ideals.” Although undefined, the ideals are a worldwide caliphate, a “one-world order,” where the same rules of Sharia apply to all.  Therefore, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all other religions must be obliterated and their adherents converted to Islam or killed.  Once converted, women are relegated to a status inferior to men or be beaten or killed.  If a child “dishonors” a parent, the child may be killed. If a Muslim converts out of Islam, the apostate must be killed.  If a male or female is accused of adultery, he may be killed and she stoned to death.  Antisemitism is inherent in Sharia, a practice based on Mohammed’s genocidal behavior when he eradicated the entire Jewish population of the Arabian Peninsula.  Jihad is warfare to spread Islam – or kill those who will not submit to the “religion of peace.”

“We are soldiers fighting a war,” says Goodman (a misaptonym, at best) through the assassin. She gets it. She understands that these words and the entire opera may incite riots in the streets to burn synagogues or attack and kill Jews.  It is not her concern that this “art form” might encourage the Muslim Student Unions to increase their attacks on Jewish students on campuses. Her use of inflammatory words of “suffering,” “cheating,” and “exploitation” have a purpose, and she, Adams, Sellars, and Gelb, agree on the purpose.  Immersed in their hostility toward religion, Americanism, and our Constitution, they have found a way to exalt in our destruction.

Heaven help us.

Steven Sotloff: An Israeli-American who reported on the ‘Menace of Jihad’

/in , , , /by
sotloff

Image courtesy of the Palm Beach Post.

ISIS murdered its first Israeli American, 31 year old Steven Sotloff.  Sotloff, z”l , made aliyah to Israel and attended the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC ) in Herzliya from 2005 to 2008. He took off when the Arab Spring erupted to follow developments in Egypt, Libya,  Turkey and ultimately Syria, where he was abducted by criminal elements and likely ‘sold’ to ISIS.

A Ynet.com report, “Steven had Israel in his blood, says close family friend”, revealed his Jewish background and  his amazing feat of practicing Jewish observances while in captivity.   The information was purposefully impounded until his  murder at the hands of a barbaric ISIS  executioner.  The executioner may possibly be the same British jihadi who murdered the late American journalist, James Foley.  We recall the heart rending video plea by Sotloff’s mother in Miami asking that ISIS spare  her son’s  life.

The Sotloff family deserves our deepest expression of rachmonis (compassion) for the brutal murder of their son Steven at the hands of Jew-hating Salafist Jihadis in Syria. The Ynet.com report noted that this comment:

A former editor recalls: ‘Some of the stories he did had connections with Israel, including stories done ahead of the curve on the jihadi movement taking over in Sinai.’

Not professionally trained as a journalist, nevertheless, Sotloff  wrote  prescient reports on the rise of jihadist savagery in the region, perhaps as a warning to both fellow Israelis and many in the West.

The Ynet account noted some evidence of Sotloff’s sojourn in Israel and what may have motivated him to undertake a valorous short-lived journalistic career:

“He was not an outcast. He grew up in an Israeli home with a Jewish upbringing. Israel was in his blood,” said a businessman close to the family of a murdered Israeli-American journalist who  was  in touch with Syrian opposition officials.

“Steven entered Syria to report that Assad was massacring his own people. What was he trying to accomplish? To show the world that genocide is being committed against the Syrian people – that children are being slaughtered.”

Steven Sotloff – the Israel-American journalist executed by Islamic State militants Tuesday in reprisal for US air strikes in Iraq – was a highly esteemed journalist whose colleagues claim warned of the threats radical Islamic terror posed.

Note this from a colleague at The Media Line:

Sotloff  made Aliyah in 2005 and studied at the IDC’s Foreign Relations program, a friend from school confirmed forYnet. Little information regarding his time in Israel is known,.  After he was captured in Syria it seems any connection to Israel was deleted from his online presence in a bid to prevent the information reaching his captors.

However, Felicia Friedson, the president of The Media Line, who knew Sotloff when he wrote for the online publication recalled him.

“I met him in 2009, and he began working for and contributing to The Media Line in 2012,” Friedson said.

“He is one of the most courageous, talented and insightful journalists that I have met. He covered many countries in the Mideast since 2009, including stories on the Arab Spring, and then again in 2012 he was covering stories for us from Libya, Egypt, Turkey and Syria; where he was subsequently abducted by al-Qaeda and then transferred,” she said.

[…]

“Obviously the most important thing is that we harshly condemn the barbaric killing of our colleague and friend and it is important that the world wake up – and this was Steve’s wish – that they wake and read what he was writing.”

According to Friedson, “He read the streets perfectly (and) did a lot of writing on terror, especially about jihadists taking over in Syria and Libya. He was sounding the alarm and was frustrated that no one was listening; he said people in these countries were asking for funds to fight radical Islamic movements.

“Our condolences go out to his family with who we’ve been in contact throughout the year, but also to the world because this is an attack on civil society,” Friedson aptly concluded

A fellow student at the IDC, Mike Sapir, portrayed Sotloff who created his own form of journalism that enabled him to survive a midst Muslim extremism:

“Basically Steven  … created a journalistic career out of thin air, he said this is what he want to do and he is going to do it sell his story to who ever takes it.

“He wasn’t a formal journalist. It’s not like he took his resume and went back to US and tried to be employed by New York Times. He told me he wanted to see what was happening in the Middle East so he picked up and went to Egypt to cover the Arab Spring, then he went to Benghazi and followed the revolution and just covered it.

“Steven went there and was part of the people, he wasn’t like the reporters in Gaza sitting in their hotel room, Steven was part of the scenery, part of the people, and his friends were Arabs.”

Giving further insight into Sotloff’s style, Mike explained: “Steven lived what he was reporting. His friends were Muslims, and he never said he was afraid, he actually said that he was able to get people to open up, he was able to get in to see their side.”

One wonders whether Sotloff, in addition to filing stories, might have inadvertently supplied valued insights to counter-terrorism analysts in Israel. Perhaps warning them of the rise of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda. Both terrorist groups are  now wreaking havoc on the northern Golan frontier, having infiltrated both the West Bank and Gaza prior to the recent Operation Protective Edge.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Obama and Arabs Find a Common Enemy — the Islamic State

/in , , , , /by

For a larger view click on the map.

Given all the mutations that the Middle East has gone through thanks to the emergence of al Qaeda during the resistance to the Soviet takeover of Afghanistan, watching what is occurring now with an even more fanatical group calling itself the Islamic State (ISIS) and proclaiming itself the new caliphate has proven even more lethal and more feared.

Royal Saudi Air Force

The closest thing to a caliphate has been the assertion of al Saud, the royal family that runs Saudi Arabia who has long claimed to be the protector of Islam’s two most holy sites, Mecca and Medina, and of the true form of its expression, the strict Wahhabi interpretation. Were it not for its oil, the royals would have had to live off the earnings from the hajj, the visit to Mecca that all Muslims are required to make at least once in their lifetime.
The Saudis, despite having at least 250 U.S. and British advanced fighter aircraft, have typically avoided engaging in combat; the type that will be required to destroy ISIS. Instead, it gave $100 million to the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Center, but the latest news is that al Qaeda linked Syrian rebels from the Nusra Front battled U.N. military peacekeepers encamped on the Golan Heights on August 30, forcing some to escape to Israel. The UN’s peacekeeping role and its ability to deter wars are hardly notable.

Oil made the Middle East’s despots and monarchs wealthy, but former despots have been removed in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, while Syria’s has been engaged in what started as a civil war and became a magnet for the group that broke away from al Qaeda, espousing an even more fanatical interpretation of Islam.

Now Middle Eastern nations that have been enemies, like Saudi Arabia and Iran—one Arab, the other Persian, one Sunni, the other Shiite—have found themselves equally threatened.

This common enemy has caused other relationships to alter. Turkey which has been in conflict with the Kurds remained silent when Syrian Kurdish militias helped rescue the Yazidis who were driven from their homes by ISIS. Al Qaeda’s Syrian component, the Nustra Front, now finds itself at war with ISIS.

Even the Egyptians found themselves on the same side of the Israeli battle with Hamas, destroying many of the tunnels built from their nation into Gaza. They now both share a distrust of the United States.

Indeed, the United States is virtually without any friends left in the Middle East, at least at the level that previously existed. This is entirely the result of Barack Obama’s astonishing talent for picking the wrong side in events there.

His criticism of Israel defending itself against thousands of rockets from Hamas in Gaza has eroded what friendship existed after his criticism of its settlements and rude treatment of its Prime Minister. The Egyptians were offended by his support for the Muslim Brotherhood that took over after Mubarak was deposed. The Brotherhood was so dictatorial and so awful a military coup was required to remove its leader and it is now banned in Egypt.

Iraq is responsible for its own problems, having put a Shiite fanatic in charge as its prime minister along with its refusal to permit a contingent of American troops to remain. Now, unless the new prime minister—the choice of both Saudi Arabia and Iran—can unify what’s left of its government and work with the U.S. to destroy the Islamic State, Iraq could cease to exist along with Syria.

Other players in the region include the Gulf States of Qatar, a supporter of ISIS; Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Oman. The UAE recently joined with Egypt to conduct air strikes in Libya on armed Islamic terrorist groups there. Reports of the attacks were sketchy at best. Libya has been in turmoil since Muammar Gadhafi, its former dictator, was deposed in 2011.

The Islamic State has been able to do what no previous entity ever had. It has united the many different nations in the Middle East, each of which is responding in what it deems its own best interest while studiously trying to avoid direct military engagement.

Persian Iran, however, has put troops into Iraq to fight it.  At some point other Arab states will have to, but Saudi Arabia and all the others, Europe included, continue to wait for the United States to lead.

Barack Obama is the most confrontation-adverse President to have ever held the office and the only one who has ever had warm feelings for Islam. It took him eight days and three tries to actually say he wanted to “destroy” ISIS.

Obama must surely be under intense pressure because he has been increasing the bombings and the number of troops on the ground in Iraq.

What Obama tells the nation regarding plans to destroy the Islamic State is likely to fall far short of anything that will achieve that goal. This is why he is already talking about how long it will take. This is a job he wants to leave to the next President.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

VIDEO: Top ten Qur’an verses to help you understand the Islamic State [ISIS]

/in , , /by

The learned analysts know that you cannot look at the scriptures of a religion in order to understand that religion. After all, you can find violent passages in all scriptures, right? And all scriptures are subject to interpretation and reinterpretation, emphasis and de-emphasis, etc. Religions, we are told, are what their believers make them to be.

Very well. The Islamic State leaders say they are Muslim believers. They claim to be following the teachings of the Qur’an. Are they? Watch David Wood’s video and see —

Are they misunderstanding or misinterpreting these passages? So far no Muslim spokesman in the West, not one, has taken up these Qur’an passages and argued that. All they have done is proclaim the Islamic State to be un-Islamic, without confronting its Islamic case for itself.

Why does this matter? Because the Qur’an isn’t owned by the Islamic State. Muslims the world over read it. The Muslims in the West claim to reject and abhor the Islamic State. Very well. What are they doing to teach against its understanding of Islam, so that more Muslims from the West don’t go to Iraq and Syria to join it?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kerry: Anti-Islamic State coalition means “demolishing the distortion of one of the world’s great peaceful religions”

UK prof: Islamic State has “reverted to a model that has been the reality in parts of the Islamic world for most of its history,” but “what they are perpetrating is not Islam”

Islamic State fighters using US arms

Austria: Imam says Muslims join Islamic State because of “Islamophobia”

Turkey aided rise of Islamic State, yet NATO promises to defend Turkey from Islamic State