From Russia with Love: A Nuclear Suppository for Obama

The ballistic missile with Obama’s name on it, paraded in the streets of Moscow last Monday, was only an imitation – but the sentiment was genuine.

Looking like a gigantic allegorical suppository for the American president, the green twelve-foot rocket emblazoned with the hammer and sickle over a red star brought up Cold War memories of real intercontinental missiles the Soviet government would parade in Red Square as a vague threat to its enemies. There was no vagueness this time: in large print letters, the message on the rocket said, “To be delivered to Obama in person.”

Russian missile for Obama from Rashkin

The occasion was the Day of the Defenders of the Motherland – a big annual celebration of the creation of the Red Army in 1918 by Leon Trotsky. To be sure, Trotsky’s name had not been attached to this holiday ever since his removal from power and assassination by Stalin. Additionally, the country has since changed its name, borders, ideology, the system of government, and renamed the very holiday in question.

Still, the holiday spirit runs strong, along with patriotic rallies, propaganda posters, and nationally televised bombastic military-themed concerts puffed up by a full roster of Kremlin-approved celebrities.

It’s also dubbed Men’s Day, as all Russian men and boys receive greetings and gifts from women and girls – a rather manipulative hetero-normative reminder that all male citizens belong in the army.

unnamed (18)In a way, this mirrors Women’s Day on March 8th – another originally communist holiday that comes twelve days later, when women and girls receive greetings and gifts from men and boys, as men volunteer to help around the house and do women’s work in the kitchen – which may also be seen as a hetero-normative reminder of a woman’s place on all other days of the year.

This year Ukraine officially canceled the celebration of Russia’s military holiday, belatedly joining other ex-Soviet republics that had suffered the wrath of the Red Army. In contrast, Vladimir Putin’s government has boosted the celebration even further, making February 23rd an official day off and using it to crank up the already excessive Russian patriotism.

With full support of the government-controlled media, national chauvinism is now spilling over the state borders, as gangs of armed “patriots” flock to eastern Ukraine, eager to show the uppity ukrops their place in Pax Russiana. Jingoism dominates Russia’s online forums and social media, as well as the streets and city squares, with rallies that support Putin, military adventurism, and Pax Russiana, while at the same time trashing everything non-Russian, especially America and Gayrope (a new Russian slur deriving from “gay” + “Europe.”) The stunt with the Obama-targeted missile is merely a small piece in the world’s largest jigsaw puzzle called Russia.

According to the Levada Center, a Moscow-based independent polling organization, America is seen negatively today by 74% of the Russian population (60% also have a negative view of Europe), and 69% believe the United States is a hostile nation. At the same time, after the break-up of the USSR in the early 1990s, only 10% of Russians viewed the U.S. negatively. What happened?

The Levada Center has registered four waves of anti-American and anti-Western sentiment in Russia – in 1999 (the war in Serbia), in 2003 (the war in Iraq), in 2008 (the war in Georgia), and in 2014 (the war in Ukraine), with today’s wave being the strongest in the last 20 years. Sociologists also believe that Russia’s public opinion is shaped largely by the government-run media, with more than one half of the respondents admitting they couldn’t form opinions independently.

Russian most popular politicians

It would be fair to say that every such wave of anti-Americanism in Russia (and to some extent around the world) has been orchestrated and paid for by the Kremlin’s powerful propaganda machine, which deploys two parallel narratives – one for the foreigners and one for domestic use. The domestic narrative is always a variation of the same formula: “Once again, the Motherland is under attack from American imperialism. The West has always hated Russia. Out of sheer hatred they want to humiliate us and push Russia out of its traditional spheres of influence. To survive, our nation must unite around a strong leader and his party.” The leader is, of course, Vladimir Putin; the party is United Russia.

During the first wave of post-Soviet xenophobia and anti-Americanism in December of 1999, Putin conveniently upgraded his position from Russian prime minister to Russian president. It is hardly a coincidence that now, during the fourth and strongest anti-American wave, Putin’s approval rating has risen to an astronomical 86%. The survey was taken on February 23rd, the same day the Russia-to-Obama rocket was spotted in the streets of Moscow.

Russian missile for Obama from Rashkin

A sign at a pro-Putin rally in Moscow showing America and Europe as two rats biting at Ukraine, and Russia as a cute red squirrel. The caption says, “Time for rodent control?”

This only means that about the same number of Russians also share a paranoid obsession with Ukraine, honestly believing that Vladimir Putin is fighting an epic and noble battle against the American aggression launched by the CIA through its Ukrainian proxies.

A similar narrative existed during Russia’s invasion into Georgia in 2008, when the Russian media referred to the Georgian president Saakashvili as America’s puppet.

In the days of the Maidan protests in Kiev last year, a number of protesters had been taken away and beaten by national security, which at the time was largely run by Russia’s FSB. Between the beatings, the interrogators demanded a “volunteer confession” that the protests had been organized by American agents and paid for in dollars. No such “confessions” had been obtained.

From the start of the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, the Russian media cooperated with the Russian intelligence in trying to find evidence of American presence in the war zone. All they have found was a broken foreign-made rifle, a damaged Hummer vehicle, and a two-second video footage of a British anti-land-mine activist in Mariupol, whom the Russian media described as an American cutthroat mercenary.

In the absence of facts, fakes will do. The government media, with the assistance of an army of paid online activists have launched a slew of rumors, conspiracy theories, and internet fakes – for example, presenting footage from Iraq as coming from Ukraine, or publishing wild-eyed “eyewitness accounts,” the latest of which included an apocalyptic story of drunken American Negroes dancing on top of Ukrainian tanks while pointing guns at terrified civilians. A separatist warlord once posted a “humorous” story online about how one dark night he saw an “American Negro” jumping out of a burning Ukrainian tank and immediately taking off his clothes, hoping that his black skin would help him to blend with the night.

Barack Obama receives a similar race-baiting treatment, with many online cartoons and posters mocking his race and portraying him as a monkey. On Obama’s birthday last year some “patriotic” Muscovites unveiled a large street banner picturing the U.S. President as “three wise monkeys.” Later that evening, the wall of the U.S. embassy in Moscow became a screen for a crude animated laser show picturing Obama eating a banana.

anti-Obama sign in Moscow

In this context, a missile for Obama in the middle of a patriotic rally hardly raised any eyebrows. A bigger problem is the fact that this agitprop rocket was conceived and signed by a Valery Rashkin (pronounced as “Rushkin”), a notoriously belligerent member of the Russian parliament and the leader of the Moscow branch of the Communist Party. The picture shows him proudly pumping his fist in front of his art project. Putin’s policies to restore the USSR obviously make this communist leader a happy camper.

A week earlier Rashkin fell under a new round of EU sanctions for promoting war in Ukraine, along with nineteen individuals and nine organizations whose assets held in EU countries have now been frozen, accompanied by an EU-wide travel ban. In total, Brussels has already sanctioned 151 individuals and 37 companies in Russia and eastern Ukraine.

Russian missile for Obama from RashkinThe new blacklist caused an overwrought reaction in the Duma, which quickly became the subject of ridicule in social media. The indignant head of the education commission Nikonov (United Russia) took the floor to defend his communist colleague by saying, “If they (in Europe) are all Charlie, then we are all… Rashkin!”

The following day, the Russian-speaking Internet was filled with “Je suis Rashkin” Internet memes, Tweets, and spoofs.

Rashkin himself responded to the sanctions by saying that in WWII his father entered Berlin without any sanctions and he was hoping that history would sort it out like it did in 1945. Standing next to his rocket, the leader of Moscow communists explained his stunt as follows: “Someone today is conspiring against my Motherland. I am the son of my father, I wanted to send a present. This present doesn’t abide by any sanctions either. It will fly wherever the Motherland wishes it to fly.”

A crowd of communists, several thousand strong, carried red flags, portraits of Soviet leaders, and the Obama-designated rocket through Moscow streets to Revolution Square, where they held a planned rally with Rashkin as a speaker. “The United States is causing destruction, violence, and bloodshed all over the world. We must stop these rapists and murderers, we must fight to defend the sovereignty of our great nation,” said the member of the Russian parliament and head of the commission on ethnic policies.

The next speaker was Gennady Zyuganov, head of Russia’s Communist Party, claiming that the West doesn’t want Russia to be strong and powerful and that they only “need our resources, our talent, and our land. That is why they have imposed their sanctions and continue to choke us any way they can. That is why they have unleashed the bloody war in Ukraine, directed by the CIA, unscrupulous diplomats, outright Nazis, Banderites, and corrupt oligarchs.”

Leader of Russia’s communists Gennady Zyuganov is not only a long-serving member of the Russian parliament (since 1993), but he is also a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (since 1996). Additionally, in 1996, 2000, 2008, and 2012 he was a candidate in Russian presidential elections and came in second every time. Zyuganov and Rashkin exemplify the pre-approved pool of candidates in Putin’s Russia circa 2015.

Rashkin - Red Army hat

To be fair, the Kremlin’s political technologists are hard at work trying to misrepresent the reality of Russia’s pool of candidates by manufacturing and promoting political opposition which it can control, while marginalizing the independents. As a result, the only “viable” opposition leaders in Russia are the Soviet-style communist Zyuganov (4% of the vote) and the psychotic nationalist Zhirinovsky (5% of the vote). Both are grotesque scarecrows; compared to them Putin looks like a knight in shining armor to most Russians and appears a lesser of two evils in the eyes of the West.

After the fall of the USSR Russia had a real chance to develop a civil society, modernize its economy, and join the family of Western nations as an equal. Instead, as many independent Russian analysts believe, Vladimir Putin has squandered that chance, choosing to control the population by cultivating fear and hostility towards the outside world as a means to shift the blame for Russia’s continued problems and to divert attention from his and his circle’s abuse of power.

Russian most popular politicians

If a president’s goal is to become a national hero but he can’t do it by improving his country, Plan B is to create the appearance of heroics by means of media manipulations and byzantine political technologies. The latter worked for Putin: according to a survey conducted early February by Public Opinion Foundation, 72% of Russians would have voted for Putin today, with only 5% distrusting their president. The annexation of the Crimea only added to his popularity. Analysts believe the current crisis may actually be a boon for Putin, as the average Russian is likely thinking, “If he could pull off getting us the Crimea, he’ll find a way out of this crisis as well.”

On the international arena, Plan B means dragging the rest of the world down to his level by sabotaging other economies and stirring political turmoil abroad, making Russia look stable and prosperous in comparison.

Russian Aryan mythologyBy choosing Plan B, Putin has pushed the Russian society thousands of years back, into the age of mythology with its hierarchy of gods, heroes, and monsters. In compliance with the state-approved zeitgeist, Russia’s cultural elites are filling the post-communist void in their souls with ancient Slavic mythology and “Aryan” pseudoscience, submerging into the depths of imaginary history, resurrecting forgotten words, notions, and meanings, and defining Russia as the Third Rome.

In other words, they are doing pretty much everything the cultural elites in Hitler’s Germany did when they tried to resurrect the pre-Christian Aryan mythology and lifestyle, defining themselves as the Third Empire, better known to us as the Third Reich.

The parallels in cultural attitudes are striking – and yet, in the mythological hierarchy of today’s “Third Rome,” the Third Reich was populated by monsters. According to the same mythology, the monsters have now reappeared in Ukraine, and Pax Russiana is once again standing up to the noble task of stomping them out. As a bonus, this view allows the participants to re-enact the mythologized heroics of the Great Patriotic War, better known to us as WWII. The circus pleases the plebs, and lowering vodka prices also helps.

A decade of mind-boggling oil revenues may have made Putin look like an invincible superhero, but easy petrodollars have also bloated his ego and made him detached from reality. The rest of the nation simply jumped on the presidential bandwagon. Now that the oil prices have dropped by half, Russia is back to square one: a poor and paranoid outcast, with crumbling currency, junk credit rating, and residual delusions of grandeur.

Superhero Putin is now asking his citizens to “sit tight for a couple of years, it’ll get better,” while his sidekick, prime minister Medvedev, threatens the world with a terrible “boom” and “ka-pow.” The sidekick’s sidekick, deputy prime minister Shuvalov, follows suit by declaring that for Putin’s sake Russians will be happy to eat less and live in the dark.

Quite fittingly, Putin has begun to exchange regular friendly messages with Kim Jong Un. North Korea’s dictator is expected to visit Moscow on May 9th to attend the Victory Day military parade in honor of the 70th anniversary of the Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War. Both must be looking forward to comparing notes on how to maintain a long and productive career as an international outcast. The Russian media is already producing stories claiming that life in North Korea is not as bad as Western imperialists would want us to believe. Whether Russia is ready for the Ten Principles of Juche remains to be seen, but latest opinion polls indicate that Russia’s positive view of the authoritarian China has grown as high as 77%.

According to a running joke among his critics, Putin has turned Russia into a Burkina Faso with nuclear rockets. And if you’re a member of the Russian parliament, you can even have a personal rocket, or at least a cargo-cult imitation thereof, or perhaps a rocket-shaped voodoo doll, on which you can write the name of your true enemy: Barack Obama.

Russian most popular politicians

EDITORS NOTE: This column was first published in FrontPage Magazine, now with added illustrations. The featured photo is courtesy of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation –

Senator Tom Cotton’s Open Challenge to Ayatollah Khamenei and President Obama on Nuclear Deal with Iran

Tall Lincolnesque Arkansas Junior Senator Tom Cotton did his constituents and all Americans proud.  His open letter to Iran’s Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Khamenei signed by 47 fellow Republican Senators was a ringing Constitutional declaration of Senate authority to review major international treaties. A rather remarkable achievement for the youngest US Senator  in the 114th Session of Congress following his electoral victory  on November 4, 2014  over incumbent Democrat Mark Pryor.  His letter put on notice the theocratic tyrant in Tehran that the US Senate had the right under Article II, Sec. 2 of our Constitution to advise and consent on treaties negotiated by the Executive branch of our government.  Moreover it put the Supreme notice that Congress has the right to vote on the lifting of any sanctions passed under existing legislation and signed into law by President Obama. Further, it basically informed Iran’s Supreme Ruler and its President that any bilateral agreement entered into by executive order by the President would be null and void upon his leaving office and the end of his second and final term.

Josh Rogin in his Bloomberg report captured the essence of this latest riposte to President Obama in the headline, “Republicans Warn Iran — and Obama — That Deal Won’t Last.”  He noted:

Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber’s entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal — — which is reportedly near done — especially if it is working reasonably well.

Cotton told Rogin:

Iran’s ayatollahs need to know before agreeing to any nuclear deal that … any unilateral executive agreement is one they accept at their own peril.

Rogin went on to note an ironic precedent by Vice President Biden;

Vice President Joe Biden similarly insisted — in a letter to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell — on congressional approval for the Moscow Treaty on strategic nuclear weapons with Russia in 2002, when he was head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

He further noted that Cotton’s letter came against the backdrop of recent review legislation:

The new letter is the latest piece of an effort by Senators in both parties to ensure that Congress will have some say if and when a deal is signed. Senators Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, Tim Kaine and the embattled Bob Menendez have a bill pending that would mandate a Congressional review of the Iran deal, but Republicans and Democrats have been bickering over how to proceed in the face of a threatened presidential veto.

The relevant language of Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution reads:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution:

Gives the Senate a share in foreign policy by requiring Senate consent, by a two-thirds vote, to any treaty before it may go into effect. The president may enter into “executive agreements” with other nations without the Senate’s consent, but if these involve more than minor matters they may prove controversial.

The emerging so-called phased P5+1 deal to forestall Iran from becoming a threshold nuclear state is anything but “minor.”  The Islamic Republic’s possession of nuclear weapons is a threat to Israel, America and the World.  In the hands of an apocalyptic Mahdist Shiite Islamic Republic nuclear weapons would foment chaos.  The chaos these madmen are eager to trigger they bizarrely believe would bring  about the rise from his slumber their moribund Messiah, the 12th Imam, from the Holy Well in the Holy city of Qom, Iran.  Just recall the first action of former Iranian President Ahmadinejad was to have his cabinet sign a letter to this effect that was deposited in that well in Qom.  Those possible Iranian nuclear weapons and the means of delivery could result in Islamic domination of the World and the possible destruction of both the reviled Great Satan (the U.S.) and Little Satan (Israel).

The reaction from Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif about the open letter to Iran’s leadership was:

In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.

The Democrats in the Senate were apoplectic.  Senate minority leader Harry Reid said, “Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs.”  White House press Spokesman Josh Earnest said in reaction to the Republican Senate “open letter”:

Just the latest in an ongoing strategy, a partisan strategy, to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy.

President Obama said:

It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran.

Sen. Cotton issued this statement following Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address before a Joint Meeting of Congress on March 3rd:

I am happy to welcome a truly courageous leader to address the Congress today.  There is no one better equipped to discuss the danger posed by a nuclear Iran than Prime Minister Netanyahu. For decades, Iran has had as its expressed goal for Israel to be ‘wiped off the face of the earth’ and has been a lead financier and arms supplier of terrorist organizations dedicated to destroying Israel. If Iran is allowed to retain their nuclear program, the United States will find itself in a similar position.

The Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran have become an endless series of concessions. Any deal reached at the end of this month will inevitably empower our enemies and put our national security at risk. It is up to Congress to stand with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel and restore the credible threat of force against Iran to permanently end their nuclear program.

We wrote this about Senator Cotton when he was elected on November 5, 2014:

Cotton, reading a profile of him by retired Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), had a career that resonated. He was a highly educated double Harvard graduate who voluntarily served as an Infantry officer in the US Army during the Iraq-Afghanistan conflict.  Wisse’s WSJ op-ed   was an unabashed endorsement, “Vote for Tom Cotton—and Redeem Harvard”.


Cotton is a sixth generation Arkansan from a cattle raising ranching family in the small community of Dardanelle, Arkansas. A graduate of both Harvard College and Law School, motivated by the events of 9/11, he rejected a JAG Commission. Instead, he volunteered   to go through OCS at Fort Benning and trained at both the Infantry and Ranger Schools.  Cotton served from 2005 to 2009. He had two tours, one in Iraq and a second in Afghanistan with the famed Screaming Eagles, the 101st Airborne, rising to the rank of Captain and received a Bronze Star for his combat actions. At 6’5″, he was selected as Platoon Leader at the Old Guard that provides the honor guard at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington Cemetery.

Perhaps the Senator Cotton’s open letter to Iran’s leadership was a forthright confirmation that the Republican leadership in the Congress heard PM Netanyahu’s message.  The letter represented a Constitutional challenge to the Administration asserting the Senate’s rights of review on any agreement that might be reached with Iran by March 31st that also called for lifting Congressional passed sanctions.

RELATED ARTICLE: Israel, Jews, and the Obama Administration

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Arkansas Republican U.S. Senator Tom Cotton.

America’s Military Power in a Steep Decline

“Eliminating the terrorists of today with force will not guarantee protection from the terrorists of tomorrow. We have to transform the environments that give birth to these movements…It may be training young people so they can get jobs…it may be working to eliminate corruption and promote the rule of law…”

The Obama administration proposal that a jobs program be created for the militants in the Middle East was met with appropriate derision because what the jihadists need is killing. That’s what they are doing to Christians, Jews and others in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The quote above is by John Kerry, the Secretary of State, and to be fair, his February 18 Wall Street Journal commentary began by saying “The rise of violent extremism represents the pre-eminent challenge of the young 21st Century. Military force is a rational and often necessary response to the wanton slaughters of children, mass kidnappings of schoolgirls, and beheading of innocents. But military force along won’t achieve victory.”

Kerry is wrong. History as recent as the mid-20th century is proof enough that the military defeat of Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan was the only thing that ended the threat they represented. He was also wrong when he told a congressional committee that the world is a safer place these days when it is clear to anyone it is not.

We are being led by people who live in some alternative universe where pixie dust and unicorns exist.

The real question the Obama administration has to answer is why, since he took office in 2009, has he been systematically reducing the military power of the United States? By pulling our troops out of Iraq he created a vacuum filled by the Islamic State (ISIS) that now threatens the entire Middle East and parts of North Africa. He has since curtailed plans to pull most of our troops out of Afghanistan.

soldiers in dust stormOut of sight of Americans, however, the key personnel, the leaders on which our military depends, have been subject to a purge. General Paul Vallely (Ret) has warned that “Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented,” adding that “He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

In late February, 84 former U.S. government officials, retired U.S. military leaders, and national security experts sent an open letter to the House and Senate leadership asking them to work together to end the harm that the Budget Control Act and sequestration is inflicting on our Armed Forces.

They deemed the trillion dollars of required defense spending cuts “a grave and growing danger to our national security…as threats intensify across the globe.” The cuts “are undermining the readiness of our forces today and investment in the critical capabilities they will need tomorrow.”

“In the last three years, the Army’s strength has been cut by nearly 100,000 soldiers. The Navy’s contingency response force is at one-third the level of what it should be. Less than half of the Air Force’s combat squadrons are fully ready. Approximately half of the Marine Corps non-deployed units lack sufficient personnel, equipment, and training.”

These were facts set forth in the National Defense Panel’s July 2014 report. It warned that if sequestration takes effect in fiscal year 2016, the U.S. would be facing an “immediate readiness crisis.”

putin 2This lack of readiness was the subject of a Wall Street Journal commentary, “Europe’s Defense Wanes as the Putin Threat Grows” by Ian Birrell, so it is not just the United States that lacks sufficient troops and weapons in the event of a war. Birrell noted that “With fewer than 100,000 full-time troops, Great Britain now has a smaller army than during the mid-19th-century Crimean War.” Other members of NATO have cut their defense budgets in recent years. He warned that “As we fight this new Cold War, Western leaders need to relearn the old lessons of crisis management and deterrence that defeated Mr. Putin’s Soviet predecessors—and relearn them quickly.”

Recall that Secretary Kerry has gone on record saying that “climate change” is the greatest threat the U.S. and the world faces. Little wonder that Chuck Hegel resigned as the former Secretary of Defense given the pressure he was under from a White House indifferent to the real problems and threats the U.S. faces.

In 2014 the Pentagon released a “Climate Change Adaptation Forecast” and any defense funds diverted to this plan were just that much less than needed for our troops in the field and the real needs of the U.S. military. Are they supposed to be fighting melting ice bergs or staying ready for potential military threats from China or Russia?

An example of the idiotic political correctness, scarce Pentagon resources are being diverted to a plan to generate 50% of the Navy’s energy needs from “alternative sources” by 2020, including $3.5 billion for biofuels. You cannot fight a global war if the Navy cannot swiftly and easily acquire oil to run its ships that are not nuclear-powered and fly its aircraft.

At the same time, the U.S. has been reducing its stockpile of nuclear arms. The State Department’s Rose Gottemoeller, under-secretary for arms control and international security, recently told a group “The U.S. commitment to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons is unassailable.” She noted that the nation’s stockpile of active weapons is down 85% from maximum cold war levels, falling to 4,804 in 2013 from a high of 31,255, adding that “We still have more work to do.”

This completely ignores nuclear nations like North Korea who have bad intentions toward the U.S. and their neighbors and it runs completely contrary to the U.S. negotiations with Iran that would permit it to become a nuclear armed nation.

This is worse than diplomatic schizophrenia; it is a plan for national suicide.

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently told Congress that Russia and China have placed their highest priority on building up and maintaining strategic nuclear forces.

If you want to know what is wrong about the entire approach to our nation’s military needs, consider that since 2009 when Obama took office, the Pentagon’s civilian workforce has grown about 7% to almost 750,000, while active-duty military personnel have been cut by approximately 8%.

At the same time, dozens of military-equipment and weapons programs have been canceled, including a new Navy cruiser, a new search-and-rescue helicopter, the F-22 first-generation fighter, the C-17 transport aircraft, missile defense and the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

We are not prepared to fight a war and now you know why.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

The Betrayal Papers: The U.S. has been Captured by the Muslim Brotherhood

The Betrayal Papers will trace the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama administration’s foreign and domestic policies.  The five-part series will present a picture of a conspiracy that is manipulating the American government to the benefit of a totalitarian, genocidal movement that seeks to establish a global Islamic State.

  • The Muslim Brotherhood is an international political, financial, terrorist and movement whose goal is to establish a global Islamic State (Caliphate).
  • They have and continue to exert tremendous influence of the American government’s foreign and domestic policies under President Barack Hussein Obama.
  • The violence in the Middle East and across North Africa is a direct consequence of the Muslim Brotherhood’s effective control over American foreign policy in the region.
  • They operate through various “civic” front groups, as well as through American institutions who take their money as operational funding (Georgetown University, Brookings Institution).

In America, we have a weak and struggling economy, growing public and private debt, and millions are un- and underemployed.  While a weaponized IRS targets Tea Party groups and other voices of liberty, and military veterans are labeled as “domestic terrorists” by the Department of Homeland Security, the federal government refuses to secure the southern border.  Educational policy now includes the teaching ofArabic and visits to mosques for schoolchildren.

Internationally, America is in retreat.  The Middle East is in ashes, and in the midst of an ongoing genocide replete with daily horrors, the likes which have not been seen for centuries.  Former allies have been abandoned and are embittered.  Under the present leadership in the White House and State Department, Israel is considered the aggressor and Hamas the oppressed.

In sum, the world is at its most volatile point since the outbreak of World War II.

If you think that this is a result of something other than an “incompetent,” “stupid,” or “clueless” President, words regularly used by those who sense something is wrong but, can’t quite bring themselves to own up to the ugly truth, you’re not alone.

Millions of Americans are realizing that the Obama administration is not merely “misguided.”  It is actually and consciously anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and broadly anti-Western.  Yet, the American public does not yet fully appreciate why and how the administration always finds itself square against everything this country is based on – religious freedom, capitalism, and justice under law.

This series of articles will explain the force and mechanics behind Obama’s anti-American global agenda: the Muslim Brotherhood.

Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon: The Root of Today’s Islamic Evil

hitler hussani

Husseini speaking with Hitler in 1941.

Founded in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood (aka, the Society of Muslim Brothers, or Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon in Arabic) is an international movement (some would argue an international conspiracy) that seeks to establish a worldwide Islamic State (or Caliphate).  When it was created in the late 1920s, the Brotherhood was a contemporary of the Nazi Party of Germany.  Indeed, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, Amin al-Husseini, is considered by some as the man who catalyzed the Holocaust; for it was only after Husseini visited Hitler in Berlin in 1941 that the systematic extermination of Jews and other minorities began with industrial efficiency.

After the war, despite the insistence by many wartime leaders (Churchill included) that he be brought to justice, Husseini escaped to the Middle East.  He lived there until his death in the 1970s, serving as a mentor to a young Yasser Arafat.  Husseini and the Nazi Party are the connection points between the Holocaust and today’s Middle Eastern genocide.

The Allies conscious failure to arrest and prosecute Husseini haunts us today.

A Terror Hedge against Stalin and Soviet Russia

At the beginning of the Cold War, working with former Nazis, the American CIA began to court the Muslim Brotherhood as an ally against Soviet Russia.  This calculus may have made sense when facing down Josef Stalin, a totalitarian tyrant hell-bent on world domination, but it has proved a costly strategy in the long run.

In the years and decades that followed World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood has evolved into a modern day Nazi International, not unlike the old Comintern (Communist International).  It has a vast network of financial and business interests across the world; it has agents, supporters, and apologists within western governments; and it has a support network of “civic” organizations in the West.

These all serve as a cover for its darker and insatiably violent ambitions.

For despite all their intrigue and political gamesmanship, the Muslim Brotherhood is not strictly a political movement, nor a financial cabal.  It’s also the mothership of virtually all Islamic terrorist groups operating in the world today, including Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, the Taliban, Boko Haram, and many more.  Such groups, all children of the Muslim Brotherhood’s fanatical Islamic ideology, are today ethnically cleansing countries such as Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Nigeria of all traces of Christianity.  No less than the President of Egypt, Muslim Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a devout Muslim, has said as much.

Considering how the Muslim Brotherhood and their terrorist pawns treat fellow Muslims in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iraq, butchering them by the bushel including women and children, it should come as no surprise that Egypt and Saudi Arabia have declared the them a “terrorist” organization.

It should also come as no surprise that the United Arab Emirates has designated Muslim Brotherhood front groups operating in the United States “terrorist” entities.  In November, the UAE effectively declared that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Muslim-American Society (MAS) were no different than Al Qaeda.  Why?  It’s because they share a common origin in the Muslim Brotherhood.  One could add to this list of domestic terrorist collaborators and enablers the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the Muslim Students Association (MSA).

A New HQ in America

Equally alarmingly, all-American institutions such as Georgetown University and the Brookings Institution have accepted so much money from the Muslim Brotherhood government in Qatar, that their political positions are virtually indistinguishable from the Muslim Brotherhood’s domestic front groups!

Yet, the United States government does not see these organizations and their employees as the enemy, as apologists for the worst kinds of barbarity.  In fact, the highest profile people from these organizations advise the Obama administration, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the National Security Council.  In January, the Department of State actually welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood to a meeting, and shortly thereafter Egypt exploded in jihadi violence.  This is no magical coincidence.

To the detriment of our safety and well-being, the domestic Muslim Brotherhood front groups help dictate counterterrorism policies.  It is their influence which leads to the farcical idea, recently expressed by Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast, that the Crusades have something to do with ISIS and the mass murder of innocents in the Middle East today.

These front groups shape our foreign policy, which since the Arab Spring and continuing to this day is on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood.

So-called “moderate Muslims” employed at these front groups have made the country of Qatar, a totalitarian sharia-based society, and an “ATM for terrorists,” the closest ally of the United States under Obama’s Presidency.  With enthusiasm from Obama and Eric Holder, they have us emptying Guantanamo Bay of the most vicious killers and sending them to Qatar, with only the vaguest of security assurances.

The remaining four articles will explore the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on American policy, both foreign and domestic (including in Common Core, Obama’s position on illegal immigration and amnesty, and the hostility of the administration toward police officers).  The exposé will also detail the operatives in the government who work to advance the Muslim Brotherhood’s ambitions for a worldwide Caliphate.  And it will put into context the mysterious influence that George Soros and Valerie Jarrett have over Barack Hussein Obama, his administration, and the policies that affect every American.

Number One with a Bullet: The Truth about Guns in America

The USA has, by far, the highest per capita gun ownership in the world. Progressives will tell you that this is what makes America the Murder Capitol of Planet Earth. But we’re not, and in this devastatingly effective Firewall, Bill Whittle shows why the center of Gun Nut Nation is in fact one of the safest places in the world.


Mainstream: Girls with Guns in America

Wildlife is Thriving Because of Guns and Hunting

VIDEO: Open Carry of Guns now Texas Law

Defiant pro-Traditional Marriage Rally at South Carolina State House

On Feb. 28, people from across South Carolina gathered in front of the State House in Columbia. They came to support a bill filed in the General Assembly which would re-establish the state’s sovereignty on the “gay marriage” issue. Legislators, pastors, doctors, and others — including Brian Camenker of MassResistance — spoke at the rally..

People came from across the state to the rally at the South Carolina State House.on Feb. 28.

In 2006, 78% of voters passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. On Nov. 12, 2014 it was supposedly “struck down” by one man — Federal District Judge Richard Gergel. The citizens of South Carolina were justifiably outraged.

State Rep. Bill Chumley is leading the battle in the South Carolina General Assembly. This past December, he filed bill H 3022 that would cut off all state funding (including pay and pension) to any state employee or activity that processes a “gay marriage” certificate, or legitimizes, enforces, or recognizes a “gay marriage” in any way.

This was the opinion of 78% of the people in the state when it came up for a vote.

The momentum is growing. Pro-family legislators have filed nearly identical bills in Texas, Oklahoma, and most recently Missouri. [See our report here.] And in Alabama this past week the State Supreme Court ruled that state employees must follow the state constitution on marriage, not the federal judge.

Folks still aren’t ambiguous about how they feel about the issue, that’s for sure!

The rally: A riveting afternoon!

All of this has galvanized people. The speakers addressed history, law, theology, natural rights, and the Constitution – and also the “gay marriage” horror stories from Massachusetts. It was a rousing afternoon.

Rep. Chumley, the sponsor of H 3022, was one of five legislators to speak at the rally.

To anyone accustomed to hearing the mush from politicians in the Northeast (even “conservative” ones) this was really different. There is something particularly refreshing about Southern lawmakers who are completely unafraid to tell the truth and invoke God’s law over man’s law. And the pastors were bold and inspiring, unlike so many around the country who shy away from controversy.

Brian Camenker of MassResistance let them know exactly what they can expect if the judges get their way!

The crowd was visibly energized and ready to take on the battle. Many lingered afterwards to talk to the speakers and among themselves.


Here’s a sample of that the crowd heard that day . . .

Lobbying effort still needed . . .

Still, a strong lobbying effort by citizens is going to be needed. There will be a battle over this bill even in the South Carolina legislature. Although the GOP dominates the state, there are a lot of RINO, Lindsay Graham-types in key positions who wield strong influence, and many who are more conservative are hesitant to make waves or deal with a possible constitutional crisis.

In addition, the Governor, Nikki Haley, reportedly has national ambitions and has been siding with the pro-homosexual GOP establishment. So even though the constitutional amendment on marriage passed by 78%, the legislators are definitely going to have to be reminded of that in very unambiguous terms by the citizens.

Local pro-family groups stepping up to the plate

Local South Carolina pro-family groups are organizing and lobbying. Americans for Constitutional Government (ACG)  in Greenville, SC, had a speaker at the rally and is wasting no time diving into this battle.  The group passed out their new “protect marriage” flyer to the crowd.  The John Birch Society and other groups are also mobilizing for the effort.

Protect marriage flyer by ACG of Greenville, SC.

However, it’s very troubling that the prominent statewide “establishment” pro-family group in South Carolina, the Palmetto Family Council, which was a major force working to pass the 2006 constitutional amendment, was not at the event even though they were invited to speak. A staffer told us that they are concerned that Bill H3022 would clash with the federal courts. (Yes, it would. That’s the point!) Instead, we were told, they are supporting a new constitutional amendment on marriage that would be acceptable to the courts. (An impossibility?) This is not at all reassurring. But we’re still working with them to get on board.

Camenker of MassResistance (right) with State Rep. Jonathan Hill, a fearless pro-family legislator.

As we’ve written before, these are critical times. It is very important that states take this bold step and stand up to the corrupt and clearly unconstitutional rulings of these radical federal judges.

We’ll keep you up to date on this fight!


Memo to Supreme Court: Nothing in the Constitution Requires States to Redefine Marriage

Missouri becomes FOURTH state to file to circumvent ‘gay marriage’ ruling by federal court

Barack Obama and “Bloody Sunday”

Rarely do I wait with anticipation to hear what Barack Obama has to say on any subject.  After more than six years of his political presence we’ve come to expect that we can place little faith in anything he might say on any subject because he has a totally different view of what otherwise reasonable people might believe.

bloddy sunday pettus bridgeHowever, as I watched the Obama’s climb the steps of Air Force One on Saturday morning, March 7, on their way to Selma, Alabama to participate in the 50th anniversary of the historic march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, now widely referred to as “Bloody Sunday,” I couldn’t help but think back to March 4, 2007, when Obama spoke from the pulpit of the Brown Chapel A.M.E. church in Selma, the starting point for the “Bloody Sunday” march.  In that speech, Obama attempted to fashion an imaginary link between himself and the events of March 7, 1965.

He said:

“…something happened back here in Selma, Alabama…  Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else’s laundry, looking after somebody else’s children.  When (black) men who had PhDs decided ‘that’s enough’ and ‘we’re going to stand up for our dignity,’ that sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son.  His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa, could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance…

“This young man named Barack Obama… came over to this country.  He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that, (in) the world as it has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child.  There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge.  So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.  So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama.  Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.”

It sounded good; it was great oratory.  But what was the truth of the matter?  The problem with Obama’s version of history was that he was born on August 4, 1961, while the first of three marches across the Pettus Bridge in Selma didn’t occur until March 7, 1965, three years and seven months after he was born. 

bloddy sunday voting rightsOn March 7, 1965, an estimated 550-600 civil rights marchers, led by John Lewis of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (who now represents Georgia’s 5th congressional district in Congress) and the Reverend Hosea Williams, of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, departed the Brown Chapel in Selma and marched east toward Birmingham.  The purpose of the march was to call attention to continued efforts by white Democrats across the South to deny blacks their right to vote under the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The march was well publicized in advance and in the hours preceding the march Dallas County Sheriff Jim Clark, a Democrat, ordered all male residents of the county, over the age of twenty-one, to report to the county courthouse to be deputized.

The march was peaceful and well-ordered until the marchers reached the Pettus Bridge, where they were confronted by a phalanx of Alabama state troopers and deputized civilians.  The marchers were ordered to disband and return to their homes, but when the Reverend Williams attempted to speak to the commander of the state troopers he was told that there was nothing to discuss.  It was then that troopers and the members of the sheriff’s posse began shoving the demonstrators backward.  Many were knocked to the ground, beaten with nightsticks, and tear gassed, while a detachment of mounted troopers charged the marchers on horseback.  Seventeen were injured seriously enough to require hospitalization.

In his passionate remarks on the 50th anniversary of the march, Obama recounted the progress that’s been made since the civil rights era of the 1950s and ‘60s.  He said, “Because of what (the marchers) did, the doors of opportunity swung open not just for African Americans, but for every American.  Women marched through those doors.  Latinos marched through those doors.  Asian-Americans, gay Americans, and Americans with disabilities came through those doors.  Their endeavors gave the entire South the chance to rise again, not by reasserting the past, but by transcending the past.”

Yes, the South did rise again, and as it did, century-old Democratic traditions such as Jim Crow, Black Codes, and the night riders of the Ku Klux Klan came to an abrupt end during the 1950s, in part because of those who marched on “Bloody Sunday.”  But as it joined the 20th century, the South became the most solidly Republican region of the country.  Of twenty-six U.S. senators from the thirteen southern states, twenty-two are Republicans and only four are Democrats.

Nor could Obama resist the temptation to play the “race card” once again.  He said, “Just this week, I was asked whether I thought the Department of Justice’s Ferguson report shows that, with respect to race, little has changed in this country.  I understand the question, for the report’s narrative was woefully familiar.  It evoked the kind of abuse and disregard for citizens that spawned the civil rights movement.”

He went on to say, “Of course, a more common mistake is to suggest that racism is banished, that the work that drew men and women to Selma is complete, and that whatever racial tensions remain are a consequence of those seeking to play the ‘race card’ for their own purposes.”

It is difficult to understand how a man who can read a teleprompter as skillfully as Obama could possibly have failed to notice that it is he, his wife, his attorney general, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and nearly every member of the “progressive intelligentsia” who regularly play the “race card” for purposes of propaganda and political advantage.

In spite of the fact that no one in America has access to a wider variety of information than the man who sits in the Oval Office, he seems not to have grasped the fact that Michael Brown was not the victim of racial animus in Ferguson, Missouri.  Instead, he was a common street thug

who was shot to death while attempting to do serious, if not fatal, harm to a police officer.

Then, with a straight face, he said, “With effort, we can roll back poverty and the roadblocks to opportunity.  Americans don’t accept a free ride for anyone, nor do we believe in equality of outcomes.  But we do expect equal opportunity, and if we really mean it, if we’re willing to sacrifice for it, then we can make sure that every child gets an education suitable to this new century… We can make sure every person willing to work has the dignity of a job, and a fair wage, and a real voice, and sturdier rungs on the ladder into the middle class.”

This in spite of the fact that everything he and congressional Democrats have done since he entered the Oval Office has had the exact opposite effect.  It is clear that he is totally ignorant of what it is that causes poverty and who it is that provides economic opportunities.  In terms of the educational opportunities necessary for social and economic progress, it is Obama and his Democratic friends who have done everything in their power to destroy the quality of a public education and to eliminate as many opportunities for parental school choice as possible… leaving private schools and parochial schools to the very wealthy and the politically powerful.

He concluded his remarks with a totally insincere plea for voting rights and the protection of the right to vote… what he referred to as “the foundation stone of our democracy.”  He said, “Right now, in 2015, fifty years after Selma, there are laws across this country designed to make it harder for people to vote.  As we speak, more of such laws are being proposed…

“Fifty years ago, registering to vote here in Selma and much of the South meant guessing the number of jellybeans in a jar or bubbles on a bar of soap.  It meant risking your dignity, and sometimes, your life.  What is our excuse today for not voting?  How do we so casually discard the right for which so many fought…?”

Yes, as recently as fifty years ago, millions of blacks risked their lives attempting to exercise their franchise; thousands were shot to death, hung, or burned to death by Democrats hiding behind masks and white sheets.  The only efforts at voter oppression we see today are efforts by liberals and Democrats to make voter registration and voting evermore fraud friendly, insuring that every Republican vote is canceled out by at least two Democratic votes… one legal, the other fraudulent.  Nor does it seem wise to increase the percentage of voting age people to enter the voting booths on Election Day.  Generally speaking, the American people know less about their government and basic economics than voters in any other nation of the free world.  Would any of us want to live in a country in which the number of Obama-style voters was increased by a factor of two or three?  Could such a nation actually exist?  And if so, for how long?

As one of my black conservative friends, radio talk show host Eddie Huff, quipped in 2007, as Barack Obama became a serious contender for the White House, “We need to ask some very serious questions of the senator from Illinois.  It’s not enough to be black, it’s not enough to be articulate, and it’s not enough to be eloquent and a media darling… The only question will be how deaf an ear, or how blind an eye, will people turn in order to turn a frog into a prince.”

On March 7, 2015, Barack Obama delivered what may well be remembered as the signature speech of his political career.  It’s just too bad it couldn’t have been delivered by a prince… instead of a toad (er, frog).

Florida: Common Core 2015 Legislative Update

On March 5th, a standing room only crowd of geographically and politically diverse groups came together in the Capitol Building of the Florida State Legislature for the “March for the Children” to support changes to our system of education spelled out in SB 1496 by Senator Evers and companion bill, HB 1121, by Representative Tobia.

“This bill has been a thoughtful product of education experts researching for years, advised by efforts in other states and national experts on standards and testing.  It is NOT a political, knee- jerk, kick the can down the road, back room deal to appease corporate cronies,” said the Chair of the Florida Citizens Alliance Common Core Issue as she spoke to the crowd.

Senator Evers (R) spoke about the need for education reform in his seamless solution which will increase academic standards, end high stakes testing, increase learning time while reducing testing time, provide excellent accountability through adoption of nationally normed testing, and reduce costs dramatically.  Senator Bullard (D) then spoke and announced he would co-sponsor the bill, highlighting that education is a NON-partisan issue and we all should work together to pass this bill.  There is critical bipartisan recognition that our Florida legislators need to take a comprehensive approach to replacing Common core and its components with a total solution.  Teachers, opt out groups, school boards, parents, and citizens are working together in support of these reforms.

The public has clamored for restoration of local control, ending High Stakes Testing, the end of data mining, reducing the sheer amount of testing, removal of Common Core standards and the end of Federal meddling in education which is unconstitutional and violated three separate federal laws.

The BIG kicker to HB 1121 is that tests will be administered on PAPER, so kids can stay in their own desks.  No more musical chairs causing a huge loss of class time for learning.  No more unfunded mandates from the state causing HUGE sums of money spent on computers for testing and technology for greater bandwidth.   This could save our taxpayers and school districts over $2 Billion by some estimates just for starters.  And what does a 3rd grader know about keyboarding skills?  We don’t need to test keyboarding skills.  We want to know their knowledge level.  “The only ones who gain by computerizing testing are the testing and computer companies who have been ardent proponents of Common Core and high stakes testing,”  Said Kathy Doan, Co-founder of

The timing of the conference was serendipitous as the new Florida State Assessments (FSA)  were scheduled to debut March 2 in schools throughout Florida and it highlighted the enormous problems as it crashed Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and a week of education was lost while administrators pointed fingers to Tallahassee in a large “see I told you so” moment.

Miami-Dade County’s School’s Superintendent Alberto Carvalho described the restart of computerized retesting Thursday as a “Massive, catastrophic fail.” While reports were being fed at the same time in the House Education Committee that “all is well and only a few thousand students were delayed.”  He and many other Superintendents have been outspoken about the selection of AIR and about the state’s schools to be ready for this test.

At least 13 of the most populace counties halted the exams and had to deal with the major disruptions and dislocations, eroding confidence already weakened in the new FSA exams which were tested in Utah last year.  In that state, there is movement to eliminate the test created by AIR which is a non-profit company not accustomed to academic testing at all, but which received a contract from the FLDOE for $220,000,000 to create Florida’s test and administer it over 5 years.  There were concerns about the validity of the test and its measure of the students’ knowledge.

After the press conference, attendees broke down into smaller groups and went to their legislators office to urge them to co-sponsor these two companion bills.  Some had driven from as far as West Palm Beach and Naples to register their support.  They were able to convince four legislators to co-sponsor the bills immediately and about 20 more said they were likely to co-sponsor after they read the entire bill (imaging that!).

Many School Board members from around the state will be carrying the same message next week.

UPDATE: This week, the Florida House committee on K-12 Education will vote on their Kick the Can down the road bill which does not solve the problem.  Florida have a live bill in the house and senate that seamlessly solves our education problems.  To read at SB 1496 and HB 1121 go here:

President Obama please explain this to me

Vladimir Putin has Russian separatists, with the assistance of Russian forces, take over parts of the Ukraine and you impose sanctions on Russia.

Iran supports the massacre of over 200,000 Syrians, provides weapons to its proxy Hezbollah who kill Syrians which ultimately results in the creation of Islamic State.

Iran supports its proxies in Yemen which results in the overthrow of the government of Yemen which was friendly to the U.S. and helped fight al Qaeda.

Iran sends its highest ranking general and most brutal Shiite military forces into Iraq without consulting the U.S. to the alarm of the Pentagon to fight ISIS, which is a prelude to taking over the government of Iraq in order to place Iraq into Iran’s orbit.

Iran is responsible for the death of more than a thousand U.S. soldiers.

Iran supplies rockets to Hamas and Hezbollah which are used against Israel and Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the earth whose population cries death to America and death to Israel and according to the U.S. State Department Iran is the leading State sponsor of terrorism and recently performed a mock attack on a U.S. aircraft carrier.

So can you explain to me why you placed sanctions against Russia but reduced Iranian sanctions; transferred several billion dollars to Iran and you intend to give Iran a path to acquire nuclear weapons?

Even if Iran was not developing nuclear weapons severe sanctions against Iran would be appropriate because it is a leading sponsor of Radical Islamic terrorism and seeks subjugate its neighbors.

One of the most vexing questions no one seems to be asking Obama is; why is it so important for him to make a deal with Iran (a leading sponsor of terrorism) which will lead to Iran’s nuclear weapons breakout and unrestrained nuclear weapons down the road even if Iran doesn’t cheat;– and why is he willing to make a deal that will lead to a nuclear arms race in the region? Based on reports from U.N. nuclear regulatory inspectors we now know that Iran refuses to give them access in violation of Iran’s agreement to do so, to sites where the nuclear weapons program is undoubtedly underway.

This combined with his admission to Julie Pace of the AP that he (Obama) doesn’t trust Iran, makes his position unbelievably confusing and beyond comprehension.


This Is What Appeasement Looks Like: White House Celebrates Iranian Holiday [+video]


Controversial ‘New Israel Fund’ Received More Than $1 Million from U.S. State Department

We still don’t know why Obama wants a deal with Iran – PJ Media

Al-Arabiya Editor Demands Obama Listen to Netanyahu

Loretta Lynch Should Not be Confirmed

The United States Senate is bound by law not to confirm Loretta Lynch to be our next Attorney General (AG).

Lynch is the current U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, which includes Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Long Island. Last November, President Obama nominated her to replace current Attorney General Eric Holder.

While her legal background is impressive, that’s not the point. In her recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee she disqualified herself from being confirmed as the next Attorney General.

The United States Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer for the federal government and, as the head of the Justice Department, considered to be part of the President’s Cabinet. The US Attorney General is nominated by the President, but then confirmed by the US Senate. There is no set term of office; the US Attorney general serves at the pleasure of the President.

The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested.

The Attorney General is the only cabinet department head that is not given the title secretary.
As the chief law enforcement officer in the U.S., the AG is “sworn” to uphold and enforce all the laws of the U.S. Here is the oath she would have to take if she is confirmed by the Senate: I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’

In all my years of working in politics, I have never seen a nominee say on the record that they support violating the very laws they would be sworn to uphold.

Here is a question asked of Lynch by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): “Who has more right to a job in this country, a lawful immigrant who is here—a green card holder or a citizen or a person who entered the country unlawfully?”

Lynch’s response is stunning: “I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here… and certainly, if someone is here — regardless of status — I would prefer that they be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.”

U.S. law makes it illegal to work in the country if you are not authorized by a green card or some other work permit.

How can anyone, Democratic or Republican, justify voting to confirm someone who said on the record that she supports illegal activity? But, of course Republicans will cave in and vote for her simply because she is Black and they don’t want to be labeled as a racist.

Voting against her nomination has nothing to do with Lynch’s skin color and everything to do with the rule of law. This administration, more than any other in history, has picked and chose which laws they will obey strictly on the basis of whether they agreed with the law or not.

If Republicans are too squeamish to block Lynch’s nomination strictly based on her stated unwillingness to uphold and enforce the laws on the books, let me provide another rationale for her rejection.

Obama’s proposed amnesty is a clear violation of the separation of powers—executive, judicial, and legislative. If Obama doesn’t like our current immigration laws, only Congress can change them. But, Obama has chosen to ignore the laws he disagrees with by signing executive orders; and Republicans in Congress have done nothing but feign perfunctory anger.

Republicans have, yet again, another opportunity to stand in opposition to Obama based on the core principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers; and I am afraid, yet again, they are going to cave.

Rock Iran’s Casbah!

We wrap up a historic week of education (or is that edutainment) on the serious issue of Iran’s quest for thermonuclear destructive capability. Creatively, Tom and his team analyze the use of rock & roll music to protest the Iranian Revolution of 1979. In particular, our focus is the well-known song by the British Punk group, The Clash, entitled: “Rock the Casbah.”

Not only does this early 80’s protest piece make some amazing points but this song clearly underscores the undeniable Clash of Civilizations between Islam and the West. With us as a special quest is spokesperson for the Defenders of Liberty Motorcycle Club, the “Wall.”

Do not miss this very informative and entertaining wrap up to a very important week!


LA Times: Hamas-linked CAIR’s Nihad Awad one of “the new civil rights leaders”

UK video: “You’re a Jew, not a Muslim…Jew, Jew, Jew run!”

Video: Canadian jihad murderer explains why he is killing for Allah

Ohio Muslim says he would have shot Obama, attacked Israeli embassy

New York Times features United West Video Expose: LA Top Cop in Bed with Muslim Brotherhood

New York Times Excerpt:

“From the other side of the religious and political spectrum, Chief Downing has been portrayed as the dupe of jihadists. The activist group United West, which contends that Muslims want to impose religious law in America, crashed a community meeting with Chief Downing at a Los Angeles mosque and posted footage of the resulting confrontation on YouTube under the title “LA Top Cop in Bed with Muslim Brotherhood.”

Read more.

Deputy Chief Michael Downing of the Los Angeles Police Department officially partners with the Muslim Brotherhood to fight Muslim terrorism. Downing calls the Muslim Brotherhood “Like Democrats and Republicans.”

The Inhumanity of Population Control

The Perceived Problems of Global Population Growth Are Failures of Governance by CHRISTOPHER LINGLE…

Once again the Bush administration has come under fire for a decision that runs counter to conventional wisdom. Undeterred by widespread denunciations after opposing the Kyoto Protocol, it announced that funds appropriated by Congress to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) would be cut back. With all the hue and cry about the dangers of population growth in the world, it would seem that an agency that supports reproductive health in developing countries should be a sacred cow. Even so, it is fair to ask whether this indicates a sort of bullheadness or insensitivity on the part of the President and his team or whether many of the shapers of world opinion have their facts wrong.

Unfortunately, this issue has become wrapped up with the abortion controversy. Both sides have sought to occupy the moral high ground. For its part, the Bush administration points to the use of UNFPA funds to support compulsory abortions in China. This should be uncontroversial to anyone outside the policy-making corridors of Beijing. It beggars the imagination that pro-choice advocates would support the use of force to require abortions, contraception, or sterilization.

From their side, population planners and reproductive-rights advocates insist that cutting funds will harm the interests of many women, especially in developing countries. Funding cuts are paired with horrific images of millions of unwanted pregnancies, related medical complications, and an unabated spread of AIDS. (See Nicholas D. Kristof’s op-ed “Devastated Women,” New York Times, April 26.)

The Bush administration might have found itself on more tenable ground if it shifted the debate toward the persistent negative image associated with population increases per se. For herein lies a truly prickly question. Neglected in this debate is that having more human beings actually constitutes a net gain. Instead, supporters of population planning (both voluntary or involuntary) start with the assumption that there are already too many of us on our fair earth. And there is surprisingly little dissent to this view. Sharp declines in infant mortality and improved health care have increased life spans and contributed to the population’s nearly quadrupling within a century, from around 1.6 billion in 1900 to almost 6 billion in 2000. Worries about a global population explosion brought warnings of worldwide famine and immiseration. Happily, these predictions have not been borne out. One eloquent body of work that should be more widely heeded is that of the late economist Julian Simon, who had a remarkably undismal view of the world. His optimism is best expressed in his book The Ultimate Resource. Therein, he identifies human beings as being capable of resolving most problems that confront us.

Ignoring the view of thinkers like Simon, political leaders in both India and China were caught in the trap of a negative logic that allowed abusive acts against their citizens in the name of “sound” public policy. Clearly, the forced sterilization and abortions they pursued were a violation of the most basic principles of human dignity. Their actions reflect a disregard for the value-added potential that is inherent in each and every human being. Yet they are obviously not alone. Even conventional economic data calculation reflects a negative bias against population growth.

Consider the calculation of per capita income whereby national income is divided by the size of the population. This means that an additional person will increase the denominator and reflect a decrease in the material well-being of a community. However, a batch of new puppies born to a breeder will increase the numerator and reflect an enhancement in economic conditions. Such an anomaly comes from ignoring the imputed present value of the future flow of benefits from a newly born human.

Despite their likely denials of such, there is an implicit racism in the demands of population-control advocates. Since many Western developed countries have shrinking populations, insistence on limiting population growth involves holding back the numbers of black, brown, and yellow peoples.

Although considerable evidence refutes the dismal view of population growth, it persists. Consider the fact that the areas of highest population density are the most prosperous and often the most hospitable. Amsterdam, Hong Kong, London, Singapore, and Tokyo are prime examples of this. And even though Bombay and Cairo are heavily polluted, they are both certainly more prosperous and productive than the surrounding countryside.

Exaggerated Dangers

Interestingly, advocates of population control are subject to strong personal incentives to exaggerate the dangers. Concocting horrific images of overpopulation allows politicians to lay claim to more resources from taxpayers (whose numbers they paradoxically wish to see increase!). Similarly, “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs) stand to gain funds by beating the same drum.

It turns out that population growth has internal checks. For example, people who are richer, healthier, and better educated tend to have smaller families. According to U.N. estimates, there will be little growth in the world’s population growth after 2100 and the population will be stable at just below 11 billion. This is because the population growth rate peaked at about 2 percent a year in the early 1960s and has been declining ever since. It is now 1.26 percent and is expected to fall to 0.46 percent in 2050. Countries where fertility rates are at sub-replacement levels constitute about 44 percent of the world’s total population and include many developing countries. On the one hand, high rates of economic development along with rising per capita income has heralded a declining pace of population growth due to rapid decreases in birthrates. On the other hand, it is troubling counterpoint that countries with lower levels of economic development are experiencing a discernible decline in life spans.

Many countries have population profiles that show increased aging. With progressive improvement in life expectancies and health conditions during long intervals of peace, the median age of many populations has increased. With more individuals able to better their lives, it can be said that the overall human condition has improved.

There are other ways to cope with local population growth. One of the simplest would be to allow more open immigration. However, populists mount opposition by invoking the fear of infiltration by terrorist organizations or the dilution of indigenous culture. These claims find eager support among trade unionists who want to keep out other workers who seek to improve their lot. Looking at it from a purely economic standpoint, there is considerable evidence that migration yields net benefits to receiving countries. Incoming migrants tend to be younger and healthier than the receiving population. And their choice to move away from the familiarities of their home country implies a high initiative to work. In all events, most economic migrants take up jobs that locals are unwilling or unable to fill.

The other way to offset the pressures of the peopling of the earth is to take steps to allow higher economic growth. There are various benefits from this. First, increases in average income tend to lead to declining birth rates. Second, higher levels of income provide both the desire and the means to solve a wide range of problems.

The perceived problems of global population growth are failures of governance. Instead of diverting resources toward population control, governments and NGOs should support open immigration and policies that promote economic growth.


Christopher Lingle is a professor of economics at Universidad Francisco Marroquín.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Decentralization: Why Dumb Networks Are Better

The smart choice is innovation at the edge by ANDREAS ANTONOPOULOS…

“Every device employed to bolster individual freedom must have as its chief purpose the impairment of the absoluteness of power.” — Eric Hoffer

In computer and communications networks, decentralization leads to faster innovation, greater openness, and lower cost. Decentralization creates the conditions for competition and diversity in the services the network provides.

But how can you tell if a network is decentralized, and what makes it more likely to be decentralized? Network “intelligence” is the characteristic that differentiates centralized from decentralized networks — but in a way that is surprising and counterintuitive.

Some networks are “smart.” They offer sophisticated services that can be delivered to very simple end-user devices on the “edge” of the network. Other networks are “dumb” — they offer only a very basic service and require that the end-user devices are intelligent. What’s smart about dumb networks is that they push innovation to the edge, giving end-users control over the pace and direction of innovation. Simplicity at the center allows for complexity at the edge, which fosters the vast decentralization of services.

Surprisingly, then, “dumb” networks are the smart choice for innovation and freedom.

The telephone network used to be a smart network supporting dumb devices (telephones). All the intelligence in the telephone network and all the services were contained in the phone company’s switching buildings. The telephone on the consumer’s kitchen table was little more than a speaker and a microphone. Even the most advanced touch-tone telephones were still pretty simple devices, depending entirely on the network services they could “request” through beeping the right tones.

In a smart network like that, there is no room for innovation at the edge. Sure, you can make a phone look like a cheeseburger or a banana, but you can’t change the services it offers. The services depend entirely on the central switches owned by the phone company. Centralized innovation means slow innovation. It also means innovation directed by the goals of a single company. As a result, anything that doesn’t seem to fit the vision of the company that owns the network is rejected or even actively fought.

In fact, until 1968, AT&T restricted the devices allowed on the network to a handful of approved devices. In 1968, in a landmark decision, the FCC ruled in favor of the Carterfone, an acoustic coupler device for connecting two-way radios to telephones, opening the door for any consumer device that didn’t “cause harm to the system.”

That ruling paved the way for the answering machine, the fax machine, and the modem. But even with the ability to connect smarter devices to the edge, it wasn’t until the modem that innovation really accelerated. The modem represented a complete inversion of the architecture: all the intelligence was moved to the edge, and the phone network was used only as an underlying “dumb” network to carry the data.

Did the telecommunications companies welcome this development? Of course not! They fought it for nearly a decade, using regulation, lobbying, and legal threats against the new competition. In some countries, modem calls across international lines were automatically disconnected to prevent competition in the lucrative long-distance market. In the end, the Internet won. Now, almost the entire phone network runs as an app on top of the Internet.

The Internet is a dumb network, which is its defining and most valuable feature. The Internet’s protocol (transmission control protocol/Internet protocol, or TCP/IP) doesn’t offer “services.” It doesn’t make decisions about content. It doesn’t distinguish between photos and text, video and audio. It doesn’t have a list of approved applications. It doesn’t even distinguish between client and server, user and host, or individual versus corporation. Every IP address is an equal peer.

TCP/IP acts as an efficient pipeline, moving data from one point to another. Over time, it has had some minor adjustments to offer some differentiated “quality of service” capabilities, but other than that, it remains, for the most part, a dumb data pipeline. Almost all the intelligence is on the edge — all the services, all the applications are created on the edge-devices. Creating a new application does not involve changing the network. The Web, voice, video, and social media were all created as applications on the edge without any need to modify the Internet protocol.

So the dumb network becomes a platform for independent innovation, without permission, at the edge. The result is an incredible range of innovations, carried out at an even more incredible pace. People interested in even the tiniest of niche applications can create them on the edge. Applications that only have two participants only need two devices to support them, and they can run on the Internet. Contrast that to the telephone network where a new “service,” like caller ID, had to be built and deployed on every company switch, incurring maintenance cost for every subscriber. So only the most popular, profitable, and widely used services got deployed.

The financial services industry is built on top of many highly specialized and service-specific networks. Most of these are layered atop the Internet, but they are architected as closed, centralized, and “smart” networks with limited intelligence on the edge.

Take, for example, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), the international wire transfer network. The consortium behind SWIFT has built a closed network of member banks that offers specific services: secure messages, mostly payment orders. Only banks can be members, and the network services are highly centralized.

The SWIFT network is just one of dozens of single-purpose, tightly controlled, and closed networks offered to financial services companies such as banks, brokerage firms, and exchanges. All these networks mediate the services by interposing the service provider between the “users,” and they allow minimal innovation or differentiation at the edge — that is, they are smart networks serving mostly dumb devices.

Bitcoin is the Internet of money. It offers a basic dumb network that connects peers from anywhere in the world. The bitcoin network itself does not define any financial services or applications. It doesn’t require membership registration or identification. It doesn’t control the types of devices or applications that can live on its edge. Bitcoin offers one service: securely time-stamped scripted transactions. Everything else is built on the edge-devices as an application. Bitcoin allows any application to be developed independently, without permission, on the edge of the network. A developer can create a new application using the transactional service as a platform and deploy it on any device. Even niche applications with few users — applications never envisioned by the bitcoin protocol creator — can be built and deployed.

Almost any network architecture can be inverted. You can build a closed network on top of an open network or vice versa, although it is easier to centralize than to decentralize. The modem inverted the phone network, giving us the Internet. The banks have built closed network systems on top of the decentralized Internet. Now bitcoin provides an open network platform for financial services on top of the open and decentralized Internet. The financial services built on top of bitcoin are themselves open because they are not “services” delivered by the network; they are “apps” running on top of the network. This arrangement opens a market for applications, putting the end user in a position of power to choose the right application without restrictions.

What happens when an industry transitions from using one or more “smart” and centralized networks to using a common, decentralized, open, and dumb network? A tsunami of innovation that was pent up for decades is suddenly released. All the applications that could never get permission in the closed network can now be developed and deployed without permission. At first, this change involves reinventing the previously centralized services with new and open decentralized alternatives. We saw that with the Internet, as traditional telecommunications services were reinvented with email, instant messaging, and video calls.

This first wave is also characterized by disintermediation — the removal of entire layers of intermediaries who are no longer necessary. With the Internet, this meant replacing brokers, classified ads publishers, real estate agents, car salespeople, and many others with search engines and online direct markets. In the financial industry, bitcoin will create a similar wave of disintermediation by making clearinghouses, exchanges, and wire transfer services obsolete. The big difference is that some of these disintermediated layers are multibillion dollar industries that are no longer needed.

Beyond the first wave of innovation, which simply replaces existing services, is another wave that begins to build the applications that were impossible with the previous centralized network. The second wave doesn’t just create applications that compare to existing services; it spawns new industries on the basis of applications that were previously too expensive or too difficult to scale. By eliminating friction in payments, bitcoin doesn’t just make better payments; it introduces market mechanisms and price discovery to economic activities that were too small or inefficient under the previous cost structure.

We used to think “smart” networks would deliver the most value, but making the network “dumb” enabled a massive wave of innovation. Intelligence at the edge brings choice, freedom, and experimentation without permission. In networks, “dumb” is better.


Andreas M. Antonopoulos is a technologist and serial entrepreneur who advises companies on the use of technology and decentralized digital currencies such as bitcoin.

VIDEO REPORT: The Usual Suspects Code Pink, Jew Haters and Israel hating Rabbis in Washington, D.C. on 3/3/2015

On March 3, 2015 Israeli Prime Minister made a historic visit to Washington D.C. to address a joint session of Congress to talk about President Obama’s dangerous nuclear containment deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

While Prime Minister Netanyahu was speaking, the usual Code Pink, Jew Haters, and Israel hating Rabbis came out in full force. Watch as we try to engage with the Code Pink demonstrators about Hamas.

We also have a very interesting conversation with the Neturei Karta anti-Zionist Rabbis. These black hat Jews are referred to as Rent-a-Rabbi’s because it is suspected they have a very close relationship with the Iranian government and do their bidding in speaking an anti Israel message.

Remember when Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear plant in Osirak Iraq ushering in over 20 years of non nuclear proliferation in the Middle East region. Israel was condemned by the West in public but praised in private. Historically we are at the same crossroads again and the stakes are more serious than before. Iran has the missile delivery systems to bomb not only Israel but also Western targets. If Iran obtains a nuclear capability the political map of the Middle East and the world will be forever changed for the worse.

These are tumultuous times and The United West is reporting to you on the ground in Washington D.C.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of representatives of the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta sect rally outside the U.S. Capitol on March 3, 2015 in Washington, DC. (photo credit: AFP PHOTO/CHRIS KLEPONIS)