More Than A Threat

Obombby Justin O. Smith

“Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of worlds.” -Hindu scripture from the ‘Bhagavad Gita’

In the aftermath of the November 24, 2013 interim deal to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which is called the Joint Plan of Action (JPA), Americans bear witness to an Iranian regime that has supported international terrorism, while waging war against the United States and Israel since 1979. We see Secretary of State John Kerry, with an anti-American bias in everything he approaches, purposefully and knowingly pave the way to ensure that Iran will soon acquire a nuclear weapon, while Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid, two members of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s cabinet, long “to be in a situation in which the Americans listen to us the way they used to listen to us in the past”. And properly so, America heard Benjamin Netanyahu reiterate that “Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself, by itself, against any threat”.

Vali Nasr, dean of John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, released one of the most naive and idiotic statements in regards to the deal between the U.S, Western powers and Iran. He suggested that Iran might now be helpful in brokering a postwar settlement in Afghanistan, between the U.S. and the Taliban.

Does anyone really believe Iran will ever stop attacking the U.S. and Israel and their interests across the globe, as long as the mullahs, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Islam… the mother of all totalitarianisms-theocracy… keep Iran in a stranglehold?

For 444 days the Islamonazis of Iran held Americans hostage after deposing the Shah, and the attacks against the U.S. continued into the present. Eighty-five percent of the improvised explosive devices used in Iraq in 2004 were furnished by Iran, according to Lt General Moshe Ya’alon, former Israeli Defense chief of staff. Thirty thousand Revolutionary Guard Corps and Quds Force were actively fighting coalition forces in Iraq; throughout the Afghanistan War, these same forces formed hunter-killer teams for the sole mission of killing U.S. soldiers, according to the 5th Special Forces command hierarchy.

And when will Iran’s proxy “holy warriors” of Hezbollah ever be brought to a day of reckoning for the murders of 283 U.S. Marines in Beirut, Lebanon on October 23, 1983? Marines on a “peace-keeping” mission. One must wonder over President Ronald Reagan’s decision not to mount a swift retaliation… the only real failure of his Presidency.

Now, it is surreal to see John Kerry as the chief negotiator striving to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions, when this is the same radical antiwar activist who never met an enemy of the United States that he didn’t like. Kerry should be criminally charged for not registering as an Iranian agent, because he advocated giving Iran nuclear fuel during the first presidential debate in 2004, as “a test” of Iran’s “true intentions”. And, this is seen as especially egregious, once one finds that Hassan Nemazee, top Kerry fund-raiser and alleged “agent” for Iran, stated in a 2004 deposition, that he “would not trust this regime (Iran) on the nuclear issue to have any intentions other than a weaponized program”.

Last week, Ruhollah Hossinian, a hard-line lawmaker, stated, “It (JPA) practically tramples on Iran’s enrichment rights”. This is reminiscent of 2006, when the UN Security Council had set an August 31 deadline for Iran to halt its nuclear enrichment programs or face sanctions. On August 31, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, in a televised appearance, stated, “They should know that the Iranian nation will not let its rights be trampled on”. And by March 2007, Iran had added 3000 new centrifuges capable of manufacturing weapons grade uranium to its facilities at Natanz.

The ‘New York Times’ characterized the JPA agreement as “a chance to chart a new American course in the Middle East”, although its reality is virtually the exact same policies America has witnessed liberal Democrats employ for decades. In 1979, A.Q. Khan, a nuclear physicist, gave Pakistan nuclear weapons, under the careless watch of Zbigniew Brzezinski; Khan promptly proliferated this technology, first to North Korea and then to Iran, along with blueprints of a Chinese designed warhead. Madeleine Albright failed to halt Kim Jong Il’s nuclear weapons program during the Clinton administration, and now we see Obama and Kerry falling in line with the advocates of appeasement.

What does it mean to Iran’s mullahs that Obama and Kerry are unwilling to concede an Iranian “right” to enrich uranium? Absolutely nothing. The mullahs want nuclear weapons and a dominant position throughout the Middle East more than they desire peace and prosperity for their people, so no amount of sanctions will achieve a satisfactory result.

Utilizing numerous deceptions, such as tramp steamers off the U.S. and European coasts or physically crossing porous borders, it would not be too difficult for Iran to target 29 critical sites in America and the West, identified numerous times by successive Iranian presidents. Iran’s Shahab-4 missiles have a 2500 mile range and can carry biological, chemical or nuclear warheads. The destruction of these sites would seriously cripple Western power, killing millions of innocent people in the process.

How many times and in how many different ways do we have to hear Iran’s leaders state their intent to destroy “the Great Satan” – America and “the Little Satan” – Israel before we believe them and take their words to heart?

Make no mistake. President Hassan Rouhani is no different from his predecessors, Khatami and Ahmadinejad, and while he couches his statements in ambiguous and subtle nuances, ultimately he hopes to foist an Iranian Islamic nightmare on the world.

A few years after taking power, Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomenei said: “I say let Iran go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world”.

The JPA is merely another delaying tactic for Iran’s mullahs, who are just mere weeks away from seeing their goal come to fruition. And, despite all the best efforts of those like Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who asserts “…strong sanctions…brought Iran to the table”, Iran will have nuclear weapons soon.

The world stands at a critical crossroads, and unfortunately the only real solution is a war to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and possibly remove a rogue regime from power, one that should have been targeted long before Iraq or Afghanistan. Rife with cohorts to the jihadists desiring negotiations, no matter the cost, the Obama administration will not answer this call, and Iran fully realizes this due to Obama’s “red-line” failure with Syria. The weight of this solution, unfairly and even more unfortunately, sits on the shoulders of Israel.

In the early 1930s, many viewed Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ as just rhetoric, although he clearly had laid out his program to exterminate the Jews. Sixty-one million deaths, including six milion Jews, lay at the feet of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement plan, because, as so eloquently stated by Winston Churchill, the world lacked the “democratic courage, intellectual honesty, and willingness to act”. Let America and the world not make this same mistake again with Iran.

U.S. Gov’t Abandons Iranian Dissidents in Iraq

Iranian dissident2By Clare Lopez:

The Iranian regime’s predilection for hostage-taking as a tool of foreign policy dates back to the earliest years following Khomeini’s 1979 revolution. Unfortunately, so does the U.S. government’s apparent willingness to let them get away with it.

Today, the fate of thousands of defenseless Iranian dissidents belonging to the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MeK), to whom the U.S. government pledged protection, depends on American action in fulfillment of solemn promises.

These pro-democracy Iranian patriots have been left stranded as virtual hostages in two camps inside Iraq, which have been attacked repeatedly with lethal force by the armed forces of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Tehran regime puppet.

Dozens of MeK members have been killed, hundreds injured and seven remain actual hostages after being seized by Iraqi troops in an attack on Camp Ashraf on September 1, 2013. It is time to welcome these MeK members into the U.S. as political refugees who share the American commitment to liberty.

Unfortunately, the U.S. record of standing up to the mullahs’ regime is not encouraging. In fact, if truth be told, there is no such record, even on behalf of Americans, never mind allies like the MeK, whose members assisted U.S. forces in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

The craven failure of President Jimmy Carter in 1980 to respond immediately and forcefully to the seizure of the U.S. Tehran Embassy and subsequent holding of American mission personnel by Iranian thugs for more than a full year set the pattern of U.S. administrative quailing before this rogue regime for decades to come.

The 1980s in Lebanon featured a parade of Iranian-directed Hezbollah kidnappings, torture and murder of Westerners, including American citizens, for which no official retribution was ever exacted. Many would agree that President Ronald Reagan’s panicked withdrawal of the U.S. military from the Multinational Force in Lebanon after the October 1983 Marine barracks bombing set an image of U.S. weakness that persists to this day.

As Admiral James “Ace” Lyons has explained, he personally drew up the plans to obliterate Hezbollah’s Sheikh Abdullah Barracks, above Baalbek in the Beka’a Valley with a swift aerial strike. It was U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, whose spineless fretting about what the Arab world might think, who ultimately prevailed on President Reagan to hold back.

Read more at The Clarion Project

Related Story: See Clarion Project’s Interview with Shahriar Kia, press spokesman  for the Iranians being held at Camp Liberty.

 

“Robert Spencer’s Vital Role in Creating Conservatism 3.0″

book-1By Robert Spencer:

I am honored by this piece and hope David Swindle turns out to be correct — it will take a sea change in American politics, but that may be coming. “Robert Spencer’s Vital Role in Creating Conservatism 3.0,” by Dave Swindle in PJ Lifestyle, October 8:

I’ve grown quite fond of the model presented in America 3.0the previous book discussed in this ongoing series of my favorite authors, writers, activists, and troublemakers. James C. Bennett and Michael Lotus tell the story of a colonial/frontier America 1.0, its post-Civil War transition into the big government/corporate America 2.0 that would win World War II, the system’s gradual collapse over the previous decades into the mess we have today, and the solution of a decentralized/technological America 3.0 now propelled by Glenn Reynolds’s Army of Davids. In understanding what America 2.0 is and why it’s now failing we can adapt our movements and businesses to dominate in the coming individual-empowering America 3.0.The 1.0/2.0/3.0 Bennett-Lotus model is applicable beyond the broad scope of their book. As America itself goes through the shifts from one era to the next so too do the cultures and institutions within it. So I will apply it to one of my preoccupations, political ideology. How does this sound?

Conservatism 1.0 = The Old Right, those who fought against the expansion of the federal government and US entry into World War II, often referred to as isolationists. This ideology was soundly refuted by US victory over the Axis. It turns out that foreign policy ideologies that assume muskets and months to sail across the Atlantic have limited utility in post-Hiroshima worlds. The heirs of this tradition today are the so-called paleo-conservatives (Pat Buchanan) and paleo-libertarians (Ron Paul) and their stealth advocate who has duped Republicans and infiltrated the Tea Party, Rand Paul. (My ax-grinding against all three will continue for the foreseeable future. These people should have been cast out of polite society long ago to hang out so they’d have more time to spend with their Holocaust-denying buddies.)

Conservatism 2.0 = The New Right, built by William F. Buckley Jr. and Barry Goldwater and institutionalized at the presidential level by Ronald Reagan. While adapting the Old Right’s traditionalism and opposition to the New Deal, the big shift came in reacting to the new foreign policy reality threatening human freedom: Soviet imperialism. The battle against murderous Marxism was what really animated Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan more than anything else. (It was in reading the extraordinary Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan that Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America that this started to become more apparent.)

So I’ve come to conclude that what we call “the conservative movement” was really just the political/cultural wing of what began as anti-communism. Thus, the reason for the degradation of Conservatism 2.0 is that with anti-communism as the primary base the ideological tent could widen to bring in people who do not actually believe in American values. Opposing the Soviets for one reason or another does not require one to be an advocate of America’s founding principles. Thus with the removal of the Soviet threat — only for a time really, of course… — the Reagan coalition has collapsed as each faction now squabbles for power and attention.

Conservatism 3.0 = As anti-communism created Conservatism 2.0, Robert Spencer’s counter-jihad movement will provide a foundational justification for the shift to Conservatism 3.0. As previous generations were fueled by reports of the horrors within Marxist slave states, today the truth about Shariah slave states will gradually bring together people across cultures, borders, and ideologies. And I say Robert Spencer’s counter-jihad movement because he has been a leader in this war for over a decade, documenting not just what is happening but explaining why.

His new Not Peace But a Sword: The Great Chasm Between Christianity and Islam is a handbook for fighting back in the political and cultural battles for American hearts and minds. Robert goes down the line, explaining how Jihadists and Sharia-based states have substantial support in the Muslim world and a long tradition of Koranic interpretation to justify their brutality. It is not easy to always connect the dots when trying to explain this to people — how the Koran and the Bible articulate fundamentally different value systems which result in incompatible civilizations, one free and wealthy, the other oppressed and impoverished. Robert puts the pieces together here, showing how the Koran and the life of Mohammed resonate as the primary inspiration in today’s Jihad against the West.

Read it all.

Notes on ‘Counterjihad’

Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller

Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller

By :

“Counterjihadist.” If you had told me a couple of decades ago that this would be one of the many labels that would someday be attached to my name with some regularity, I would hardly have known what to say. Counter what? What jihadist?

But then these are strange times. On the evening of September 11, 2001, you might’ve expected responsible-minded, in-the-know public servants, journalists, and academic Islam experts throughout the Western world to start giving their respective publics a crash course (as it were) in Islamic jihad, so as to ensure that absolutely everybody understood exactly why those men wanted to take down those buildings. Instead, the President of the United States, the Karen Armstrongs and John Espositos, and virtually the entire Western media were quick to begin issuing fervent assurances that the terrorists were a fanatical minority who’d hijacked not only airplanes but Islam itself. Similar assurances followed hard upon every major terrorist act in the succeeding years. Those of us who knew better – who recognized that the terrorists were doing exactly what the Koran ordered them to do, and who believed that it was vitally important for everyone in the West to understand this – began to see our names yanked to a term that identified us not as people who were seeking to educate and inform but as antagonists of something to which every one of us, after all, should be opposed.

Think of it. If there was going to be such a term, every freedom-loving person in the Western world should’ve been eager to see the word “counterjihadist”  appended to his or her name after 9/11. The attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, after all, were jihadist acts. Ditto the later assaults on London, Madrid, Bali, Mumbai, and so on. How can you not be against all that, and proud of it? But no: the Western cultural elite managed to turn “counterjihadist” into a dirty word. One of the weirdest things of all, perhaps, is that when what is now known as the “counterjihad movement” is mentioned by those who despise it, the topic of jihad itself is usually nowhere in sight. It’s invisible. It’s irrelevant. It’s as if we critics of jihad were opposed to an entirely imaginary enemy – like mermaids or leprechauns.

2.

Back in the day, anti-Communists had a similar problem. I’m old enough to recall the obloquy heaped upon them by bien pensant types – professors and high-toned journalists who considered active, vocal opposition to Communism the most lowbrow of pastimes. Yes, whereas today’s counter-counterjihadists act as if jihad is a figment of counterjihadists’ fevered imaginations, the anti-anti-Communists (a label they wore with pride) at least acknowledged – albeit in a bland, bored way – that Communism existed. Sometimes they even admitted that it wasn’t all that terrific. But by focusing their animus on anti-Communism, and remaining all but silent about the evils of Communism itself – indeed, by insisting that the very application of words like “evil” to Communism (à la Ronald Reagan) was infantile and hyberbolic – they drove home the idea that overt anti-Communism was worse – by which they meant less intelligent, less sophisticated, less worldly – than Communism itself. Indeed, even as self-identified Communists in America and throughout the West held positions of trust in the academy, government, the arts, and elsewhere, anti-Communists came to be viewed as fanatical, paranoid conspiracy theorists who, in the phrase of the day, saw “a Communist under every bed.” Even now, the Hollywood Ten, a group of directors and screenwriters who in 1947 were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about their Communist Party affiliations, are considered heroes of American freedom, even though it is a matter of public record that all ten of them turned out, in fact, to be Stalinists, dedicated to destroying American freedom; meanwhile, director Elia Kazan – a former member of the Party who named names” because he recognized Stalinism as a genuine menace to American freedom – is still remembered as a fink.

So it is today with Islam. The “counterjihadists”  are the villains – the hysterics, the fools, who see a Muslim under every bed, with a bomb in his turban. Meanwhile the good guys are the counter-counterjihadists – the journalists, activists, and others who make a career of slamming Islam’s critics, whom they frequently represent (especially over here in Scandinavia) as “conspiracy theorists.” For just as the anti-Communists of yesteryear were viewed not as sober, well-informed students of life behind the Iron Curtain but as obsessive, ignorant haters, we counterjihadists are viewed not as people who’ve read the Koran and studied Islamic societies and subcultures but as semi-literate morons and bigots – and, according to one particularly noxious meme that has spread far and wide in the last couple of years, mindless disciples of what our enemies caricature as the mad ramblings of Bat Ye’or. (Never do any of these mud-slingers ever try to explain why so many writers and scholars around the world – people with a variety of professional and personal backgrounds, and with long records of thinking for themselves and of observing the world with their own eyes – all chose, apparently more or less at once, to become, supposedly, disciples of the same person.) It should be a matter of national shame for Britain that when its government banned Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from its shores, it was doing the bidding of the counter-counterjihadists of Hope Not Hate – who, despite their manifestly Stalinist methods and sympathies, are treated by U.K. authorities as reliable ideological gatekeepers, even as the truth-telling Spencers and Gellers are tagged as anathema.

Read more at Front Page

 

Also see:

The ‘Gang of Eight’ and Immigration Reform: ‘Bordering on a National Security Nightmare’

photo

The “Gang of Eight” Can’t See Straight

February 20, 2013, by MICHAEL CUTLER:

In the wake of the recent elections, immigration has risen to the top of the list of newsworthy stories-in part pushed to that position of significance by statements made by key members of Congress and the President that “Pathways to Citizenship” must be provided to what they claim is a population of 11 million illegal aliens.

Some politicians, particularly those from the Republican Party, are being stampeded to act irrationally in a move to appeal to a segment of the American electorate, “Latino Voters.” We will address this foolhardy notion shortly.

While the Democratic Party has been most often seen as the party that was eager to enable and encourage millions of aliens, including illegal aliens, to enter the United States, the reality is that both Democrats and Republicans see significant gains to be achieved by opening America’s borders to aliens from around the world, irrespective of how they enter the United States.

What both parties have ignored is that America’s immigration laws were originally enacted to protect innocent lives and protect the jobs of American and lawful immigrant workers.

A Singular Issue

Immigration is not a single issue but is, rather, a singular issue that affects nearly every threat and challenge confronting America and Americans. The impact is arguably greatest where the issue of national security is concerned.

Prior to World War II, the responsibility to secure America’s borders and enforce and administer immigration laws was the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Labor. Back then it was understood that the key to growing America’s middle class and, in so doing, increase the standard of living for great numbers of American citizens, was to prevent American workers from being subjected to unfair competition from large numbers of foreign workers.

This is how the “American Dream” was born.

The responsibility of enforcing and administering immigration laws was transferred to the Department of Justice during the World War II out of a concern for the potential for saboteurs, spies and subversives to seek, in one way or another, to enter the United States. The concern was that they would try to attack America and its ability to turn out all sorts of war-related goods ranging from guns, aircraft, tanks, ships and other such essential machinery of war.

The primary mission for the five branches of the United States military is to keep America’s enemies as far from her shores as possible. In a manner of speaking, this is tantamount to declaring that their mission is to secure America’s borders externally while the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) is charged with securing America’s borders from within the United States.

When the DHS fails in its mission it undermines the efforts and sacrifices of America’s military men and women to carry out their missions. Yet all too often, this is ignored by the media and our nation’s leaders.

The Gang of Eight

During the past several weeks the White House has put together a “working group” of four Democrat and four Republican senators. These eight senators have come out in favor of enacting legislation that would grant lawful status and a pathway to citizenship for the officially estimated population of 11 million illegal aliens. In reality, it is likely that should such a legislative catastrophe be foisted on the United States, it would result in the legalization of more than 30 million aliens, many of whose true identities (even their countries of citizenship), their backgrounds and their intentions would be unknown and unknowable.

These senators are:

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.

Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

They are referred to as the “Gang of Eight.” Since Democrats expect newly naturalized citizens to support their interests and vote for their candidates, it is not surprising that they would seek to enact “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” that would provide an estimated population of 11 million illegal aliens with lawful status and a pathway to United States citizenship.

These politicians are often unwilling to distinguish lawful immigrants from illegal aliens. They are not really pro-immigrant but pro-illegal alien!

To provide clarity, the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

Legal Vs. Illegal

Those who claim that there is no lawful way for immigrants to legally enter the United States ignore the fact that every year the United States admits more than 1.1 million lawful immigrants. This is a greater number than all of the immigrants admitted into every other country on our planet. These immigrants are provided with Alien Registration Cards that comply with the alien registration requirement of the INA that began with the Alien Registration Act of 1940. These lawful immigrants are immediately placed on the pathway to United States citizenship. The United States also admits more than 150 million non-immigrant visitors every year.

Meanwhile, the Republicans know that many of their deep-pocketed contributors are eager to witness massive numbers of foreign nationals (aliens) entering the United States. Banks are eager to move the earnings of foreign workers from the United States to their home countries, while corporations know that the entry of millions of foreign workers-both legal and illegal, drives down wages. Labor needs to be thought of as a commodity. If the demand for a commodity remains relatively constant but the supply of that commodity increases significantly, the value of that commodity will drop precipitously.

There is, indeed, much money to be made by exploiting foreign workers.

Here is a link to an article I wrote that appears in spring 2012 edition of “The Social Contract” that is entitled: “Immigration: The Modern Day Gold Rush”

During Ronald Reagan’s second term as President, in 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was enacted. This legislation provided for the legalization of an estimated one-and-a-half million illegal aliens. However, by the time the dust settled, it turned out that between three-and-a-half and four million illegal aliens had been granted lawful status.

In order to make this “one time” amnesty program palatable to those who opposed an amnesty for illegal aliens, IRCA also contained provisions that, for the first time, would penalize employers who intentionally hired illegal aliens with fines and even criminal prosecution. While it may have sounded like a good idea, these “Employer Sanctions” provisions of IRCA were largely unenforced because, at the time, there were only about 2,000 special agents employed by the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service). They were stretched far too thin, and only a relative handful of agents were ever able to conduct employer-sanctions investigations.

Today ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the agency that was created in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has about 7,000 special agents. But unlike the INS, ICE enforces a far broader spectrum of law including customs laws. Many of the managers of ICE came from Legacy Customs. These bosses have little experience in enforcing immigration laws and, all too often, even less interest in the immigration laws. Even when managers at ICE are willing and motivated to enforce the immigration laws, they find that they lack the resources and, even more importantly, the backing of the administration to enforce the immigration laws.

America has 50 “Border States”

Earlier I mentioned the way that both America’s military services and DHS are charged with securing America’s borders. It is vital that the true nature of our borders be understood.

Many politicians have come to refer to California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas as being “America’s four border states.” Incredibly, the Gang of Eight have decided that none other than Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of DHS, should be given the authority to decide when America’s borders are secure so that the unknown millions of illegal aliens present in the United States can be processed for lawful status and a pathway to United States citizenship. Does anyone expect her to say that she has not done a good job of securing America’s borders? Is this the only issue that should be considered?

Read more: Family Security Matters

20080110_cutlerMichael W. Cutler, is a retired INS Senior Special Agent. His career with the INS spanned some 30 years. He has provided expert witness testimony at more than a dozen Congressional hearings, he provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission and provides expert testimony at state legislative hearings across the country and in trials where immigration is at issue.

Mr. Cutler has been named Senior Immigration Editor at AND Magazine. His commentaries and weekly video programs that focus on border security and immigration issues especially where they impact national security, community safety, the economy and a host of other issues can be found at: http://www.andmagazine.com/category/talk_border.html

Iran: Over Thirty Years of Bipartisan Appeasement

By :

Even Ronald Reagan allowed the murder of 241 Marines by Hezbollah – the Iranian proxy – to go unpunished. A young Osama bin Laden looked at that kind of inaction and thought, “America is the weak horse,” and planned accordingly. Al Qaeda would never have attacked us on 9/11 if they didn’t think they’d get away with it. And they have gotten away with it. Al Qaeda is not defeated, as Obama lies to us. Jihad is alive and well. The two greatest state sponsors of jihad terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Iran, are still in business, as if 9/11 never happened. And Islam is resurgent in the Middle East as the Muslim Brotherhood is gaining power with our help.

All this, while the truth about Islam is still not allowed to be openly discussed in mainstream American culture. And today, Iran continues its threats against America with “2013 will be ‘fall of American empire.”

Below is an illustration I did a few years ago, one that I’ve had reason to post far too many times in the last few years. The last six US presidents ALL ran from Iran. I hope I don’t have to add the next US president to my illustration.

Iran22

Bosch Fawstin is an Eisner Award-nominated cartoonist currently working on a graphic novel, The Infidel, featuring the anti-jihad superhero, Pigman. The first two chapters are now available in digital comic book form. Bosch’s first graphic novel is Table for One. He is also the author of ProPiganda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad, a print companion to The Infidel.

Exposing the Palestinians’ Anna Baltzer

Inside the Ring: Ideological war on terror needed

Washington Times, By Bill Gertz

The U.S. military made impressive gains on  the battlefield and covertly in countering Islamist terrorists since the Sept.  11, 2001, attacks. But the military and  government at large so far have failed to strike the religiously motivated  ideology behind al Qaeda and other Islamic  extremists.

That’s the conclusion of a new book, “Fighting the Ideological War: Winning  Strategies From Communism to Islamism, by a group of specialists urging the U.S. government to apply the lessons of the  Cold War defeat of the Soviet Union to  Islamist terrorism.

One of the authors, irregular warfare specialist Sebastian  L. Gorka, stated that the United States in the past 10 years successfully  degraded al Qaeda’s ability to inflict harm on  the United States. However, he writes,”al Qaeda  has become even more powerful in the domain of ideological warfare and other  indirect forms of attack.”

The problem for the U.S. government is “political correctness” toward Islam that has the prevented accurate  identification of the enemy’s threat doctrine. For example, the Obama  administration’s insistence on calling the Fort  Hood, Texas, terrorist attack by Army Maj.  Nidal M. Hasan “workplace violence” is crippling efforts to strike at the  ideology Mr. Gorka calls “global  jihadism” – defined as both the violent and nonviolent theory and practice of  imposing Islamic supremacy globally.

“Although we have proven our capacity in the last 10 years kinetically to  engage our enemy at the operational and tactical level with unsurpassed  effectiveness, we have not even begun to take the war to al  Qaeda at the strategic level of counter-ideology, to attack it at its heart – the ideology of global jihad,” he states.

Mr. Gorka notes that during the Cold  War, it took several decades to fully understand the Soviet threat before U.S.  diplomat George F. Kennan in 1946 wrote  his “Long Telegram” from Moscow, where he was serving as deputy chief of  mission. The missive became the strategy of containment and led to the eventual  downfall of the communist empire in 1991.

Similarly, Islamic jihadism presents a similar totalitarian threat and must  be countered ideologically. First, the nature of the terrorist threat must be  clearly understood and then defeated with Cold War-style information and  ideological warfare.

The administration has added to the  confusion by refusing to identify the Islamic nature of the current war on  terrorism.

Patrick Sookhdeo, another author and co-editor of the book, stated, “The truth, unpalatable though it may be, is that Islamists and Islamist terrorists are authentically Islamic, emphasizing specific texts and offering literalist interpretations of their sources.”

Some Western governments and analysts have sought to delegitimize terrorists  by incorrectly denying their Islamic roots, he said.

John Lenczowski, a White  House National Security Council specialist on Russia during the Reagan  administration, outlined in detail how Ronald Reagan approved and implemented a  program of “political-ideological warfare” that identified the illegitimacy of  the Soviet system as a strategic vulnerability that was successfully exploited  to defeat the Soviet regime. It included a combination of covert and overt  support for pro-freedom and pro-democracy movements and people.

The final Soviet collapse, Mr.  Lenczowski writes, came from “a confluence of internal crises that were  aggravated by the many ‘straws’ placed on the Soviet ‘camel’s back’ by the Reagan administration.”

Similarly, the authors argue that Islamist supremacy can be defeated  ideologically through programs that reveal the ideology of jihadist groups like al Qaeda and the Muslim  Brotherhood to be copies of earlier totalitarian and fascist ideologies.

The book was published by the McLean-based Westminster Institute and is  available at http://www.westminster-institute.org./

 

A Recent Case Sheds Light on the Muslim Brotherhood, but Most Republicans Ignore It

When the five House Republicans rose up to call for scrutiny of enemy efforts to  influence our government, they were not speaking hypothetically. The effort is  very real. And the enemy is now so brazen, so confident about the inroads it has  made, that it publicly closes ranks around its operatives even after their  treachery has been laid bare.

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

I’m a big fan of the 1 percent. No, not the dastardly 1 percent of Occupy    Wall Street myth; I’m partial, instead, to the 1 percent of Congress that takes  seriously the threat of Islamic-supremacist influence operations against our  government.

The people have 435 representatives serving in the House and another hundred  in the Senate. Of these 535, a total of 288 are Republicans – 241 and 47 in the  lower and upper chambers, respectively. Of these, only five House conservatives  – five – have had the fortitude to raise concerns about the Islamist  connections of government officials entrusted with positions enabling them to  shape U.S. policy.

Think about that. Republicans purport to be the national-security party. For  decades this claim was well founded, starting with Ronald Reagan’s clarity in  seeing the Soviets as enemies to be defeated, not accommodated. President  Reagan’s plan for the Cold War was, “We win, they lose,” and he pulled it off  because he was not under any illusions about who “they” were.

But something happened to the GOP in the Bush years. For all the welcome  understanding that Bill Clinton was wrong – that the jihad could not be indicted  into submission – the Bush administration never learned a fundamental truth that  Reagan knew only too well: You cannot defeat your enemies unless you understand  them, and you cannot even begin to understand them if you are too craven to name  them.

As they gather in Tampa for their quadrennial showcase, Republicans, but for  the 1 percent, remain timorous on the subject of America’s enemies. Oh, they’ll  tell you that we must confront “terrorism” and crack down on the “terrorists.”  But that’s not much different from claiming to be against “burglary” and  “burglars.” Terrorism is a vicious crime, but it becomes a national-security  threat only when it is an instrument of an ideology that aims to destroy our  country. What made the terrorist organizations armed and trained by the Soviets  in the Sixties and Seventies a threat was the Soviets, not the  terrorism.

America’s enemies are Islamic supremacists: Muslims adherent to a  totalitarian interpretation of Islam who, like Soviet Communists, seek to impose  their ideology throughout the world, very much including the United States.  Terrorism is an offensive strategy they use, but it is only one arrow in the  quiver. Its chief utility, moreover, is not that it will coerce surrender on its  own; it is the atmosphere of intimidation it creates. That dramatically  increases the effectiveness of the enemy’s several other offensive strategies –  legal demands for concessions, media campaigns, infiltration of society’s major  institutions, and influence operations against government.

The most disheartening thing about the modern Republican party’s dereliction  – about its accommodation and empowerment of our enemies under the delusional  guise of “Muslim outreach” – is that it flies in the face of the Bush Justice  Department’s signal counterterrorism achievement.

That was the 2007-08 Holy Land Foundation case. For once, political  correctness and the fear of being smeared as “Islamophobic” were shelved. In the  course of convicting several Hamas operatives, prosecutors proved that the  Muslim Brotherhood is engaged in a far-flung enterprise aimed, in the Brothers’  own words, at “eliminating and destroying” our way of life “from within” by  means of “sabotage.” The Bush Justice Department not only showed that what the  Brotherhood calls its “grand jihad” (or “civilization jihad”) is real; Justice  shed light on the ideology that fuels this enterprise, and expressly identified  many of the global Brotherhood’s accomplices.

Alas, this achievement is one today’s Republicans prefer to ignore. The party  of Ronald Reagan would have worn it like a badge of honor. Today’s GOP would  rather engage our enemies and call them our friends – not understand them, call  them what they are, and defeat them. Today’s Beltway Republicans save their  wrath for the occasional conservative – the messengers who embarrass them by  illustrating how small the big time has made them.

Did you know, for example, that when the Republican establishment had its  hissy fit over the inconvenient 1 percent – when John McCain and John Boehner  led the shrieking over their five conservative colleagues’ purported  scaremongering over Islamist influence-peddling – the fact that this  influence-peddling effort exists had just been proved in court?

As Patrick Poole, one of few to cover the  case, has observed,  it is the biggest spy scandal you’ve never heard about. Right around the time  McCain and Boehner were dressing down the 1 percent last month, Ghulam Nabi Fai  was finally heading off to prison. He had pled guilty last December to acting as  a secret foreign agent against our government.

In sum, Fai was paid millions of dollars over two decades by the Pakistani  intelligence service to push its agenda through a D.C.-based front, the Kashmiri  American Council. You haven’t heard much about it because it is a Muslim  Brotherhood operation through and through, one that demonstrates exactly what  the 1 percent is warning about.

Read more at American Thinker

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor  Andrew C. McCarthy is  a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, author ofWillful  Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad and blogs at National Review Online’s The  Corner.

The G.O.P.’s One-Legged Stool?

 

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Ronald Reagan forged a winning electoral majority on the stable foundation of what he described as a three-legged stool: fiscal discipline, traditional values and peace through strength.  He understood it to be an appealing platform to the American people writ large, including of course economic, social and national security conservatives and the rest of his Republican Party.

Unfortunately, it seems increasingly, that today’s Republicans want to bet that they can regain the White House by cutting off two legs from that stool – disregarding, if not dismissing outright conservative social issues and national security themes.

A case in point came last week as the G.O.P.’s 2012 presidential nominee, Governor Mitt Romney, declared that his campaign was “not going to talk about” the Left’s attempt to punish the owners of Chick-fil-A for their stand on gay marriage.  Neither would it be talking about the request made by Rep. Michele Bachmann and four of her colleagues for an investigation into Muslim Brotherhood influence operations that appear with increasing success to be targeting the Obama administration.

Whatever one thinks about marriage between people of the same sex, surely a man running as a business-friendly candidate would say whether he favors boycotts of privately owned businesses on the basis of the beliefs of their shareholders?

Similarly, the Republican standard-bearer could surely observe that there are statutes and administrative guidelines designed to protect individuals and the government from the possibility that foreign associates may seek to exercise influence on family members, friends, colleagues or their federal agencies that employ them.  He could make clear that he supports the rights of members of the House of Representatives to inquire whether there have been breaches of those rules.  He can say that he’s reserving judgment on their concerns until we learn the results of the requested Inspector General inquiries.

Instead, Gov. Romney is signaling an indifference to these topics – and, in the process, sending a message that can only alienate those for whom such issues are not just important but determinative of their votes.

Read more at Center for Security Policy