The Last Refuge has been sharing some wonderful patriotic videos:
The Last Refuge has been sharing some wonderful patriotic videos:
American Thinker, by Bruce Walker, May 22, 2015:
America will decide in 2016 how it will face deadly perils by enemies who despise our liberty and our goodness. There is a parallel with the Soviet Union. In 1981, for the prior 36 years, America had tried to construct a way to live with the Soviet Union. The Evil Empire supported violence against our interests all over the world. The Kremlin waged an unrelenting campaign against our way of life. Every approach presidents before Reagan had tried to live with the Soviets failed.
Then our new president of the United States, when asked about his strategy for dealing with the Soviet Union, famously responded: “How about this? We win. They lose.” Succinct, principled, and quintessentially Reagan. As soon as Reagan took office, he planned to end this great threat to world freedom and peace by seeking victory instead of uneasy peace. It worked. It worked, in fact, with stunning speed.
The end of the Cold War, which happened twenty-five years ago, may seem to folks today to have been inevitable and easy. It was not. Indeed, victory was possible only when we actually sought victory. Reagan did just that. He fought a bloodless global war on many levels. He put economic pressure on the Soviet Union. He supported resistance against the Soviets from within their empire. Reagan made sure that we were militarily stronger and that this edge would grow the longer the Cold War was fought.
Reagan also made use of the allies he had. The prime ministers of Britain and Canada were close allies. The German chancellor was one, too. Bold Christians – Pope John Paul II, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and others – joined in this truly holy war. What Reagan had in 1981 looks very much like what our next president will have in 2017.
We have friends. David Cameron and Stephen Harper are conservative leaders whose parties have absolute majorities in their respective Houses of Commons, and both men grasp the danger we face. German chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU/CSU party does not quite have a majority in the Bundestag, but it is by far the largest parliamentary group, and Merkel is as popular and experienced a leader as Germany has had since reunification.
Israeli prime minister Netanyahu is likewise strong and experienced and would aid any effort to end those evils that threaten his nation. He is smart, brave, and wise. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has acted with great courage as well in both attacking radical Islamists and reaching out to Egyptian Christians. King Abdullah of Jordan has been equally resolute, and both leaders seek our friendship as well as our help. The Gulf States, whose claim to Islamic purity is unassailable, likewise want our help against a common great evil.
What America and what the civilized world need is someone with the vision and wisdom of Reagan, someone not content to beg for peace from evil regimes that seek our destruction, but rather to clearly call these regimes wicked and call for their end. Reagan did not mince words. He called the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire.” That is precisely the term most descriptive of the mad mullahs in Tehran.
The vile oligarchs who rule this empire suppress the national aspirations of Kurds and others trapped within Iran. They murder gays and stone women. They promote anti-Semitism and persecute all religions except for their own slice of Islam. These creeps organize terrorism throughout the Middle East and describe America as the “Great Satan” and Israel as the “Little Satan.” The Tehran gang suppresses individual liberty in Iran and makes a mockery of democracy.
While it is clear that letting Tehran acquire nuclear weapons is wrong, a broader question is this: why permit this regime to remain in power at all? Because of it, the people of Iran are poor. Because of it, the whole of West Asia lives in fear. Because of it, other potential threats to our way of life are emboldened. Why not end the reign of these wicked and crazy men?
This does not mean hot war. Reagan won with soaring political rhetoric, united stands with true friends around the world, and championing the liberty of those trapped in that Evil Empire. Here is a thought for some aspiring Republican candidate or president: lay out a plan for ending the aggressive, undemocratic, gay-murdering, misogynist, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-American regime in Iran and replacing that regime with a moderating, pro-Western, tolerant one.
We are in a cold war with Iran. The next Republican president in 2017 should say about this cold war what Reagan said about his own in 1981: “How about this? We win. They lose.”
By Penny Starr
(CNSNews.com) – Center for Security Policy (CSP) official Tommy Waller, who fought against Islamic jihadists “on their turf” in Afghanistan and elsewhere, said his military training did not include instruction in the ideology of the enemy, a deliberate omission that puts America in “great peril.”
Waller, a Marine Reserve major, speaking via Skype at the National Press Club on Jan. 16, said he was speaking as an employee of the CSP, a conservative national security group in Washington, D.C., which released that day a new report, The Secure Freedom Strategy: A Plan for Victory Over the Global Jihad Movement.
The plan, designed by 16 experts on counter-terrorism, intelligence, the military and national security, is based on President Ronald Reagan’s plan to defeat the Communist Soviet Union.
The Secure Freedom Strategy explains that Muslims who adhere to Sharia law are behind the global jihad movement and the deadly attacks around the world on innocent people of all faiths, including other Muslims.
Waller, who is CSP’s director of state outreach, said it was his hope that the strategy can help defeat that enemy. His full remarks are reproduced below:
“Ladies and gentlemen, the first thing I have to tell you is that I’m addressing you as Tommy Waller, an employee of the Center for Security Policy and not as Major Waller, a commissioned officer in the Reserve component of the Marine Corps.
“Now, why is it that I have to make that distinction? Well, it saddens me to say that if I were currently in an active duty I would have to refrain from speaking about factual information about this ideology – Sharia — the very ideology that threatens our way of life because my words might be offensive.
“Ladies and gentlemen, I took an oath to the Constitution of the United States to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic and when those that take an oath cannot be taught about the threat to our Constitution, which is both foreign and domestic, our nation is in great peril.
“Now I’ve deployed as an active duty Marine to numerous theaters of operations. I’ve faced the global jihad movement on their turf. And yet I was never taught what animated those Jihadists.
“Still to this day, if you attend a formal military school, you’ll find that there’s never mention of the ideology that animates our enemies.
“We speak in terms like violent extremist organizations. We never nail down the facts about what animates these organizations or, as Clare mentioned, individuals that subscribe to the ideology.
“I recently attended a school that was nearly a year long – a formal military school for commissioned officers at the field grade level. And in 10-plus months we covered information operations for less than an hour and our case study was the Communist insurgency and how we conducted propaganda operations against it in Vietnam.
“It’s mind-boggling to me how our enemies maintain absolute information dominance but it makes sense if that’s the curriculum that we have in our military’s formal schools.
“I’ve been up until this point, shocked and saddened by – and almost bewildered – by the absence void in factual analysis of our enemy on behalf of the national security community and what we face today is tantamount to the military of the Cold War being prevented from studying Communism. Being prevented from studying the ideology that they faced on the battlefield.
“And so it’s my sincere hope that my generation and those that follow it can recover the courage that our previous generation had to study the ideology of the enemy.
“I have to say that the ‘Secure Freedom Strategy’ gives me hope. It’s the first step in our generation doing a major course correction.
“And my personal request on behalf of the men and women who have given the ultimate sacrifice to that Constitution – in defense of that Constitution – on behalf of them, my request is that we embrace this strategy because we owe it to the generations that went before us and those that will follow us.”
At Waller’s request, the press conference ended with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Members of the “Tiger Team” include Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin; Clare Lopez, former Operations Officer in the CIA’s Clandestine Service and senior vice president for research and analysis at the CSP; Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons, former Commander–in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet and father of the Navy Red Cell counterterrorism unit and chairman of CSP’s military committee; Dr. J. Michael Waller, expert on psychological warfare, propaganda and influence operations and a senior fellow at CSP; and Frank Gaffney, former acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy and the president of CSP.
You can see read the report here.
Launch Materials (PDF format):
Tom Trento Of The United West uploaded this recording of the entire news conference (event begins at 7:30 in the video)
Breitbart, by DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA, September 11, 2014:
Today on the thirteenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks the media cycle is being driven by President Obama’s speech last night in which he informed the world of his plans for Iraq and Syria. How different would our response as a nation be if the Commander-in-Chief were Ronald Reagan?
My Fellow Americans,
Today we face a threat the likes of which we have not seen since the darkest days of World War II and the Cold War.
Our enemy is not ISIS, The Islamic State, or even Al Qaeda, it is the ideology that drives all such barbaric groups.
It is the ideology of Global Jihadism.
In the name of God, the adherents of this world view crucify Christians, behead Americans, and massacre or subjugate any and all who stand in their way, man, woman, or child.
These people are not driven in their ferocious violence by actual grievances, by a need to resist tangible oppression. They are not “freedom fighters.”
Theirs is a totalitarian vision of the world just as binary and absolutist as that of the Third Reich or the political masters of the Soviet Union.
For Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, and his followers in the Islamic State, there will be no negotiated settlement to this war. No ceasefire instrument signed on the deck of an aircraft carrier. For the global Jihadist Movement there is either victory or death. And even in death there is an individual victory with martyrdom in the name of killing the infidel guaranteeing eternal salvation for the jihadist.
Whatever name they go by, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, or The Islamic State, these organizations are cut from the same cloth. There are born of the ideas which founded the Muslim Brotherhood. The conviction that “true Muslims” cannot live under un-Islamic systems; that democracies, those systems in which humans make the laws thus abrogating Allah’s sovereignty, must be destroyed; and that the only choice for the infidel is between conversion or death.
Our Republic was born out of a resistance to tyranny. We all know that America was founded on the principle that each and every human being has unalienable rights.
Why do they have these rights: because they are endowed with them by The Creator. And this is why every soul that walks the earth has innate dignity. A dignity that Global Jihadism wishes to negate and, through its actions, destroy.
Tonight America is declaring war on the ideology of Jihadism and commits herself to destroying not only The Islamic State, but anyone who subscribes to the same beliefs, whatever name they give themselves.
Our nation is often criticized for its unique sense of self, for the idea that we have a special job to do in the World, a Manifest Destiny as some have called it. But let the facts speak for themselves. When a totalitarianism based on racial purity threatened the whole world, and which in the course of six years would result in the deaths of 60 million people, it was America that saved Europe from herself, from the vision of a “thousand-year” Reich.
When a class-based absolutist ideology later threatened not just Europe, but Asia, Latin America, and even Africa with its goal of all humankind yoked underneath the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, again it was America which answered the call, stood firm, supported those who would resist the inhumanity of the Marxist, and ultimately facilitate the collapse of Communism.
The threat is no smaller today. In fact, the religious totalitarianism of the Jihadist Movement has a narrative which in many ways is more powerful that either Mein Kampf or Das Kapital. We never faced members of the SS or the KGB prepared to be suicide bombers. Today we do. From the World Trade Center, to the London Underground, from Amman, Jordan to Bali, we face an enemy who will literally stop at nothing to subjugate or destroy us and our way of life.
But there is good news that I must share also.
Just as we destroyed Hitler’s Third Reich and vanquished Communism, we will destroy the ideology of Global Jihadism.
This will be done not only on the battlefield but in the court of world opinion. We will strike, and strike hard at its forces in Iraq and elsewhere, recognizing as we do so that this type of irregular war cannot be won from 20,000 feet by airpower alone. It will take brave men on the ground to take the fight to the terrorists and insurgents, men who will ideally be from the Muslim allies of the United States. Iraqis, Kurds, Jordanians, even Egyptians. But they will be accompanied by forward deployed members of our Special Forces, those brave Americas who have proven time and again, from battlefields as far apart as Afghanistan and Colombia, that where they can be the back-bone of the local resistance to the enemies of all that is good and fair, the fight is winnable.
Our Muslim and Arab allies must be the frontline in this conflict, but without America’s fighting with them, this war will not be won. Not simply because out forces are so superior, but because if we are not prepared to send our people in harms way to fight the barbarians that wish to destroy our civilization then we send a very simple message to the Enemy and the world: our civilization is not worth saving.
Make no mistake, this will be a long and hard fight, but we have faced off and defeated the enemies of modernity and civilization before and with God’s help we will do so again.
But we must learn the lessons of the past. When fighting totalitarians, it is never enough to defeat them militarily. One must defeat them ideology. We must delegitimize their claims to righteousness and justice. We much demonstrate to the world that our values are the true and universal ones and we are prepared to fight for them.
God Bless our Troops, God Bless America.
Sebastian Gorka is the Matthew C Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at Marine Corps University and National Security Affairs editor with Breitbart.com . Follow him at @SebGorka.
Breitbart News spoke with Colonel Bing West, former US Marine and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs under president Ronald Reagan, about the threats we face as a nation today. West is the author of multiple books, includingThe Village, which has been on the Marine Corps Required Reading List for decades. His latest book is titled: One Million Steps: A Marine Platoon At War
Breitbart News: Is the current US strategy implemented by the Obama administration sufficient in containing the Islamic State?
West: No. We have no strategy toward the Islamists. Not in regard to the air, and not regarding anything else. We are drifting.
Breitbart News: Is the Islamic State the chief threat to US national security interests today?
West: We have four threats. The foremost threat is the fecklessness of our commander-in chief, who has allowed the other threats to fester and become worse. The second threat is Russia, with its arrogance upsetting the balance in eastern Europe. The Middle East is now driven by the Islamist Sunni barbarian threat in the Islamic State. This is coupled with the Shiite Iranian intention of becoming a threshold nuclear state. Lastly, China wants to push us out of at least half of the Pacific. We have an array of threats, as all presidents do. It is up to president Obama to manage these threats, and he is not managing any of them well.
Breitbart News: Does the Islamic State pose a greater threat than Al Qaeda in its prime?
West: Yes. We drove Al Qaeda into the wilds of Pakistan where it gradually lost influence. Not completely, but to a large extent. We are doing nothing about containing this new Al Qaeda-type threat, which is strongest in the heart of the Middle East. The Islamic State is a major problem only because we are tolerating it.
Breitbart News: How can US forces, including clandestine services, affect change against the Islamic State?
West: The geo-military strategy is obvious: use our air to prevent the Islamists from moving across a desert in strength. Any vehicle is a target for us and we can easily discriminate between the Islamists and civilians. Allow Baghdad and southern Iraq, the Shiite area, to consolidate as a state. Recognize that the Baghdad government and its tattered forces will not retake the northern part of Iraq, heavily populated by Sunnis. To push out the Islamists; our CIA and special forces must work quietly and undercover with the Sunni tribes in the north, and help them to push out the Islamists. In 2006, we did exactly that, but it was thrown away when the Obama administration left Iraq. We can do it again, but it will likely take another five years.
Breitbart News: Can the US make enough progress in containing the advances of the Islamic State with just air strikes?
West: Utilizing a systematic air campaign, meaning 50 or so armed sorties and 20 strikes a day, absolutely, American air can contain the Islamists.
Breitbart News: Should the appointment of new Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi be seen as a welcoming sign to US interests, as President Obama has suggested?
West: Any Prime Minister has to be better than Maliki, but it’s going to require very hard bargaining with the new PM to agree to reasonable terms.
Breitbart News: What would your former boss (President Reagan) do differently in dealing with the threats we face today?
West: President Reagan, God bless him, would smile genially, turn to our military and say: “Destroy the Islamists”’.
He would say to Mr. Putin: “We are going to export our energy and your nation is going to suffer enormously over the next ten years because of your aggression.”
He would tell the Chinese: “Our Navy goes wherever it pleases on the high-seas in order to ensure that the rules of the road for international behavior are met by all nations, including China. We will wave at you as we sail by.”
He would say to Iran: “You theocrats have oppressed your people too long. I am going to continue to apply sanctions until you satisfy the international community that you cannot acquire a nuclear weapon.”
Breitbart News: How do we stop Iran’s continuing success with their influence operations in the Middle East and the rest of the world?
West: We cannot stop Iran, we must contain Iran. The critical issue is whether President Obama, for reasons of perceptions of his legacy, will reach an unsatisfactory agreement. If Iran is allowed to retain 15 to 20 thousand centrifuges, then stability in the Middle East will definitely be threatened over the next decade.
Read more at Breitbart
“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.
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.
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 3.0, the 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.
By Bruce Bawer:
“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.
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
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
Michael 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
By Bosch Fawstin:
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.
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.
Anna Baltzer — apparently neither a Fulbright Scholar, nor a descendant of Holocaust survivors, nor an alumna of the Birthright Program — appears to be just a fraud and a fabulist. So why is Oxford having her speak January 31st?
by Lee Kaplan:
Anna Baltzer, a pretty lady who heads the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (USCEIO) in Washington, DC., has developed a platform for herself going about the world lecturing as a Jew who once supported the State of Israel, but who had an epiphany and discovered that Israel and “Zionists” were exploiting and abusing the Palestinian people. The USCEIO is, in fact, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) renamed for the purpose of lobbying Congress in Washington. It was created by Huwaida Arraf, one of the co-founders of the ISM who also serves on the group’s steering committee.
Placing Anna Baltzer as the titular head of the Campaign was intended to convince both Jews and non-Jews that opposition to Israel’s existence is fine because even Jews such as her believe in the necessity of destroying the Jewish state, especially through boycotts and divestment. Anna Baltzer is a modern day Tokyo Rose for the ISM against Israel: she speaks at anti-Israel events and promotes boycott and divestment campaigns against Israel, in support of terrorist groups such as Hamas in its plans to destroy Israel any way it can. She has participated or helped at demonstations staged by Code Pink, Global Exchange, the Gaza Flotilla, Viva Palestina and other anti-Israel groups that make up the ISM.
USCEIO has been frantically sending out fundraising email blasts and announcing on its website that Ms. Baltzer will appear in a debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be presented by the distinguished Oxford Union in England on January 31st. According to the Oxford Union’s website, “The Union is the world’s most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 189 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.”
The Oxford Union has delivered these debates by distinguished academic, religious and national leaders from ex-President Ronald Reagan to the Dali Lama. The purpose of the debates is the furtherance of education and knowledge. The subject of this debate will be: “This House Believes That Israel is a Force for Good in the Middle East.”
The announcement of the three debaters for the anti-Israel point of view, however, disturbingly advertises propagandists and fabulists such as Ilan Pappe, Ghada Karmi and most importantly, Anna Baltzer, who is billed on the Oxford Union’s website as head of the USCEIO and who will apparently speak in opposition to Israel’s right to exist.
Ilan Pappe has already been proven to be bankrupt as a scholar after it was proven in court he was involved in fabricating a phony massacre by Israeli forces of the Arab village of Tantura in 1948. In a defamation and libel lawsuit brought by veterans of the Alexandroni Brigade in Israel, Pappe’s PhD student under his advice admitted on the witness stand that he fabricated the entire massacre with his supervisor’s knowledge and that he was paid $6,000 by the PLO to do so.
The other speaker alongside Anna Baltzer will be Ghada Kharmi, a Palestinian academic at the University of Exeter, Britain, and the author of Married to Another Man: Israel’s Dilemma in Palestine. Her writings are merely polemics devoid of any history or facts with which to back them up. She claims, incredibly, for example, that Israel has never made a peace offer to the Palestinians, along with standard slanderous Palestinian propaganda and claims that masquerade as facts — such as that Israel violates “international law” by the building of settlements, which are completely legal per UN Resolution 242, and the stopping of the Gaza Flotillas that was completely legal by international maritime law. Karmi encourages war by proxy, such as writing in support of the British boycott of Israeli academics and Israeli universities.
What is Karmi’s intellectual solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which she also claims is the reason for al Qaeda? She says Israel must become one state called Palestine; must withdraw to the 1949 borders; must give the Palestinians half of Jerusalem, and then allow seven million Palestinians to move inside Israel, creating a flood of Muslims that would demographically overwhelm the current Jewish population there. As for terrorism, she glosses over it as the desperate actions of some extremists who are fighting “colonialism.” Her writings hardly reflect anything in the way of solid research or intellectual balance.
Stephen Stotsky of CAMERA.org has written an excellent exposé of Baltzer’s lies about Israel. However, new information has arisen about Baltzer’s background and history as a Jew.
Read more at Northeast Intelligence Network
January 31 Update: Anna Baltzer’s real name is Anna Piller, so apparently she even lies about her own name. More on this later…
Lee Kaplan is a dynamic, hard-hitting and well-known investigative journalist. He is adept at conducting covert surveillance, frequently infiltrating venues often restricted to the general public. Mr. Kaplan’s investigative reports have been published and widely disseminated within law enforcement. He is the founder of “DAFKA”, which stands for Defending America For Knowledgeable Action and Stop the ISM (International Solidarity Movement). He is also the current Communications Director for the Northeast Intelligence Network, and maintains his own blog at this link.
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./
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.
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.
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