America at War: Let Us Reclaim Our Independence Day

Understanding theThreat, by John Guandolo, July 3, 2017:

Tomorrow – Tuesday – is July 4, 2017.  It is America’s anniversary of declaring its independence from tyranny and oppression.

The first war America fought after the Revolutionary War was the war against the muslim states – the Barbary States.  Now, in 2017, America is again at war with Islam.  Unlike when President Thomas Jefferson sent Marines to Tripoli, today the enemy is not only on some far off shore.  The Islamic Movement operates inside the United States and has insinuated itself into our power structure.  It infects our education system, blinds our clergy, walks hand in hand with our willingly seditious media, and wages war in many ways in which average Americans remain unaware.

As the former manager at the Combatting Terrorism & Technical Support Office (CTTSO) inside the Pentagon said on national radio last July (2016):  “When you look at the deliberate decision-making process inside the U.S. government as it relates to radical Islam, that deliberate decision-making process is control by the Muslim Brotherhood.”

In UTT’s interactions we have experienced:  law enforcement leaders who ask us if there is a way to host our training “under the radar” so they do not have to deal with static from the Souther Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and other anti-American Marxist organizations, as well as their local media;  citizens involved in grass roots movements who want to spread the message about the Islamic movement’s activities in the U.S. and the danger they pose, but do not like confrontation; elected officials who want to avoid all controversy, but know the Islamic Movement is operating in their local communities; and state and local officials who are sure “someone else is taking care of this problem.”

UTT (Understanding the Threat) would like to state, emphasize, and clarify two critical points:

  1.  We are in a war for the soul and survival of our Republic against the Islamic Movement and their collaborators in the hard-left Marxist movement.
  2. This war will be won or lost at the local level because no one else is “taking care of this problem,” and no one else is coming to our rescue.

When point (1) is understood, that means enduring minor hardships and inconveniences, being called names, encountering nasty/ignorant neighbors giving us grief, engaging family members who don’t understand and simply want peace, and dealing with friction thrust on us by the media or others are all a part of this war.

This is the leading edge of the war, but this is where a preponderance of the war will be fought, and is especially difficult when those who stand against us are those we expect to be allied with us in this war.

The enemy wants all of us to tire of these attacks, grow weary of the public slanderous comments made about us, and fear for the safety of our families.  The enemy want us to throw in the towel and cry “enough.”

The enemy wants us to latch onto the lie that all of this is simply not worth it.

The enemy wants us to quit.

But we will not quit.  The “WE” is all of us linked together in this war who understand the threat, see it for what it is, and refuse to be beaten.  We don’t want to NOT lose.  We want to win.  We want our nation back.

We will not surrender.  We will stand and fight.  We will take back ground from the enemy.

We will not tire.  We will pray for greater strength, step back onto the battlefield, and give the enemy all we have and then some.

We will fight the enemy in our schools.  We will fight them in town hall meetings.  We will fight them at our State Capitals.

We will name names, identify collaborators with the enemy, and deal with them appropriately.

We will give the enemy no quarter and we will expect none.

We will remember we are at war for the heart and soul of this great Republic.

We will realize there is no easy way out of this dangerous situation our national leaders put us in.

We will remember this war will be won or lost at the local level.

It will be won or lost with the men and women in our neighborhoods.  It will be won or lost with our local police and our local officials.  It will be won with the help of our state legislators or by having them stay out of the way.

It will be won or lost by our veterans who we ask to step up one more time.

This nation – at every local level – needs a sense of urgency to set a fire under every community in America.

This war will be won at the local level.

Or…this war will be lost.

Let us reclaim our Independence Day and fight for liberty once again.

Let us take the fight to the enemy at every level, and put freedom back on the offensive where it belongs.

Remembering America’s Independence in an Era of Tyranny

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, July 4, 2015:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776


America has come so very far from the ideals in the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration is the ideal from which America was born – out of and with the help of Divine Providence.  The Constitution was the first attempt to put into practice this ideal.  The Constitution cannot be understood outside of the light of the Declaration.

Our liberty, our freedoms – according to the Founders – come from God.  A Constitutional Republic must, as a matter of fact, have a moral standard, and ours always has.  The biblical understanding of right and wrong has defined America’s morality long before our first President was sworn in.  From the Mayflower Compact to how we educated our children in the early 1600’s in Jamestown, the laws and love of God has been at the center of who we are as America.  Our Founders formed a government based on these biblical moral standards which are the fulcrum around which our laws and our system works.  Under this way of life, poisons and threats to our way of life become easy to spot and defeat.  Without moral clarity, victory becomes very hard to maintain and achieve.

On this day, July 4th 2015, let us live up to the standards that our government, laws, and society have been established.

As the threat of the growing Islamic Movement pushes in on decent and civilized society, it is time to stand firm, no matter what the cost.

We have a federal government which has grossly exceeded its authority, violated the law, and demonstrated that individual liberty is not longer the cause for which it stands.

No matter what an individual believes, the underpinnings of this nation were built on a faith in a loving and almighty God whose hand has guided us and made America the great nation it is.  Over the last 50 years, America has turned away from our foundation and we can see the impact on our nation because of it.

We are lost, and our enemies see it.  They believe because we stand for nothing, we are vulnerable.  By failing to stand firm on our founding principles, we are inviting our own destruction and the lives and liberty of our children and grandchildren.  There is nothing “loving” about this.  This is not “tolerance” it is societal suicide.

Lets honor our nation and all of the men and women who have sacrificed so much to defend it over the last few centuries by renewing our individual commitment to liberty and the moral standards that have made us the light on the hill for all the world.

Also see:

Breaking: Muhammad Is Just like…George Washington?!

20130120_muhammed-washington-LARGEBy ANDREW E. HARROD

Achieving the seemingly impossible, “interfaith activist” and Trinity College  (Dublin) Ph.D. candidate Craig  Considine has reached new heights in modern Islamophile naïveté.   Considine has stiff competition in this regard, given Director of National  Intelligence James Clapper’s February  10, 2011 assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood as “largely secular” and as a  movement that “has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of  Islam” and has “pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in  Egypt.”  Yet those who thought that uncritical glorification of the  Religion of Peace could not get any worse should consider Considine’s latest Huffington Post (HP) article, “An  Unlikely Connection Between the Prophet Muhammad and George Washington.”

Considine begins his analysis discussing a “Prophet Muhammad” in  seventh-century Arabia who “had a vision to create a new religious and social  order.”  Citing various verses from the Quran and hadith,  Considine seeks to show that Muhammad “told his band of followers to behave  wisely and civilly.”  Considine in turn sees “Muhammad’s wisdom … echoed  again” in the behavioral rules encompassed in Rules of Civility, a book  first written by the United   States’ Founding Father George Washington as a  13-year-old boy.  According to Considine, both the “Holy Quran, the Islamic  Scripture which documents God’s revelations to Muhammad,” and Rules of  Civility “offer guidance toward achieving a more peaceful and noble  life.”

Although Considine finds an “unlikely connection” between Muhammad and  Washington, he determines that:

… in fact they share strikingly similar biographies. Muhammad and  Washington were students of history, restorers of justice and fierce warriors  who led their respective nations through successful revolutions. Both men united  a large swath of political territory and served as the founding father for two  unprecedented social movements-Islam and the United States of America-whose  universal ideals would both spread throughout the world respectively.

Considine cites the famous eulogy of Washington’s fellow Founding Father,  Richard Henry Lee, who called Washington “first  in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”   Considine also notes that even Britain’s King George III attributed to his  colonial rebel the “greatest character of the age.”  Considine, meanwhile,  notes without any further analysis that “Muslims worldwide see Muhammad as the  perfect human being,” an Islamic doctrine stipulated in verse 33:21  of the Quran (consistently called “Holy” by Considine).  Considine  furthermore cites Mahatma Gandhi calling Muhammad “a treasure of wisdom not only  for Muslims but for all mankind.”

Citing respective passages of the Quran and Rules of Civility,  Considine draws several parallels between Muhammad and Washington.  He  concludes, for example, that both men opposed “foul language” and “taught their  peers to improve relations with others by using kindness and positive  words.”  This would “avoid misunderstandings and create a more harmonious  society.”

Common to both Muhammad and Washington was also a concern for “modest and  clean appearance” as an “indication of healthy inner feelings and humble  attitudes.”  Considine in this respect cites verse 24:31  of the Quran with its injunction that women “not display the charms of their  bodies beyond what may be apparent thereof; hence, let them draw their  head-coverings over their bosoms.”  Considine neglects, however, to explain  just how far-reaching such Islamic norms of modesty for women can be,  encompassing even burqas and niqabs.

Considine additionally discerns “humility” in both Muhammad and Washington, a  trait that “was crucial to the early success of their fledgling nations.”   He speculates that the “direction of the Arab and American society could  have had a much different history if Muhammad and Washington were egotistical  and presumptuous leaders.”  Considine thereby does not analyze whether  Muhammad’s prophetic claims, if invalid, would qualify him as “presumptuous,”  nor does he indicate any tangible improvement of Arab society through Muhammad’s  attributed humility.

“Respect, especially for one’s parents,” is yet another commonality between  Muhammad and Washington apparent to Considine.  “Both men realized,” he  elaborates, “that the key to a strong society is for people, especially  families, to treat each other how they wished to be treated.”  Even “good  hygiene” and a “clean, well-presented physical appearance” were a common concern  for Muhammad and Washington.  For both men, “good hygiene was a projection  of a positive body image, which, in turn, reflected a healthy mind.”   Considine concludes that “Muhammad and Washington were gentlemen of the highest  degree.”  Thus, Considine suggests that “Muslims worldwide and American  could forge better relations if each group adhered to the advice Muhammad and  Washington provided.”

Many commentators in the numerous comments upon Considine’s article and  elsewhere have had a field day with his rose-colored, hagiographic analysis of  Muhammad and the Quran.  Citing numerous Quran verses and hadith  attributed to Muhammad, they have pointed to less savory aspects of Islam.   Longstanding Islam critic Pamela Geller interlineated Considine’s article  with numerous such canonical Islamic sources at her website, Atlas  Shrugs.   Geller concluded:  “It’s to vomit.   Muhammad and George Washington are polar opposites.  A man of honor who  respected human life and refused the title of king and a bloody warlord who  preached conquest, subjugation and slavery.”

Geller’s longtime comrade, Robert Spencer, linked to Geller’s analysis on his  website, Jihadwatch,  and confessed that he “had to laugh.”  “You remember,” Spencer mocked, with  allusions to key controversies in canonical accounts of Muhammad’s life, “when  George Washington made the British line up beside a trench and beheaded  900 of them, don’t you?  And when he consummated his marriage with John  Adams’ nine-year-old  daughter?”

These commentators also call into question Muhammad’s global legacy, not  being enamored with one of history’s greatest campaigns of conquest.  Such  an empirical record is far less appealing than Considine’s benign descriptions  of Muhammad as being one of the “restorers of justice” who “united a large swath  of political territory” (which, in Muhammad’s case, actually later broke apart  during numerous internal conflicts) in one of two “unprecedented social  movements.”  The Muslim societies existing throughout history and present  today in places like the Islamic Republics of Iran, Pakistan, and Sudan and the  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, along with Muslim movements like the worldwide Muslim  Brotherhood (including Hamas), the Taliban, and Hezb’allah, also seem to  manifest to objective observers not Considine’s claimed “universal ideals,” but  rather specifically sectarian, often brutal policies of sharia.  A  “more harmonious society” as well as “kindness and positive words” seem to be  sadly lacking in the Muslim world today.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from  the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington  University Law School.  He is admitted to the Virginia State Bar.  He  has published various pieces concerning an Islamic supremacist agenda at the  Middle East Forum’s Legal Project, American Thinker, and Faith Freedom  International