‘ISIS Delenda Est’—What the Romans Knew About Winning a War

Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Breitbart, by James P. Pinkerton, Nov. 21, 2015:

I. The Roman Way

In writing about the Paris massacre in The Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan was blunt:

These primitive, ferocious young men will not stop until we stop them.  The question is how.  That’s the only discussion.

Okay, let’s take up Noonan’s challenge: How do we stop ISIS? Once and for all?

Let’s stipulate that President Obama, who has been waging a phony war against ISIS for over a year, is not the man for the job.  And let’s stipulate, also, that Islam is not “peace,” as George W. Bush so famously suggested back in 2001.

Islam is something different. Not all Muslims are terrorists, not by a long shot, but in its current form, Islam provides safe harbor for way-y-y too many Salafi jihadists, aka, terrorists.  Here at Breitbart, Pamela Geller provides a handy itemization; her list of Islamic terrorist groups runs a full 27 lines.

As the late Samuel Huntington wrote in his landmark 1998 book, The Clash of Civilizationsa work approvingly cited by Sen. Marco Rubio earlier this month—Islam has “bloody borders.”

History tells us that no attitude is permanent.  Yet for now, extremist elements within Muslim societies make it impossible for many Muslim states to get along with their neighbors, either near, in Eurasia, or far, in America.

So what should we do in the face of a relentless, and remorseless, enemy?  The Roman Empire had a good answer.  Yes, 2,000 years before Ronald Reagan summed up his Cold War strategy as, “We win, they lose,” the Romans had the same idea.

Rome’s dogged determination to prevail is perhaps best exemplified by its long struggle against the rival empire of Carthage, in what’s now Tunisia.

The Rome-Carthage conflict—the so-called Punic Wars, of which there were three—raged all over the Mediterranean littoral and lasted, on land and sea, for over a century, from 264 BC to 146 BC.  Interestingly, the single best general on either side was the Carthaginian, Hannibal.  His smashing pincer-movement victory over the Romans atCannae in 216 BC is still studied at West Point and other military academies.

And yet the Romans were more organized and resourceful, as well as determined, and, over time, those qualities gave them the edge. For literally decades, the Roman senator Cato the Elder closed every speech to his colleagues with the ringing words, Carthago delenda est—“Carthage must be destroyed.”  And yet Cato, who died in 149 BC, didn’t actually live to see the final victory, which came three years later, when the Roman legionnaires besieged and and conquered the city of Carthage itself.

Appian of Alexandria described the final victory in his Historia Romana, written in the second century AD.  Here’s Appian describing Rome’s final military operations against Carthage; as we can see, under the leadership of General Scipio Africanus, the Roman legionarii were not nice:

Now Scipio hastened to the attack [on] the strongest part of the city, where the greater part of the inhabitants had taken refuge… All places were filled with groans, shrieks, shouts, and every kind of agony. Some were stabbed, others were hurled alive from the roofs to the pavement, some of them alighting on the heads of spears or other pointed weapons, or swords. . . . Then came new scenes of horror.  As the fire spread and carried everything down, the soldiers did not wait to destroy the buildings little by little, but all in a heap. So the crashing grew louder, and many corpses fell with the stones into the midst.  Others were seen still living, especially old men, women, and young children who had hidden in the inmost nooks of the houses, some of them wounded, some more or less burned, and uttering piteous cries.  Still others, thrust out and falling from such a height with the stones, timbers, and fire, were torn asunder in all shapes of horror, crushed and mangled.

You get the idea. Tough stuff, to be sure, but after Scipio’s triumph, Carthage was never again a problem for Rome.  In fact, the Romans not only razed the city but, for good measure, plowed the ground with salt to make sure that nothing would ever grow there.

The Roman historian Tacitus quoted a barbarian enemy to make an approving point about the Roman strategic approach: “And where they make a desert, they call it peace.”  Yes, when the Romans wanted to make a point—they made a point.  We might note that the Roman Empire endured for another 622 years after the fall of Carthage, all the way to 476 AD.

Of course, Americans would never do anything like obliterating Carthage, even if the few German survivors of the 1945 firebombing of Dresden, or the even fewer Japanese survivors of Hiroshima, later that same year, might beg to differ.  Still, we might pause to note that both Germany and Japan—two countries once both full of fight—haven’t so much as raised their fist at us even once in the last 70 years.

II. The Challenge in Our Time

Today, there’s an echo of the old Roman resolve in the voice of many Republicans.  As Sen. Ted Cruz, who frequently quotes Reagan’s we-win-they-lose maxim, declared the other day, “In a Cruz administration, we will say to militants, if you wage war against America, you are signing your death warrant.”

Needless to say, Cruz doesn’t speak for the intellectually fashionable, who preach a kind of defeatist sophistry.  Among the smart set, it is often said that we shouldn’t attack ISIS because that’s just what they want.   CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, for example, writing of possible US retaliation in the wake of the Paris raid, assures us that ISIS “wants all of this.”  And Sally Kohn, also of CNN, adds her voice: “Bombing terrorists feeds their ideology.”

And we have this dire headline from the lefties at Salon:

We’re already caving to ISIS: Bloodthirsty jingoism is precisely what the terrorists want: The chief goal of these terrorists is to launch a “cosmic war.” Bigotry and calls for invasion provide exactly that.

Well, maybe the leftists are correct: Maybe it would be a mistake for us if we defeated ISIS—but maybe not.  Indeed, it sure seems that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, is doing his best to survive.  To be sure, he says he’s ready for martyrdom, but he’s not seeking it out.  If he really wanted to be dead, he already would be.

Yes, there’s something to be said for winning, not losing—for living, not dying.  As Osama bin Laden himself observed, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” And of course, it’s no accident that Al Qaeda went into eclipse after bin Laden was killed by US forces in 2011, to be replaced, alas, by ISIS.

To put the matter starkly, being killed suggests that maybe God is not on your side.  It’s perhaps glorious to die for a winning cause, but not so glorious to die for a losing cause.

So let’s hereby resolve that we will be on the winning side.  And let’s get right down to it, and name—yes, name—the central challenge of our time: Defeating the Salafi terrorists once and for all.

Michael Vickers, a counter-terrorism subcabinet official in the Obama and Bush administrations—and an operative with a record going back to the CIA campaign against the Soviets in Afghanistan—is flatly declarative about what must be done; we must defeat ISIS, or ISIL, by depriving it of its territory.  By any name, they—including the remnants of Al Qaeda—need to be defeated and their home-base destroyed:

ISIL, as its name implies, is a de facto state. It holds territory, controls population, and funds its operations from resources that it exploits on territory it controls. If there’s one thing the American military knows how to do it is defeating an opposing force trying to hold ground.

So yes, we must defeat ISIS.  ISIS delenda est.  But yet there are more variables to consider: Unless we plan to do to the Jihadi Zone exactly what the Romans did to the Carthaginians—that is, kill them all—we need a plan for not only pacifying the area, but also for keeping it pacified.

Read more

Failing to Know Our Enemies

pic_giant_121913_SM_Failing-to-Know-Our-EnemeisBy Clifford D. May:

Less than a generation after World War II, in the midst of a cold war whose outcome was far from certain, John F. Kennedy famously proclaimed that Americans would “support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” More than half a century later, in an era fraught with conflict and tension, it may be time to ask: Is that still our credo?

In particular, are Americans still committed to liberty — a word that has come to sound old-fangled? Can our friends still rely upon our support — even when the going gets tough? Do foes still have reason to fear us — or have we become too war-weary to effectively oppose them? And those nations that profess friendship but seek to ingratiate themselves with our foes — what are we to do about them?

These questions, I suspect, will require a great deal more study, thought, and debate before they can be adequately answered. But 34 years after the Iranian Revolution, and twelve years after the attacks of 9/11, we at least should know our enemies. And we should have settled on a strategy aimed at defeating them. But we don’t. And we haven’t.

Many of us turn away from an uncomfortable truth: The ideologies most hostile to America and the West have arisen in what we have come to call the Muslim world. These ideologies are not just intolerant but supremacist — which is why, within the Muslim world, religious minorities face increasing oppression and, in many cases, “religious cleansing,” a trend Western governments, the U.N., and most of the media avoid discussing.

Most Muslims do not embrace these ideologies. But for a host of reasons — fear undoubtedly high among them — neither are most Muslims battling them or even denouncing them publicly and without equivocation.

There is this positive development: In the media, resistance to calling a spade a spade is, finally, breaking down. Take, for example, this recent New York Times headline: “Mali: French Troops Battle Islamists.” That’s accurate: The French have not intervened in Africa to battle “violent extremists.”

Read more at National Review

Video: The Legacy of FDR’s Normalization of Relations with the USSR

nov16 (1)

With (left to right) Stanton Evans, Frank Gaffney, Diana West, Chris Farrell and (not pitcured) Stephen Coughlin

Eightieth Anniversary of Deal That Facilitated Penetration of U.S. Government, Society

Washington, DC — Eighty years ago this Saturday, President Franklin D. Roosevelt agreed for the first time to recognize the Communist regime of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He did so on the basis of formal undertakings by then-Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov that the Kremlin would not engage in subversive actions in America.
The rest, as they say, is history. And a sordid and still unfolding history it is.

“The 16th of November 1933 is a day that truly should live in infamy. This symposium will explore its significance both in terms of much of the most sordid history of the 20th Century — and as the predicate for similar forces at work in the 21st.”

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to convene a symposium to review that history — both that of the immediate post-normalization period, of World War II, of the Cold War and of today — from noon-2:00 p.m. at the headquarters of Judicial Watch in Washington, D.C.

  • Diana West, author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character;
  • M. Stanton Evans, author of Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government Relations;
  • Christopher Farrell, Chief Investigator, Judicial Watch; and
  • Stephen Coughlin, author of the forthcoming book, Catastrophic Failure.
  • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy, moderator.

Diana West at 7:09, Stanton Evans at 24:15, Chris Farrell at 47:09, Stephen Coughlin at 57:57 followed by Q&A (which you do not want to miss)

“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.

Priorities: Obama’s Treasury considers “90 percent of the employees in its Office of Terrorist Financing and Intelligence (TFI)” non-essential

Via Center For Security Policy:

H/T to the brilliant David Reaboi, a colleague at the Center for Security Policy, who uncovered this fact in the midst of all the smoke surrounding the government shutdown.

To anyone who is paying close attention, the ongoing government “shutdown,” is less about fiscal issues and more about priorities. Some operations and personnel are considered “essential” and some are considered “non-essential.”

It is perhaps very instructive that to the Obama Treasury Department, the office that enforces sanctions against the world’s most active terrorist-sponsoring nation, is made up overwhelmingly of personnel considered to be “non-essential.”

The Treasury Department has furloughed approximately 90 percent of the employees in its Office of Terrorist Financing and Intelligence (TFI), which is responsible for the monitoring of illicit activities and enforcement of sanctions related to several countries, including Iran, Syria, and North Korea…

Here is what a Treasury Department spokesperson had to report about the situation:

“As a result, OFAC is unable to sustain its core functions of: issuing new sanctions designations against those enabling the governments of Iran and Syria as well as terrorist organizations, WMD proliferators, narcotics cartels, and transnational organized crime groups; investigating and penalizing sanctions violations; issuing licenses to authorize humanitarian and other important activities that might otherwise be barred by sanctions; and issuing new sanctions prohibitions and guidance,” the spokesman said. “This massively reduced staffing not only impairs OFAC’s ability to execute its mission, it also undermines TFI’s broader efforts to combat money laundering and illicit finance, protect the integrity of the U.S. financial system, and disrupt the financial underpinnings of our adversaries.”

Clearly the Obama administration has decided that cutting off the financial network that supports global jihad is a non-essential activity. Remember, this is the same administration that made the decision to assign “essential” personnel the task of erecting barricades (“barrycades) in a futile attempt to keep World War II veterans out of the National World War II Memorial in Washington, DC.  And we might also add that the government shutdown didn’t delay the launch of Obamacare either.

So, clearly there are some functions and personnel who are considered “essential” and some that are not.

Right now, to Obama, those that are not essential are those who track and prevent jihadists from getting financial support. That pretty much tells us all we need to know about this administration’s commitment to defending America and fighting terrorism.


An international commander in chief

3027813577CSP, By Adm. James “Ace” Lyons (Ret.)

President Obama’s remarks at the Group of 20 conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, that he was “elected to stop wars, not start them” certainly implies that he sees himself endowed with an expanded global mandate. While it’s far from clear that he understands the oath of office he took to be president of the United States — which is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic — he apparently has no trouble viewing himself as more of an “international president.” There is no mandate in that oath that charges him with the responsibility to intervene or stop international wars, unless it can be seen to be in our vital national interests.

The Syrian civil war, by any standard, is a humanitarian tragedy, but it does not qualify as a vital national issue. Further, there is nothing in the oath of office that stipulates that Mr. Obama has a unilateral mandate to support the controversial doctrine of “responsibility to protect.” Supporters of this doctrine are core members of the administration’s national security team — Susan E. Rice, Samantha Power and Denis McDonough — none of whom has any military experience. It should be remembered that this is the weakest and least credible national security team in recent history.

With Mr. Obama’s left-wing upbringing, he has been taught that our great nation is the root cause of many of the world’s problems. It is acknowledged that our superb military capability provides the key underpinning for our influence throughout the world. Therefore, in order to change the dynamics of that influence, the capability of our military forces must be changed. If this assessment is correct, then the appalling unilateral disarmament of our military forces makes sense. Granted, there are economic problems that must be addressed, including out-of-control domestic spending. While our military forces consume less than 20 percent of the federal budget, under sequestration, they have been forced to absorb 50 percent of the draconian budget cuts. It should be remembered that sequestration was an Obama administration initiative.

The impact of conducting two wars over the past decade has taken its toll, and Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for involvement in a third one in Syria would raise the cost. Our military forces have been run hard and put away wet. As a result, our military readiness has been seriously compromised with delayed or canceled required maintenance and overhauls. Equipment, in many cases, is obsolete and needs to be replaced. Drastic cuts to our naval superiority by planning to decommission carrier strike groups, the key element in our ability to project power and a recognized symbol of U.S. power and influence anywhere in the world, make no sense.

The credibility of our military forces has also suffered by making our military, particularly ground forces, adhere to restricted rules of engagement in the failed hope of winning the hearts and minds of tribal Muslim societies. This policy has costs thousands of lives and many more permanent injuries. Further, it has given a distinct advantage to our enemies, who are well familiar with the rules to which our forces must adhere. These forces are our national treasure and cannot be wasted implementing some academic exercise.

Other factors have adversely affected our military forces’ credibility and fighting spirit:

  • Forcing our military to embrace Islam’s seventh-century culture, customs and legal system goes against everything our forces have been taught. For example, if an Afghan beats a woman or sodomizes a young boy, our forces are told not to interfere and look the other way. Is this what we are asking our national treasure to sacrifice their lives for? I don’t think so. We as a nation are better than that. Why are we forcing our military forces to compromise their values?
  • Militarytraining manuals (and trainers) have been purged of any material that links acts of terrorism with Islam.
  • Diversity has become the No. 1 priority for our military forces instead of the proven principle of “professionalism.” Why erode the moral fiber of the finest military forces in the world by making them embrace the homosexual agenda?
  • Restrictions have been removed on women serving in combat.

The bottom line is that none of these social-engineering changes have improved combat readiness or our military credibility and unit integrity. Unless changed, our overall effectiveness will be severely diminished. Is that the objective?

While every other nuclear power is modernizing its strategic nuclear forces, Mr. Obama is forcing further drastic cuts on our strategic and theater nuclear forces, thereby jeopardizing our national security.

The current direction of our military forces requires an immediate course correction. A similar situation occurred in 1949, when Harry Truman’s Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson was planning to eliminate the Navy’s carriers and the Marine Corps. There was a “Revolt of the Admirals” to preserve our Navy’s carrier strike forces. Their success paid large dividends during the Korean War.

Political correctness has silenced our military leadership up to now. However, today’s leaders are no less capable than those World War II-hardened veterans — who led the admirals’ revolt. We clearly need another one, but this time joined by generals, to restore our military’s effectiveness as the finest fighting force in the world. Military leaders are required to give their best professional opinion — even if it opposes administration policies. Nothing less is acceptable.


No One Would Listen

Elie Wiesel speaking at NYU, April 2011

Elie Wiesel speaking at NYU, April 2011

Citizen Warrior:

If you haven’t read the powerful book,Night, by Elie Wiesel, you really should. It is his account of what happened to him during WWII. He was a young teen living in a small village in Hungary when, in 1942, the Hungarian police arrived to announce that all foreign Jews had to leave. The police loaded them all into trains and took them away.

The people in the town were disturbed, of course. It was a sad day. But after a few months, the memory began to fade, and life eventually returned to normal. They felt they were far enough removed from the war that it would end before it ever came to their remote village.

Then one day, one of those foreign Jews found his way back to the village. His name was Moishe. He was an old man, but the young Elie Wiesel had known him fairly well. Moishe had an extraordinary story to tell. He said when the trainload of Jews crossed the border into Polish territory, the Gestapo loaded them into trucks and took all the Jews into a forest where they were forced to dig huge trenches, and then they were all shot! Moishe himself was shot in the leg and left for dead. But he escaped and had been struggling to get back to the little village so he could warn people of what happened. He was urging everyone to flee; to get away before the Germans came.

He went “from one Jewish house to the next,” wrote Elie Wiesel, “telling his story…” And he repeatedly and urgently told his story at the synagogue.

But nobody believed him.

They thought he must have lost his mind. Why would the Germans just kill Jews like that? Germany was a modern, industrialized, enlightened country. They wouldn’t simply murder people so heartlessly and for no reason. Moishe must have lost his mind.

Moishe was insistent. He begged people to listen to him. He cried. He pleaded. But not one person believed him. They didn’t want to believe him, and that’s a formidable barrier to communication.

Our message — that what is written in Islamic texts is dangerous to non-Muslims — is also something many people do not want to believe. The implications are too heavy. The people of Elie’s village didn’t want to contemplate what it would mean if Moishe’s story was true. It would mean tragedy and heartache and a loss of faith in humanity. It would mean a drastically different future for everyone. If they believed Moishe, the wise course of action would be to immediately pack up or sell everything they own and move somewhere they’d never been before. They’d have to start over. The journey would be fraught with uncertainty and danger. Most of them had lived their whole lives in that little village.

Read more


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


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

Vive la Resistance: A Call to Arms!

20100812_CAIRstripesby SHARI  GOODMAN:

During World War II, in an effort to combat Nazi totalitariansm, men and  women of good will in France formed a resistance movement against the Nazis.  They came to be known as the Resistance fighters who bravely fought against the  tide of the Nazi invasion. Today, once again there is a new growth of  totalitarian supremacist ideology in the name of Islam and it is presently  receiving protective status under the guise of religion; yet, today its  legitamacy is derived on our own soil. The definition of “Islam” is submission  and while we may state that we are not at war with Islam, Islam has declared war  on us.

Mein Kampf (My Struggle) was the instrumental book that incited Germans to  wage war against the Jews and incited millions in surrounding countries to  submit to its supremacist totalitarian quest for world domination. Not unlike  Mein Kampf, we now have on American soil an Islamic doctrine (Quran) that  commands its practioners to wage war against all non-believers until Islam  reigns supreme. “Slay the pagans(Christians) wherever ye find them and seize  them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush” (Surah  9:5) and “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief) and  all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).” (Quran: 8:39) These are just a few of the many passages littered throughout Quranic  doctrine with the call for Jihad. Unlike Judeo/Christian doctrine, the violence  in Quranic doctrine is instructional violence without a specific time frame.  Those of us in today’s Resistance Coalition have been referred to as  Islamophobics, bigots, racists, and hatemongers, but in an upside down world it  is we who are combatting the hate spewed by a doctrine that places all  non-believers in what is referred to in Islam as Dar Al Harb (the House of War).  Yes, the Quran segrated the world into Dar Al Islam (the House of Islam) and Dar  Al Harb, reserved for all non-Muslims.

For the first time in American history we are providing a sanctuary to a  doctrine that seeks our demise. The Quran which commands each Muslim to slay the  unbelievers wherever they may find them is housed in every mosque. There are now  over 2000 mosques funded by Saudi Arabian oil money throughout the United  States. The colonization by the Umma (prosletyzation) is encouraged and financed  by oil money and it matters not one iota that not all Muslims are Jihadists. It  is a threat and affront to our existence and liberty that we give sanctuary to a  dangerous doctrine that calls for our submission at best and slaughter at  worst.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Shari Goodman is an educator and a chapter leader for ACT! For America. Her  views are her own and are not necessarily representative of ACT! For America.  Her columns have appeared in Family Security Matters, Israel Today, and the Los  Angeles Times.

Europe’s Multicultural Model Is Changing


Europeans do not have a record of religious tolerance, as can be clearly seen in  their history of religious wars (16th – 18th centuries) and their appalling  Anti-Semitism for 2,000 years, culminating in the Holocaust.

But in the  newly emerging Europe after World War II, Western European countries (Britain,  France, Netherlands, Scandinavia, and Germany) were determined to create a new  European multiculturalism. First, national barriers were coming down as European  elites created the European Union (EU), sharing not only a monetary system but  also a raft of common values.

As Europe recovered from the devastation  of World War II and a new issue, population decline, the floodgates were opened  to immigrants and refugees from the less fortunate world, the Middle East,  Africa, Indonesia, and India/Pakistan. The newcomers were welcomed by their new  governments with monetary assistance, housing, and welfare. What should have  been temporary assistance turned into permanent ghettoes, and because the  immigrants were not offered a real opportunity to integrate, they became a new  constituency for today’s neo-fascist movement, Islamism.

France. Recognizing their well-intentioned generosity has had  unforeseen consequences, the French are beginning to reverse their laws. France,  which has a huge Muslim population, has learned that locking up Muslim criminals  has created a perfect environment for turning French prisons into schools for  converting French delinquents to Islam. In September, French police rounded up a  number of young terrorists, almost all of them new converts, with plans to sow  mayhem and murder in French Jewish neighborhoods. There are also neighborhoods  in France so dangerously under the control of Islamists that the French police  dare not go there.

England. The UK has been inundated  with Muslims from the former British colonies of today’s India, Pakistan, and  Bangladesh. The first generation of these new immigrants wanted nothing more  than to become British (and many did, such as Salman Rushdie, author of Satanic Verses). But now the third and fourth generations find  themselves in Muslim ghettoes, undereducated, too long on welfare, and easily  seduced by Islamist clerics and operatives into going to Pakistan or Yemen to  “learn Arabic” and ready themselves to become suicide bombers. London has  already survived one huge suicide bombing attack on their metro system and has  scurried to prevent an encore. Now, finally, despite EU law, they have deported  some of their worst Islamists to the United   States, where they have been  wanted for terrorism and murder.

Read more: Family Security Matters

FamilySecurityMatters.orgContributing Editor Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian,  lecturer, and author of How Do You Know That? You may contact her at Lfarhat102@aol.com or www.globalthink.net.


After 31 years of counter-terror activism Gadi Adelman is tired

I’m Tired by GADI  ADELMAN:

Thirty-one years is long time. Actually, it’s far too long. This week will be  my birthday and I won’t be celebrating.

At the age of 51, I can only look back and wonder why, why things have gotten  worse rather than better. I have been speaking, writing and teaching about  terror, Islam, Sharia and counter-terror for 31 years.

With all the news surrounding the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in  Libya, I have to start with the last death of an American Ambassador.

Although the last U.S. ambassador to die in the line of duty was Arnold  Raphel, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, it is unsure whether it was a terrorist  act. He perished in a plane crash in 1988, along with the then president of  Pakistan, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq.

Prior to that, the last ambassador to be killed in the line of duty was  Adolph Dubs, the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, in 1979. On February 14, 1979,  he was kidnapped by four terrorists and was killed when he was shot during an  exchange of gunfire started between the terrorists and Afghan security  forces.

An American Ambassador killed by terrorists. Did America notice? No.

Months after the Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran and Iran voted to  become an Islamic Republic we had the embassy takeover. On November 4, 1979  Iranians seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released  with the remaining 52 freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan’s  inauguration.

This was not enough for people to take notice.

When I arrived back in the U.S. in 1981, I tried and tried to introduce this  country to what I knew would be needed, anti-terrorism. I applied and  interviewed with every alphabet soup government agency and was shot down by each  and every one with the exception of the CIA. I was told, “This is America, we  don’t have terrorism.”

The CIA offered me a position that I couldn’t speak about for years under the  penalty of ‘treason’, but needless to say it wasn’t in the area of  counter-terror. I refused the offer since it would have been going against my  own morals, ethics and beliefs, not to mention, Israel.

In 1981 there weren’t even a handful of counter-terror people, as a matter of  fact I knew of only two, myself and my dear friend and colleague Dr. Walid  Phares.

Interestingly, both I and Dr. Phares have been saying and warning of the same  things for all these years.  Even though what we say and warn about seem to  come to fruition each and every time, very few listen.

Between 1982 and 1991 we had the kidnappings and deaths of Americans in  Lebanon. Thirty U.S. and other Western hostages were kidnapped in Lebanon by  Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity and some were eventually  released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

This too was not enough for people to take notice.

Shortly after I arrived back in the U.S. from Israel we had the Lebanon  bombings.

On April 18, 1983, the U.S. embassy in Beirut was bombed killing 63 people,  most were embassy and CIA staff members, several were soldiers and one was a  Marine. 17 of the dead were Americans.

That same year on October 23, the U.S. Marines barracks were destroyed by  suicide bombers during their stay as part of multinational ‘peace keeping  force’. What many do not know is that this was only the second “suicide bombing”  in history, it was carried out by the terrorist organization Hezbollah and  killed 241 American servicemen: 220 marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers,  along with sixty other Americans injured.

The Marine barrack attack was the deadliest single-day death toll for the  United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II, the  deadliest single-day death toll for the United   States military since the first  day of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, and the deadliest single attack  on Americans overseas since World War II.

Was the bombing of the U.S. embassy and the Marine barracks in Lebanon not  enough for people to realize that perhaps we as Americans were not dealing with  a conventional enemy? Did the American people take notice? No. Did the world  take notice? No.

Before the end of that horrendous year on December 12, 1983, the U.S. embassy  in Kuwait City, Kuwait was attacked by Shiite truck bombers, killing five and  injuring 80.

Did America start to take notice? No.

Then a second time within 17 months on September 20, 1984 a suicide bomber  driving a truck packed with 400 pounds of explosives targeted the American  embassy in Aukar, nine miles north of Beirut. 23 people are killed and 21  injured.

More flag draped coffins. Did America start to notice a trend here? No.


Since 9/11, things have gotten worse throughout the world, not better.  Somehow through backwards political correctness and ignorance, the perpetrator  has made himself the victim. Sadly, that’s what Americans notice. What’s more,  most Americans believe it.

It has been stated by leaders the world over as they have seen their own  countries succumb to and be held hostage by Islam.

Former French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, on February 11, 2011, while being interviewed  on French National Television about Islam in his country,

“My answer is clearly yes, it [multiculturalism] is a failure.”

On February 5, 2011, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, stated in a speech  while speaking on taking a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist terror in  his country,

“Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and  much more active, muscular liberalism. Let’s properly judge these organizations:  Do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of  other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe  in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they  encourage integration or separatism?”

“Again it just seems the Muslim community is very much in the spotlight,  being treated as part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany stated  on October 17, 2010 while speaking on Muslims in Germany,

“We kidded ourselves for a while that they wouldn’t stay, but that’s not the  reality.”

“Of course the tendency had been to say, ‘let’s adopt the multicultural  concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each  other’. But this concept has failed, and failed utterly.”

As leader after leader has seen their country under the threat of terror and  retaliation become more Islamic, more Sharia compliant and they lose their right  to free speech, they have all come to the same conclusion. Americans though  don’t take notice.

The Arab Spring has brought us more Islamic ruled governments, not more  “freedom;” the reason is simple, what we in the West refer to as “freedom” is  not what Muslims see as freedom. Their freedom is that of the Quran. Their  freedom is the word of Allah. Their freedom is living like they did 1400 years  ago. Period.

If you think I am wrong, look at the Middle East. Take notice.

I’m tired of being called “an alarmist,” I’m tired of being called “an  Islamophobe,” I’m tired of being called “a nut,” but most of all I’m tired of  America not waking up to the truth.

Since the terror attack that should have been the one to end all others,  9/11, there have been 19,680 deadly attacks, with over 260,000 deaths, all in  the name of Islam. This is not a few people “that have hijacked a religion.”  This is the religion. This is Islam. It’s time to take notice.

Read it all at Family Security Matters


FamilySecurityMatters.orgContributing  Editor Gadi  Adelman  is a freelance writer and lecturer on the history of  terrorism and  counterterrorism. He grew up in Israel, studying terrorism and  Islam for 35  years after surviving a terrorist bomb in Jerusalem in which 7  children were  killed. Since returning to the U. S., Gadi teaches and lectures  to law  enforcement agencies as well as high schools and colleges. He can be  heard  every Thursday night at 8PM est. on his own radio show “America Akbar”  on Blog  Talk Radio.  He can be reached through his website gadiadelman.com.

The Mirage of Moderate Islam

By Daniel Greenfield:

Travelers across the vast stretches of the Arabian desert have been known to get lost and in their thirst and exhaustion hallucinate oases with palm trees and flowing water. Western policymakers lost in the vast stretches of madness that define the Muslim world are even more wont to hallucinate the oasis of a moderate Islam to take refuge in. Whether you’re dying for a drink or a way to reaffirm your reality, a mirage is sometimes the only way you can find it.

Moderate Islam is a mirage, a projection by desperate Westerners of their own values and culture, on an entirely different religion and culture. It is a mirage that many Muslims are eager to uphold, in the same way that desert merchants might sell goblets and bowls of sand to passing travelers foolish enough to confuse water with dust. And like travelers who think they are drinking water, when they are actually swallowing sand, it is a deception that will eventually kill the deceived.
When the Western cultural elite look at Islam, they see what they have to see to avoid falling into crisis mode. Like the traveler who would rather choke on sand, than face up to the fact that he is lost in a desert, they would rather keep most things as they are, even at the cost of the extinction of the nations they preside over, than confront the full scope of the threat surrounding them. A threat that they had a hand in nurturing and feeding in the name of goals that seemed to make sense at the time.
It is easier to segregate a “Bad Islam” composed of a tiny minority of extremists from the generally “Good Islam” of the rulers of the Muslim world and the waves of Muslim immigrants washing up on their shores. That this segregation has no objective reality, and is nothing but a psychological defense mechanism against experiencing the full reality of a disaster. From the Titanic to World War II, there are numerous similar situations in which the people in charge chose to ignore a growing crisis at a horrific cost.
The two primary paradigms through which Western political elites see Islam, is that of tyranny on the right, and the evils of Western foreign policy on the left. Bush employed the former when he defined the problem as being one of tyranny, rather than Islam. Having defined the problem in terms of a majority of “Good Muslims” oppressed by “Bad Tyrants”, Bush tried to liberate the former from the latter, only to discover that there was a good deal of overlap between the two. Under Obama, we have seen the left implement its own construct of Islam, as popular resistance movements against colonial oppression, who are reacting to the evils of American foreign policy. This knee jerk Marxist formula goes one worse than the Bush Administration by defining terrorists as “Good Muslims” and moderates as “Yankee Puppets”.
But the only item of true significance to emerge from the contrast of these worldviews, is the revelation that American political leaders from both sides of the spectrum still view Islam in terms of the old Cold War struggle between Communism and Capitalism. Like many generals who fight every war in terms of the last war, the political leaders of the West still see Islam in Cold War colors, which prevents from seeing it for what it is.
While Islam shares some common denominators with Communism, as well as Nazism, it is also a quite different entity than either one. For one thing it is not Western in any sense of the word. It does not rely on a centralized leadership. It has had over a thousand years to seep into the culture of the regions it has conquered. That has made Islam into an identity in a much more profound way, than Adolf or Vladimir could have ever managed with their own crackpottery.
Islam predates the political movements such as Communism and Nazism that arose to fill a vacuum of faith in a secularizing West with dreams of racial and economic utopias. It is the original sin of the East, a ruthless religion based on stolen beliefs and stolen property, its moment of religious transcendence was not that of the law or the spirit, but the sight of tribal rivalries uniting under a single green banner. The banner of Islam.

Read more