Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Dismal State of our National Security

Within a six month period in 2009 we've had the Fort Hood shooting by a devout Muslim, the Nation of Islam-affiliated cop massacre near Seattle, and the "angelic" Muslim from Nigeria in a miraculous failure to blow up a Detroit-bound plane.

These terrorist attacks all have one thing in common.  Our failure of acknowledging the root cause of the terrorist threat.  No, the root cause is not "poverty" or "the haves vs. the have nots" or "racial discrimination" or "religious discrimination."  It is not the "evil US suppression" of other peoples or nations, although this is a popular "blame-America-first" belief.

The root cause is our failure to understand the basic historical teaching and goals of Islam, and the motivation of those who become devout in its practice.

Instead we have leaders who believe Islam must be respected and dealt with benevolently.  We have sympathizers who continue to insist that Islam is a "religion of peace."    We have national security leaders who confusedly profess that "the system worked really, really smoothly."  We have a President who rewards Islamic nations while snubbing our allies - who has the Islamic threat totally off his radar of national concerns.  Heck, he doesn't even recognize any "terror threat" as a high priority, never mind admitting that 99% is Islamic motivated.

We have been "reactive" and not "proactive."  We are being severely manipulated by our failure to acknowledge the root problem.  After 9-11, we had cockpit doors fortified and searches of passengers for box cutters.  After the shoe bomber, we all have to remove our shoes in the security line-up.  After the European plot to carry small vials of liquid explosives onto planes, no one can bring perfume, aftershave, or liquid medications in our carry-ons.  Literally tons of these were confiscated at the gates.  As a result of the underwear bomber, we will either have full body scans revealing every mole or be subject to pat downs up to our crotch.  When the devout Islamist conceal their explosive of choice in their body cavities, we may be induced to accept body cavity searches as well.

Don't you think we are missing something here?  Instead of punishing Americans who love our freedoms, why don't we focus on those whose ideology promotes the terror?  Instead of reducing the freedoms of those who respect freedom, why not reduce the freedoms of those who want to destroy our freedom?  Is this approach too logical?  Yes, it involves profiling.  Before the Islamic cancer spreads further, every individual who claims Islam as their faith, and every individual from an Islamic-dominated nation must receive special attention.  This special attention must be carried out at the airport gates as well as in our selection of individuals for sensitive positions in our government and defense organizations and industries.  This is the least we should do.  Others may soon be calling for the deportation of all who profess a devout belief in Islam, or worse, especially if we experience another successful attack of 9-11 proportions or worse.  We need to stop our demeaning harassment of the innocent majority out of our insane desire to not offend those who profess their offense toward us.

We know our President is not with us when he declares in his book "Audacity of Hope" that he promises to “stand with them [Muslim immigrants] if the political winds became ugly.”   I take that to mean that he will defend Islam and Muslims in this nation no matter how severe the political backlash might be as a result of future Muslim atrocities.  Stunning.

Daniel Pipes, in this pointed article about our security failures, asked "What size disaster must occur to inspire a serious approach to counterterrorism?"

I would add "What size disaster must occur and how much of our culture and freedom must we sacrifice to inspire a serious approach to Islam?"

Friday, December 25, 2009

Big Tent-itis

Both the Democrats and Republicans suffer from “bigtentitis":  The political philosophy that every group and movement is worthy of being embraced by the “party.”  But like bowels, not everything that comes out is worth embracing.  The idea of a “big tent” has reached the same culturally destructive extremes as “cultural diversity” and “moral relativism.”

Ironically, Democrats are now being criticized for NOT have bigtentitis.  They are accused of not being more “moderate” by some within their ranks as noted here.

NEWS FLASH:  Not having a “big tent” is not their problem.  Hyper-inclusivity is.  The hyper-inclusivity is their embrace of every radical thought that has flowed out of the bowels of leftists and progressives for the past 50 years.

Bigtentitis is a particular bane of Republicans at the moment.  This was exhibited with the party’s nomination of moderate to left-leaning McCain.  Most of his platform was barely distinguishable from Obama’s.  Republicans lost because of his mundane rhetorical skills compared to Obama – as well as his failure to communicate a convincing grasp of the essence of our economic problems at the time.

The Republican’s tent was too big.  Its focus was not sufficiently distinguishable from that of the Dems.  Bigtentitis continues to plague the party.  Their hyper-inclusivity may become the reason for a strong showing by an independent in 2012.

If nothing else good comes out of the Obama administration, it may be a the kick in the butt that wakes the nation up to tent poles that are most important:  Less government, lower taxes, emphasis on personal responsibility and initiative, and a strong national defense.  Whoever believes in those principles admit themselves into the tent.  The tent needs to be no larger than that.  Republicans need to get out of the Dems business of being all things to all people with the government doing all things for all people.

The folks who want to make our nation something it was never intended to be can erect their own tent and have it as big or as small as they want – inclusive of all the animalistic tendencies they feel compelled to embrace.

Monday, December 21, 2009

1939 Movie: Parallels with Muslims in America

Watch this movie.  So many parallels - and some unfortunate differences.  Here are some of them:

  • Substitute the word Muslim for Nazi: their methodologies are uncannily similar
  • Substitute the word Religious for Racial:  The Nazi's supremacist pride was race; Islam's supremacist pride is religion
  • Substitute Muslim loyalty to Islam over loyalty toward America for German-American loyalty to the Furher over loyalty to America

The film depicted most German-Americans being ashamed of their German cohort Nazi's.  I'm not so sure that most American Muslims are similarly ashamed of their Islamic cohorts.

I cannot imagine a current prosecutor of Muslim spies or terrorists in this nation being as impassioned toward America as the 1939 prosecutor of Nazi spies was.  Our government officials and legal system do not have the passion for this country that existed 60 years ago.  And most have not yet acknowledge there are Muslim spies or terrorists in this country. 

The President is complicit.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Government will go bankrupt! I’ll guarantee it!

Charlie Gibson with the President discussing health care.Gibson Obama

On the proposed health care bill, the President said: 

“If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you…potentially they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year.

“Medicare and Medicaid are on an unsustainable trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, the federal government will go bankrupt.”

Mr. President.  If you DO pass it, here’s the guarantee.  The cost of medical treatment will go up for most of us, the quality of medical treatment will go down for most of us, government will become responsible for more of our lives, we will all be on an unsustainable path of expecting government to do more than it is capable of doing for us, and the federal government will go bankrupt.

On the President’s sales pitch, I say:

Mr. President.  Instead of all the lies and hyperbole about none of us losing existing coverage and promising more people will be covered for less money, why don’t you just tell the truth?  Costs are increasing and if we want the same level of coverage we have now, we’ll have to pay for it.  But haven’t we all known that for the past several decades?  Hey, the price of a gallon of gas was 23 cents in 1955 and is now $2.80.

So, what’s missing from your sales pitch?  Oh, you want the government to pay for the coverage for the 30 million who are now without coverage?  OK.  And that keeps the government from going broke – how?  Do you seriously believe that the government will ever adequately fund that new responsibility?  Every four years there will be a new tax payer revolt that will gut the program of funds.  That is what has happened to Medicare.  Our representatives don’t even have the fortitude to adequately fund that program.  And instead, you use the pending bankruptcy of that program – and of our nation – as a scare tactic to promote even more government intrusion and irresponsibility.  

News flash!  If the government insists on spending more than the taxpayers want to pay, the government will eventually go bankrupt.  To be a responsible president, wouldn't it be better to promote the idea of paying for services we receive?  The majority of us are concerned with our unsustainable debt right now.  Try really hard not to use illogical arguments to get us to spend more money than we have. 

If you want the “have nots” to have health coverage, donate to a church or mosque*, or hospital  or other non-profit organization that provides assistance.  Don’t force our government to do things it was never intended to do and that which will further erode the motivation for individual initiative.


*More likely than not, donating to a mosque will contribute to terror networks, equipping people to blow themselves up.  While this is certain to reduce the health care costs for some (those who blow themselves up), there are others who will need costly medical assistance.  Consequently, the health care “cost/benefit” ratio does not warrant contributions to this entity.  For this reason and despite the President’s predisposition to do so, I would advise him not to donate to mosques but instead to donate to entities where his health care dollars are likely to go further.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Avatar – the evil capitalists

I may be reading too much into the trailers, but Avatar strikes me as another “hate America first” Hollywood script.

The plot:  A team of humans (I presume Americans) is sent to planet Pandora to mine an ultra rare mineral.  Unfortunately, the Na’vi happen to occupy the very spot of the planned mining operation.  The Na’vi have to be relocated, a la residents of “community redevelopment projects” in our urban areas.  The key member of the human team, who happens to be a paraplegic Marine, switches sympathies and sides with the Na’vi.

Despite the fact that the mineral might be very useful, maybe even essential, for mankind back home, and relocating the Na’vi may not be the worst thing in the world, humans are portrayed as the evil greedy villain, upsetting the indigenous apple cart (think American Indian). 

This theme latches on to the eco-Nazis “humans-are-destroying-the-planet” mantra, and is as anti-progress as any humans-are-causing-global-warming deception.  The movie merely joins this pandemic of self-loathing that hopefully runs its course within the next few decades, ideally before the retrograde philosophy returns the US to a third world entity, or returns humans to a Na’vi, stone-age existence.

I would give the movie an ”A” for throwing in all the right sympathies and guilts and button pushing emotional triggers to further its aim of infusing politically correct, anti-progress and anti-capitalism/free enterprise themes.  No wonder the main-scheme Hollywood reviewers love it so much.

Unfortunately, I was not reading too much into the trailers.  Apparently this movie is as America, capitalist, and human hating as I interpreted from the trailers.  There are a number of reviews that agree with my unhappy assessment.  Here is one.

Monday, December 07, 2009

Today’s notable events bode ill for our culture…

Today is the 68th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 where the death toll was 2,390, mostly military personnel.  To put this attack in perspective, the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the death toll was 2,752, mostly civilians.  Eight years later, we are still tiptoeing around the Islamic ideology that conceived, carried out, and applauded that attack.  How different our reaction was to Pearl Harbor.  Much more decisive, wouldn’t you say?

In Copenhagen today we have the global warming conference.  The world’s biggest danger was declared to be carbon monoxide.  It is likely that our world’s power structure will adopt global policies that will control the cars we buy, how much we drive, how much excrement our livestock produce, how much meat we’re allowed to eat, how often we can BBQ, and how deeply we exhale.   Our gullible media and Obama and his control freak administration is eating it up.

National news media reports an “American” as one of the terrorists in the attack on Mumbai, India, last year.  He was labeled “a Chicago man.”  Not once in the two separate reports I viewed (FOX and ABC) was it mentioned that this Muslim terrorist was a Muslim.   The insanity still insists we identify evil with America, and deny the evil of Islam.  Very odd.   We still hear the generals and media and Congress puzzling over the reasons for Islamic aggression and terror.

Sunday, December 06, 2009

A perfect example of “hypocrisy” – Islam style

The Prime Minister of “moderate” Islamic Turkey said this recently of Islam:

“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers...this holy army guards my religion."

In essence, Minarets are the stamp of Islamic domination in an area, a symbol of local conquest in keeping with their supremacist ideology.

Meanwhile, Switzerland has legitimate concern with the proliferation of Islamic Minarets in their nation, with their Jihadi connotation. So much so that a referendum to ban construction of new Minarets throughout the country passed by a wide margin.

The predictable response from scholars in Saudi Arabia, a nation that absolutely forbids the construction of any Church or Synagogue, lambasted the referendum:

“This is another evidence of the West’s antagonism towards Islam. This is a clear evidence of the racial and religious segregation still prevails in the West, especially in a country, which boasts of an exemplary model of democratic ideals."

The audacity of fascist Muslims throwing out the phrase “democratic ideals.” This scenario is as worthy of the word “hypocrisy” as any I have observed. Of course, Muslims don’t see this as hypocrisy because they claim to possess the “one true religion” and it is their way or the highway to dhimmitude for those who disagree.

Friday, December 04, 2009

We met another one tonight…

We were at a party tonight when the topic of Obama came up.  When my wife opined to the couple across the table that she believed Obama was a Muslim, she thought the man was going to lunge across the table and hit her.  In a less than soft voice he said he was very angry, and jettisoned himself away from the table before another word was said.  Muslim apologists and Obama defenders (same thing) are pretty sensitive – I think intolerant is the word – of other peoples opinions.  Of course it didn’t help when I laughed at his loss of control.

You would think this man was a Muslim in Syria offended by Mohammad cartoons the way he reacted.  If this man was a military psychologist, he would be suspected of “snapping” and becoming a Jihadi.

The fact is, millions of Americans increasingly believe that Hussein Obama is a closet Muslim at worst, and an Islamic promoter at best.   Take a look at this video if you haven’t done so yet.

Just wait till we learn of Obama’s proposed alliance with Afghanistan’s neighbors to the west, Islamic Iran or Turkey, to “assist us” in subduing al Qaeda.  He will do anything to avoid facing the real agenda of Islam.

Folks like this couple this evening who believe Islam (the fascist ideology it really is) is just like any other religion, who adore anyone who defends and promotes that ideology, and who suggests Christianity is just as bad will one day discover how utterly clueless they really were.  We could have lit up that party if we tweaked this couple by pointing out their ignorantly amoral attitude after they proclaimed that Catholics are as bad as Muslims.  "Moral equivalence" anyone?  We probably would have had to reimburse the recreation center for their destruction of property.

Thursday, December 03, 2009

New web site for the Newbie concerned about Islam

Many excellent web sites discuss Islam. But unfortunately, for those people just now starting to pay attention to this concern, perusing these sites is like coming into the middle of a movie. It's difficult to know who's doing what to whom.

There is a new site called Islamic Threat Simplified. It is the starting place for facts on Islam without the spin of political correctness. There is a wealth of information, dozens of links to Islamic experts and an excellent glossary of terms.

Check it out. Share it with friends who are just now getting concerned.

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Separation of Science and State

I thought of two “unfortunatelies” this morning.  One “unfortunately” is our success in separating Church and State, the result of which is the isolation of western moral values from government and public institutions.

The other “unfortunately” is our failure to separate Science and State.  It is becoming more and more certain that political agendas have manipulated science to the point of becoming worse than a religion.  The “Global Warming science” is showing itself to be an outright lie and deception.  At least religion is understood for what it is - belief based on “faith”:  Trust in things not seen.  However, science sets itself out to be based on observable evidence – things seen.  And it appears that, for political purposes, this “observable evidence” has been perverted for political purposes. 

I would much rather have Church and State than Science and State.  At least we known what we’ve got with religion.  And contributions are voluntary.

Read more here from Lord Monkton.

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Changing 1,000 years of tribal history in 2 years - say what?

President Obama finally announced his decision on Afghanistan over three months after his appointed general provided his recommendation: Send in three quarters of the number of troops requested, stabilze the country by making buddies, then vacate the country within 18 months.

I have a number of problems with not just the President's response and how he handled it, but with the whole US approach in Afghanistan and to Islamists generally.

First, the Fort Hood incident is a clue that generals, including General McChrystal, don't have an accurate appreciation of Islam's deep devotion to its worldwide mission. The generals can't even disceern the Islamic enemies pandered to within their own ranks.

Second, the President proposes to stabilize Afghanistan within 18 months? Yeah, that'll happen. We had indiginous tribes in this nation and it took many decades of sustained military/Indian conflict for the military to prevail. And we lived here, too. And do our own native Americans look on our act of conversion of their "old ways" with glee and thanksgiving? Hardly. Thanksgiving is what we celebrate, not the folks who's culture was sunamied. And I'm not at all convinced that the native American ever harbored as much deep seated, religion-based, rabid hatred toward us as the middle east Islamists do.

Obama is either deceived or the deceiver. He will be wasting lives over the next year and a half for what? A stable, democratic Afghanistan? Maybe gaining stability during our presence there. He's failing to highlight one major factor: Islamic democracy equals "one vote; one time." Then Sharia law. That's what we will have fought for. Their right to vote in Islamic law. Two years for the west to sustainably change 1,000 plus years of tribal Islamic governance - you have got to be kidding. The hatred of the west and the Jihadi mentality will still remain. Just wait to see what happens in Iraq over the next year or two when we have only a few thousand troops remaining.

Our only purpose in Afghanistan, along with our allies who share our concerns, should be to monitor, through covert means, terror plots and characters that pose a threat. Period. At the same time, we need to get a clue about subversive Islamic supremacist activities in our own nation, within our own leadership, and within our own military and take appropropriate measures to identify and eliminate them.

Waste, waste, waste.

"But what about Pakistan?" some may protest. "If we abandon Afghanistan, the Islamists will take over Pakistan and its nukes. " If we are in Afgahnistan to keep Pakistan from going "Islam," what sense does that make? It already is. If we are in Afghanistan to keep the "radicals" from overpowering the Pakistani government, that can be done better with direct assistance to Pakistan. Rather than wasting hundreds of billions on the rat hole in Afghanistan each year, wouldn't it be better to focus a portion of those billions on the root concern in Pakistan - toward whatever measures that will bolster their resistance to radical elements? Fortunately, so far, it appears that most of the Pakistani leadership has not yet caught the "true Islam" bug that is spawning across the globe. But it is just a matter of time before they do.