Saturday, February 26, 2011

Why we won’t “win” in Iraq or Afghanistan

First, the definition of “win:”  The establishment of a sustainable government that will not promote or allow hostile actions against the US from its soil.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal recently mused in Foreign Policy about his thinking that led up to his (to him) ground-breaking revelation about what our military strategy in Iraq and, I suppose, in Afghanistan, needs to be.  As he put it:

“What was hazy then soon became our mantra: It takes a network to defeat a network.”


I hate to be so presumptuous as to suggest to a high ranking US general that his conclusions are ignorant, but he makes it so easy.

No, general, sir, it doesn’t take a network. You have apparently been spending way too much time with Hillary. It takes understanding the culture and the supremacist, violent, deceitful orthodox Islamic ideology behind that culture to defeat a network of Islamists.  General, sir, not all “networks” mirror our own networks.  We cannot compare our version of networks to networks based on a totally opposite set of moral and ethical standards as our own.  General, sir, you are making the same stupid mistake as our military has made in the past and our federal government continues to make in assuming that our enemy plays by the same standards as we do.  You, General, sir, continue to view the enemy though our own colored glasses and not seeing, acknowledging, and acting on the objective reality of the enemy.

Take a look at General McCrystal’s thought process in excerpts of his article published here and be amazed, in a very disappointing sense.

General, sir, the mere existence of resurgent Islam in a nation guarantees hostile actions will continue to take place against the US.  No amount of democracy in an Islamic nation will reverse this reality.  In fact, it will energize and sustain it.  This is true in Egypt, in Jordan, in Libya, in Tunisia, and in Saudi Arabia.  The sooner we all realize that and act on it, the sooner we will quit wasting our dwindling resources and set our foreign policy on a productive course.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Great reasons NOT to “Go Green”

I have two excellent reasons for an extreme dislike of “Green.”

The first:  The  sheep-like masses blindly follow the “Go Green” bandwagon.  Everything is “Green”.  From the afterthought poorly applied Green labels on bottles of Windex, to the Prius that loses significantly more value than non-hybrids, to mercury-laden squiggly light bulbs, to “eco-friendly” mineral spirits that cost the same but require twice as much to do an ineffective job.  Oh, and not to mention Obama’s “…energy costs will necessarily skyrocket.”  “Going Green” is hype.  The great majority of green schemes are not cost effective and may never be.  In fact most of the Green-peddling is more costly both initially and in the long term.  Note long-term bulb disposal costs.  Note hybrid vehicle battery disposal costs.  Note “cap and trade” costs.

The second:  The color of Islam is Green.  From Wikipedia:  “The color green has a special place in Islam. It is used in the decoration of mosques, the bindings of Qur'ans, the silken covers for the graves of Sufi saints, and in the flags of various Muslim countries. Green has been associated with Islam for many centuries.”

Islamic Tripoli’s (Libya) main town center is called “Green Square”; the Islamic flag is green.  Leftist environmentalist sympathizers with Islam love green.

Strange.  I used to love the color green.

Ghonim: Not the “American” version of Google

From our perspective, Google seems so…”American.”  When we hear on the news that a Google executive manipulated the thronging masses in Egypt yearning to breath free, we associate that with good-hearted American computer prowess and motives.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Wael Ghonim, the Google Executive in question, has NOTHING to do with US interests, at least not the interests of most Americans.

He is not merely head of Google marketing for the Middle East and North Africa.  He is an Egyptian, he is a Muslim, and he is pals with Mohamed ElBaradei, the key opposition leader promoting the Muslim brotherhood. 

One of Ghonim’s pet projects was running ElBaradei’s Facebook fan page and heading up his public relations campaign in Egypt.

So, in fact, Ghonim has manipulated and is manipulating the thronging masses to join with ElBaradei and the Muslim Brotherhood to invoke what the media calls “radical Islam”, but which is, in fact, just plain ol’ deceptive, supremacist, violent, intolerant Orthodox Islam from the dark ages.  Way to go, Google Executive.

I have to side with Vladimir Putin's Deputy with his concern about Google executives whose leash is way too long.  There is a point where irresponsible corporate meddling in the affairs of men will backfire and cause the “folks” to demand stricter controls on the freest form of communication since the telephone.  Talk about crapping in your own nest!

It will be interesting to see if the Obama administration sanctioned or promoted Google’s or Ghonim’s meddling.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Defense of freedom via warnings about Islam

Geert Wilders, the Dutch Parliamentarian who was accused of hate speech for speaking the truth about Islam, in the video below warns about the dangers of Islam to modern society and its freedoms, and those who criminalize freedom of speech required to warn of the destructive Islamic ideology.

Wish we had a Congress filled with Wilders and Wests

Wishin’ and hopin’ that “moderate” Muslims are moderate

Several who read the “Judhi Jasser Pants on Fire” post remain in denial that such a moderate sounding Muslim can be anything but moderate.  Jasser is a self-described  “moderate, conservative, devout, orthodox” Muslim.  But he refuses to explain what parts of the Qur’an, Sura, and Hadith he disavows. 

When Jews, Christians, conservatives and others swallow things Muslims say and even what they occasionally do to demonstrate their moderateness, while at the same time the same Muslims claim they are devout and orthodox, that is, followers of Muhammad and his writings, that is nothing but blind, ignorant wishful thinking.

I hate to be so blunt with several friends who are in this category.  But there is nothing else to explain believing the unbelievable.  Perhaps this is one more example of the Stockholm Syndrome:  Becoming so controlled and intimidated by your captor who should be your mortal enemy that you create an alternative reality that belies the truth.

Snap out of it people and use logic, facts, your common sense and accept the truth that is all around us.

Monday, February 14, 2011

Judhi Jasser Pants on Fire

I was listening to Glenn Beck’s radio show this morning.  One of his guests was Judhi Jasser, a Muslim medical doctor.  He is not your run-of-the-mill Muslim, but one who has been doing the conservative talk show circuit. Why?  Because he is apparently the 1 in 100,000 Muslims in this country who not merely claims he is a “moderate” Muslim, but who actually speaks out against the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and any Muslim who fights against freedom and tolerance in this nation.  He actually overtly supports our government and culture.

Here is the problem.  He also claims he is a “devout conservative orthodox” Muslim.  What is a “devout conservative orthodox Muslim” except a Muslim who is diligent in sincerely following the accepted doctrines of Islam as originated and promoted by the religion’s founder, Muhammad as recorded in the holy books of Islam, the Qur’an, Sura, and Hadith.  Now these three scriptures, together, form the explicit basis for Jew hatred, supremacist thought and deed, abuse of women and gays, war and conquest, deception, and Sharia law generally.  Yet Jasseer eshews these things, at least publicly.  

So, if Jasser rejects what is taught throughout 50% of the Islamic holy books, how can we believe that he is a devout conservative, orthodox Muslim?   Or, if we believe he is a devout, conservative, orthodox Muslim, how can we believe that he is sincerely “moderate” and isn’t acting as a front man to deceive the infidel into believing that “conservative orthodox Islam” is just another benign religion totally compatible with Western culture and values?

Jasser’s statements and actions are incompatible and mind-bending.  His claim of faith and his actions do not compute.  Listening to conversations of other “moderate Muslims” on talk radio and TV, they’re mastery of obfuscation, twisting, and spinning is remarkable.  Jasser appears no different, in spite of his rhetoric and  public actions.

Bottom line.  Orthodox Islam is an anathema to Judaism and Christianity.  Jasser’s attempt at buddying up with our culture and form of government is an extension of Islam’s use of democracy:  It is like a bus that you ride until you get where you want to go, and you get off.  It is obvious to me that Jasser is using his “moderation” and claim of “devoutness” as a double speak bus to further the misplaced tolerance of Islam in the United States.

I hope Glenn Beck understands this.  

Two things creepier than Jasser’s double speak are:

  • The US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper during a hearing on Capitol Hill last Thursday stating that the Muslim Brotherhood is secular, has eschewed violence, and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam," and
  • Suhail Khan, a member of the American Conservative Union’s board of directors which hosts and operates the CPAC’s annual conference, flatly declaring that there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.

All three of these examples result from Islamic taqiyya (deception) at its finest.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Egyptian presidential contenders are all anti-US

No surprise here.  All major presidential contenders in Egypt so far are known as highly critical of both the US and Israel.

One is Amr Moussa, the former Egyptian foreign minister.  The other is Mohamed ElBaradei, the Iranian sympathizer and anti-Israel zealot who the media praises as the nobel laureate and former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The is not great news for the US or Israel.  Read more HERE.

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Is the middle east problem Israel or Islam?

There are two overly simplistic reasons given for all middle east problems:  US energy dependence and the existence of Israel.

Most of us in the US accuse our country of excessive reliance on middle east oil.  We believe, correctly or not, that virtually all middle east foreign policy is focused on keeping our source of oil flowing.  We prop up dictators, as in Egypt, and we engage in wars, as in Iraq, for oil.  This is a jaded view of our foreign policy.  This belief denies any altruistic motive we might have, such removing perceived threats to the  national security of our allies (as in Iraq), or assisting nations that are attacked by a neighboring bully (as in the first Gulf war defending Kuwait.)  If we were not dependent on middle east oil, these issues would still exist.

Anti-Israel sentiment has been increasing.  A startling number of people, even some conservative friends, sincerely believe that if Israel, as a Jewish state, did not exist, all mid-east and Islamic rage would disappear.  All mid-east conflict would cease.  They believe that the creation of a tiny Jewish state in the midst of a Palestinian, Arabic, or Muslim region was a big mistake – that the world initiated perpetual trouble by that action.

Let’s take a closer look at this belief.

First, who occupied the lands of present day Israel, and when?  Sure, for a lengthy period prior to 1947 there was no state of Israel.  But there was a nation of Israel at that location over the course of many centuries before 79 AD, in fact for two millennia.  Palestinians have not always occupied these lands and are not automatically entitled to them.  Well, you might argue, that would mean that native Americans have a right to a nation within the United States.  There is little equivalence in this analogy on at least two counts.  The United States created free and protected zones for the native Americans called reservations, and, most importantly, the people of the United States do not maintain an intolerant ideology that calls for the cleansing of the native American population.  In fact, we have gone to great lengths to facilitate assimilation of native Americans into our neo-European culture.  Compare this with the predisposition of middle east Muslims and other anti-Semites in the world.

Secondly let’s look at the reason for the creation of Israel and the proportion of Palestinian/Arab/Muslim land involved.  The modern state of Israel was created after the conclusion of WWII.  Why?  After WWII there was still a huge amount of world guilt about the holocaust – the slaughter of six million Jews and persecution of countless others.  Anti-Semitism still smoldered in the Muslim-dominated middle east. The world lobbied for the creation of a Jewish homeland where Jews could maintain a secure homeland.  In addition, the area that would become the new state of Israel was already occupied by a significant Jewish population.  And who could legitimately complain today when the Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim populations surrounding Israel already control a dozen nations occupying an area more than fifty times the size of tiny Israel (counting Gaza, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, the Arab Emirates, and Jordon).

Now let’s consider whether Israel is the problem or Islam is the problem.   The hatred and slaughter of Jews during WWII was not provoked by a State of Israel.  There was no State of Israel at that time.  So, it does not take the existence of a State of Israel to provoke hatred toward the Jewish people.  In fact, prior to and during WWII there was an alliance between Islamic leaders in the middle east and leaders of the Third Reich to exterminate the Jews in Germany.   Anti-Semitism did not originate with the Germans.  Anti-Semitism has been a cornerstone doctrine of Islam since its founding in 610 AD.  Islam and The Third Reich were a perfect alliance with their shared objective of exterminating the Jews, even if for different reasons.

Which nation or nations in the middle east have the most in common with western culture and moral ideals?  There is one:  Israel.  All the others are dominated by the Islamic ideology which in most instances has a diametrically opposite set of moral and legal principles.  Islam is not big on tolerance, but it is big on submission.  Death is valued more than life.  Islam is not promoted via verbal evangelism, but by the sword.

Asserting that Israel is “the problem” is like claiming that the fireman in the midst of a fire is the problem, or a light in darkness is the problem – unless you have given up on the goodness of western Judeo-Christian ideals.  It does humanity no service to call “good” in the midst of “evil” “the problem” unless you believe that all cultures, all morality or the lack thereof, are of equal value and equally good.

I am saddened when I encounter folks who believe that the problem is the good in the midst of evil.  Even if we were all to cower in a small corner of the world, the ideology of Islam would continue to be motivated to convert or kill the infidel.  Where do we want to draw the line?

Saturday, February 05, 2011

Ignored truths about Islam and Islamic nations

In several previous blog posts I lamented our nation’s ignorance of the true nature of Islamic ideology and how that ignorance will adversely affect the outcome of our efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. 

And now we are seeing the consequences of our 30 years of propping up Islamic Egypt.

In these three nations there is one fact of life that we have failed to appreciate – democracy does not equal freedom.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we are spending billions on “nation-building.”  Nation building toward what end?  We are attempting to establish a democracy in a society steeped in hundreds of years of tribal and Islamic culture that only considers democracy a means to an end.  And that end is to reassert its ancient Islamic traditions through oppressive Islamic law.  Islamic law is an anathema to freedom.  In the case of nations with predominant Muslim populations, democracy equals Sharia law because that is what the population will vote for themselves.

In Egypt we have spent billions of dollars ($1.3 billion annually) propping up a dictator to restrain or placate (depending on your point of view) a nation of Muslims.  This arrangement was considered the lesser of two evils – the greater evil being a radical Islamic state overtly hostile to Israel.  The consequence of that foreign policy is a nation of Muslims in revolt against 30 years under a dictator and ripping mad at the US for supporting that arrangement.  That Muslim population apparently wants democracy – self determination – so they can self-determine their way to their preferred form of submission which most likely will  be some form of Sharia law.  What should our role, if any, be in all this?  If the Islamic population wants to place themselves into submission via a means other than a dictatorship, who are we to deny them that choice?

Sure, there are additional downsides.  The Egyptian peace agreement with Israel is a biggy.   But if we support our friends instead of those who’s civilizations and interests are diametrically opposed to our own, the threat to Israel would be greatly diminished.  Israel deserves support from the US as if it were our 51st state.  However, our current administration is torpedoing our best ally in the Middle East.  It was quite odd and troubling to hear several TV commentators refer to Egypt as our “best ally” in the middle east during the recent uprising.  And it is true that many think of Israel as a curse and the cause of all troubles in the middle east.  But then again, that is a well known Bible prophecy: “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle…” Zechariah 14:2.

The threat to our continuing access to the Suez Canal is another concern.  However, it would probably be a lot less expensive for us to succumb to Islamic blackmail for the continuing use of that critical canal by paying a specific fee for such access than it has been to prop up a whole nation run by a dictator.  And we would be seen by the world as being much less hypocritical for doing so.

We need to avoid like the plague assuming a distinction between “moderate” and “radical” Muslims and moderate and radical Islamic nations.  We must recognize that majority Muslim nations are at their core, anti-west, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and anti-freedom.  In fact, freedom itself is considered a grave deviance from their historic ideology.

We need to stop propping up Islamic nations.  It wastes our resources, gives us a bad rep, is contrary to our own sense of ethics, and deludes us into thinking the world is at our beck and call.  The reality is that we are headed for a clash of civilizations.  No amount of politically correct self-deception can change this.  From FrontPage Magazine by Arnold Ahlert:   

We can hope for the best possible outcome, but we must prepare for the worst, even if that means preparing for a worldwide war.  We must begin recognizing we’ve spent the last ten years hoping that what we’d like to believe about the majority of Muslims is likely nothing more than wishful thinking.  No one truly knows what the majority of Muslims think.  Maybe not even Muslims themselves.  It is by their deeds that we shall know them.  In that sense, who finally gains control in Egypt, if democratically elected, will speak volumes.

Read Ahlert’s whole article here

Friday, February 04, 2011

Obama’s appeasement emboldens Islamists

There is all kinds of speculation about the role the US had or didn’t have in the Egyptian debacle.  They range all the way from the accusation that the CIA, FBI, and State Department were caught totally flat-footed and were unaware that a popular uprising was about to take place, all the way to belief that the US designed and instigated the uprising beginning in 2007 and it just got out of control with unintended consequences.

We don’t know the truth of these things with any certainty.

But this is what we do know.
  • President Obama is Islam-inspired, having given many speeches complementary of Islam in all its forms.
  • Obama denies any relationship of so-called “Islamic radicals” with Islam, as if the terrorists had no training or relationship with prevailing Islamic teaching despite facts to the contrary.
  • President Obama has denied or avoided association of Islam with acts of terror in the US such as the Fort Hood massacre and various aborted attempts despite Muslims carrying out these acts explicitly in the name of Islam.
  • Obama served as “grand appeaser” in his several trips to the mid-east, especially in Egypt in his first year as president.  Obama denigrated the US while at the same time exaggerating the contributions of Islam in both the ancient culture of Egypt and the growth of the US.
  • The Obama administration is working with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood (the parent Islamic group promoting terrorism throughout the world) in Egypt to promote their role in a new Egyptian government.
  • Both the Egyptian and Israeli governments feel a deep sense of betrayal by the Obama administration in the apparent knee-jerk support of the Muslim Brotherhood in a re-formed Egyptian government.
Do you see a problem with any of this?   There is no doubt that Obama emboldened this uprising via his reputation, words, and actions.  What else can we expect to happen in a nation comprised of 80 to 90 percent Muslims, most of whom were educated in universities promoting orthodox Islamic teachings and anti-western hatred?

Here is an excerpt of an article by Jeffrey T. Kuhner from World Tribune:
Mr. Obama’s appeasement policies are naive and dangerous. Their net effect has been to embolden and strengthen radical Islam. Under his watch, Muslim extremists are on the march. Egypt is about to fall. Hizbullah controls Lebanon. Iraq is ravaged with suicide bombings, while Christian sects are being exterminated. The Taliban are surging in Afghanistan. Entire regions of Pakistan are infested with jihadists. Turkey is becoming more fundamentalist.  
The riots in Egypt reveal the bankruptcy of Mr. Obama’s Muslim outreach strategy. It was in Cairo in 2009 that he apologized for America’s supposed sins, vowing a new U.S.-Islamic partnership. The Arab street, however, rightly does not respect a leader who speaks ill of his own nation on foreign soil. Mr. Obama’s speech — and his subsequent policies — have demonstrated his complete failure to confront the rising tide of political Islam. His foreign policy is a disaster. American power and prestige are in decline. The vacuum is being filled by the new barbarians who are coming to power in Cairo.  

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a radio talk show personality and a columnist at The Washington Times and
I couldn’t agree more.

Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Beck gets it right about Islamic threat

I have been critical of Glenn Beck in the past for equivocating on the Islamic threat.

Equivocation no more.  He said it all on his latest show.

As he was saying what needed to be said about Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood on his Tuesday, February 1, 2011, show, I felt a wave of concern come over me for his safety.  I have spoken to groups of 30 and 300 about the truth of Islam.  He spoke to a group of millions.

I urge you to watch this important show – it is a must see – the clearest explanation of the Islamic threat via Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and the progressive left I have seen.  And then again, Glenn is excellent at laying out the truth in an understandable manner.

I have deep admiration for Beck in speaking out.  I am wondering if such bold and truthful action had anything to do with his absence from his February 2nd show.

View his February 1st show HERE.

Pray for Glenn and his family.

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Afghanistan is one leak in the dike among many

A recent article about a threat coming out of Yemen again causes me to wonder why, exactly, are we trying to remake Afghanistan.  The original reason for our invasion, as I recall, was because Afghanistan was a breeding, training, and launching ground for Islamic attacks against the United States. 9-11 was apparently the last straw.  So, we had to go in there to reduce or neutralize that threat. Isn't it odd that we invade Afghanistan when most of the 9-11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia?  Why didn't we go after Saudi Arabia?  I'll leave that for your imagination.

Now we have a dozen other nations that harbor the same sort of threat as Afghanistan did.  Yemen is but one.  We certainly don't have the resources to occupy and "remake" each of those, do we?  Why are we so hell-bent on devoting such a large chunk of our military resources in Afghanistan when the real threat is so widely dispersed among nations and regions?  This strikes me as a mega-version of the tactics used by the British during the American revolution:  They lined up their troops in formal ranks with fife and drum and marched slowly against the revolutionaries while their ranks were picked off by hidden natives using assymetrical tactics.  Except now the roles are reversed. 

We can't afford to persist in our costly, ineffective strategy that requires our occupation and attempts to remake the natives (Islamists) into our own image.  These tactics are ineffective even when we focus our resouces into one or two places.  The source of the threat is dispersed, coming from many places, even from within our own nation.  Our leaders have not yet grrasped the truth of the nature of the enemy we are fighting.  We have little understanding for the Islamic mindset that motivates their leaders and followers.  At the same time we have excessive tolerance for their actions and objectives.  We have, to a great degree, minimized the values of our own culture and political system and embraced the idea that we should pump our national treasury into cultures that are the antithesis of our own. 

This insanity needs to stop.  But it won't stop anytime soon because we have thousands of ignorant idealists pouring out of our progressive universities that are hell-bent on remaking our nation and culture into Obama's dream - the progressive's dream - that we are all one, no culture is better than another.  This new gospel promotes the idea that we must not just tolerate, but we must respect and embrace all other cultures as equal to or better than our own.

That is why our nation is in decline - it is by design - a consequence of our affluence - allowing too much time on the hands of academia to devise new ways to control and direct society.  This consequence is filling a cultural vacuum.  We have created this vacuum via our collective passivity, our preoccupation with entertainment and "stuff", along with our falling away from the faith of our fathers.  Oh yes, we still have an "American culture."  But it has morphed from a culture of necessity and substance into a culture of diversion and fluff.  This is a classic case of the historic fall of nations.