The case for “collateral damage”…

It is an understatement that our nation’s rules of engagement have been onerous and has handcuffed our ability to prevail in our mission – whatever the heck our “mission” has been - in the Islamic Middle East.

A major part of the problem is we have not identified the enemy.  We have not defined the enemy.  When you don’t know who the enemy is, it makes sense that you don’t fire until fired upon.  But don’t you think that in many instances that “rule of engagement” causes our response to be a bit too late?  That has been the cause of the death of dozens of our soldiers in many “insider” attacks by supposed “allied” Muslims.

In Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, whereever our forces operate amidst Muslim populations, we can’t tell the enemy from the ally.  The mistake we make is assuming most are allies.  But how can we know?  We have taken the Islamic ideology off the table as a means of knowing motive.  The means are legion; the opportunities are ripe.  The average Muslim’s belief system and culture provides the motive:  kill the infidel.  Knives, scimitars, guns, and explosives are everywhere.  Our foolish integration with and trust of the Muslim natives is commonplace.

Heck, even in the United States, surveys reveal that 25% of Muslims here believe their faith justifies killing the infidel – “jihad in the cause of Allah”, they call it.  And that assumes that the other 75% are telling the truth, which is highly doubtful, given Islam’s doctrine of taqiyya.

What do we suppose the percent of Muslims in Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan believe their faith justifies killing the infidel?  My guess is pretty damned close to 100%.

We act like fools with our rules of engagement.   We believe we can manipulate the natives into working toward our ideals when their ideals are 180 degrees opposite ours.

So as not to offend our pretend, make-believe “allies” we are ultra-careful to avoid firing on the wrong vehicle, droning the wrong driver, bombing the wrong house, destroying the wrong oil field or tanker.

Looking back to wars we actually won, we had no problem with collateral damage.  Why not?  Because we knew the civilian populations supported the powers that waged their wars against us.The most recent generations, born since the 80’s, wince at the idea of actually hurting anyone in war.  They have not experienced desperation and real threat.

That is problem number 2:   Since World War II we have engaged in wars where we did not, as a nation, sense an existential threat.  Only a threat of our very existence as a nation can motivate us to do whatever it takes to win a war.  And to win a war, we need to ignore collateral damage.  In fact, the more collateral damage we cause, the more likely the enemy will relent and succumb.  That has been the case in wars throughout millenia of history.

Problem number 1 and problem number 2 are interrelated in our present circumstance regarding Islam.

If we understood the Islamic belief system, its political ideology, it goals, objectives, and methods, and those who possess allegiance (or faith or commitment) to that ideology as the enemy, we would appreciate the fact that there is an real threat to our nation, our culture, our freedoms, and our very existence.

Only after we accept the reality that Islam and those who insist on identifying with that belief system are a real theat will we be convinced that “collateral damage” is not just OK, but essential to achieve a clear victory.

Once we reach that point in understanding the enemy, our objective in winning will be clear, and our rules of engagement will evaporate.  We will be free to do whatever it takes to demonstrate to both the enemy’s civilian population and their leaders that their homes, vehicles, businesses, as well as their “whack-a-mole” military units and infrastructure are essential and just targets.

Until we reach that point in understanding the enemy, we have NO BUSINESS committing our soldiers and resources to fighting ghosts in Islamic lands.

Candidates on banning Muslims temporarily…

Cruz broadbrushed all New Yorkers with his criticism of Trump’s “New York values.”

All the candidates condemned Trump for broadbrushing all potential Muslim immigrants for his proposal to  ban the immigration of all Muslims until we can  figure out what is going on. 

Here is the difference.  Cruz broadbrushed millions of American citizens who reside in a region of our country.  Americans who are taxpayers.  Americans who are loyal and patriotic and hard working.  They don’t deserve to be broadbrushed.

Trump broadbrushed millions of Muslims who reside in foreign countries.  Countries whose Islamic belief system and culture are totally at odds with Western values - Islamic nations whose Muslim populations have been rife with jihadi killers, rapists and myriad dark ages vile behaviors.  They DO deserve to be broadbrushed - we REALLY haven’t figured things out yet.  The other candidates amply demonstrated this with their performance during the dabates.

Those other Republican jackasses can’t tell the difference between native New Yorkers and foreigners whose religion promotes killing unbelievers!

Thank God Trump did not back down when he was asked if he wanted to recant his statement.

Trump is right.  All the other candidates have a half-assed response that assumes the ONLY problem is ISIS or the ONLY problem is those Muslims who have openly demonstrated that they are Islamic radicals.

All the candidates EXCEPT Trump ignore the fact that Islamic doctrine requires faithful Muslims to do exactly what the RADICALS are doing.

We have had numerous intelligence failures due to our reluctance to identify the Islamic belief system as the problem.

Our recent intelligence failures in San Bernardino, in Boston and other places demonstrate that our leaders and intelligence services do not understand the problem well enough to prevent these attacks by Muslims who were not known to be ISIS and not known to be overt “radicals.”   Islam is radical.  Islam’s doctrines are radical.

All the other candidates claim we can’t offend Muslims because we need to maintain our alliances with Muslim nations in the Middle East to fight ISIS.

ISIS is not the only problem.  Islamic doctrine is the problem.

Trump’s priority is security WITHIN OUR OWN NATION before we are fully capable of being effective in fighting enemies overseas.

Kasich, Christie, and Rubio ask “what about the Muslims in Indonesia – Indonesia is an ally.  What about the Muslims in Turkey and Egypt – Turkey and Egypt are allies.” 

The reality is that Indonesia, Turkey and Egypt are crawling with radical Muslims, ISIS fighters, the Muslim Brotherhood, and millions of other Muslims who faithfully follow the Islamic ideology that promotes jihad, sharia, the caliphate and the destruction of the West.  Even many of the mosques in our own nation are crawling with radicals in waiting.

Kasich, Christie, Rubio – all of them EXCEPT Trump – fail to understand the danger of the Islamic ideology and the millions from ALL Muslim countries – the so-called “allies” and the others – that are the real and present danger to the United States as we know it.

The prioity of the other candidates is how we appear to the Muslims in the world that don’t even allow churches or synagogues.  Trump’s priority is our own national security in a nation that allows mosques.

Trump is absolutely correct on this issue.  The others favor policies that jeopardize our national security and sovereignty.

Financial markets reflecting the American mood…

I don’t own any stocks at this point, but I do watch the markets to monitor one aspect of our nation’s financial health and national mood.  Bloomberg Business is one of the sites I frequent in additon to The Economic Collapse blog and Zero Hedge.

Bloomberg is interesting for two reasons:

1. They regularly report on the futures market late at night to predict the likely direction of the markets the following day of trading, and

2. When the markets are stable, the future’s market usually provides an accurate picture of the next days’ trading.  When the markets are in hyper-sensitive mode as they are now, the futures market most often is ignored the next day.

And right now and over the last several months, the markets are in hyper-sensitive mode.  Every little news story about the Chinese economy, oil prices, corporate earnings reports, or Janet Yellin’s dreams about interest rates sends the markets into a bi-polar episode – either up or down.

Last night Bloomberg reported positive futures gains.  This afternoon, the Dow Jones closed down over 300 points.  See the picuture?

At 10pm the news might be good, so the futures market increases by 2%.  Then at 9:30 the next morning, the market opens down 100 points.  Why?  Because China’s factory orders were down, oil prices were down, or Janet Yellen had a bad dream about interest rates.

Here’s more analysis of the world’s financial markets.

Twitchy markets are a sign of uncertainty and fear.  Businesses and most investors don’t thrive on uncertainty.   I read an article yesterday giving investor advice which was:  Dump on the spikes. Period. Normally the advice is balenced with “buy on the lows” but that is not presently sound advice.  “Get out when you can without losing your shirt” is today’s message.

One other interesting feature of Bloomberg Business is the frequent establishment optimist’s article sprinkled in amidst the hard financial news.  The financial industry, like most others, is a cheerleader for itself.  They are big on positive PR to stimulate business.   Despite our financial picuture being less than rosy, the bias of the industry is to publish unrealistically upbeat articles about how great the myriad of investment opportunities are.  Some of these articles are similar to a home builder urging you to build your house in a floodplain in the midst of a record rain event.

There is a good chance that just as the bad economy of 2008 got the “hope and change” Obama elected in 2008, another bad economy may bode well for a business sense candidate like Trump in 2016.

Why one candidate checks off more of my boxes…

My president selection “litmus test” is this:

“Which presidential candidate shows the most enthusiasm for defending our nation and culture, promoting the prosperity of this nation, and also has a track record that demonstrates his ability to do what he says.”

Here is a subjective matrix I’ve created based on six broad categories of candidate characteristics that I believe are important.  “1” is least and “10” is most.  Higher “total” is better than lower total…

	Demonstrated Ability to Accomplish	Ability to  Show and Generate Enthusiasm	Speaks with Boldness and Truth - Not "Politically Correct"	Proposes Programs and Actions That Get to the Heart of the Problem	Promotes Private Sector Growth over Government Growth	Promotes Actions that Enhance our own Nation over a One World Govt.	TOTAL
Bush	5	3	2	5	5	3	23	Bush
Carson	3	4	7	6	7	7	34	Carson
Clinton	1	3	3	2	2	1	12	Clinton
Christie	6	6	4	5	6	5	32	Christie
Cruz	5	6	6	5	7	7	36	Cruz
Fiorina	6	6	5	5	5	5	32	Fiorina
Gilmore	4	2	4	4	4	4	22	Gilmore
Huckabee	4	4	6	6	6	6	32	Huckabee
Kasich	4	1	3	3	3	3	17	Kasich
Pataki	3	1	3	3	3	3	16	Pataki
Paul	4	5	6	4	8	7	34	Paul
O'Malley	2	1	2	2	2	2	11	O'Malley
Rubio	2	6	5	4	5	5	27	Rubio
Sanders	2	6	4	1	1	1	15	Sanders
Santorum	5	4	5	5	5	5	29	Santorum
Trump	9	9	9	8	9	6	50	Trump

A candidate’s ability to accomplish what he sets out to do is demonstrated by their accomplishments in office or in their chosen career.  Time or family in political office is not an indication of ability.  In career development, transferable skills and successes are much more important than longevity.

Enthusiasm and energy shown by a candidate translates to generating enthusiasm in others.  Which candidates are most motivational? That is critical in a leader.

A major problem in our nation is the inability or unwillingness of our leaders to speak the truth.  Truth is too often withheld for fear of offending.  This is particularly relevant to the truth of the consequences of unbridled immigration and our collective and self-inflicted ignorance of the dangers of orthodox Islamic doctrine on our national security and form of government.  Who speaks most boldly and truthfully on these topics?

What  most threatens the security, prosperity, and freedoms of our nation?  Which candidates have proposed bold viable solutions to those threats?  It is clear that uncontrolled illegal immigration, poor international agreements, failure to recognize threats posed by opposing world views, and discounting the role of the individual in achieving success are among the major threats to the security, prosperity and freedoms this nation has been known for.  Takng responsibility away from the individual, family and community and pushing it toward government is policy that diminishes personal freedom.

The private sector is the engine of national prosperity.  The government is not.  The government consumes and controls resources, products and skills – it doesn’t produce them.  Which candidate is likely to best promote private sector success over the growth of government?

There is a world-wide impetus toward a world wide mega government.  Nationalism is increasingly condemned as an evil to be avoided.  Borders are ignored, national identities scorned, and multi-national agreements that diminish national sovereignty are the new cure to the world’s ills.  Is this the direction we think is appropriate for our nation, our heritage, our culture, our freedoms and our sense of well-being?  Not for me they aren’t.

Here is a quote from Diana West that nails it:

“For many decades, the unspoken answer  to this inconceivable question (inconceivable, that is, before Trump) has been yes. "We Are the World" has been the USA's unofficial anthem, the political muzak of our times that we either hum along to, or accept in teeth-gritted silence for fear of censure (or cancelled party invitations). "Openness," "multiculturalism," "globalism" -- all have been pounded into us for so long that I think Americans despaired of ever hearing anyone give voice again to a patriotic vision of American interests. Then Trump came along and changed the tune. Americans perked up their ears. Maybe a wall -- which is just the beginning of Trump's detailed immigration policy, which Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) calls "exactly the plan America needs" -- would make America possible again. That would be great, indeed.”

As for me, the table above reflects the priorities that are most important in a national leader.

I like Cruz, Carson, and Rubio.  But their shortcomings diminish their effectiveness in areas critical to an effective Presidency.

Cruz withholds the truth about Islam, giving us the George Bush impession that “Islam is peace.”  He fails to express the truth.  Why, I don’t know.  But that is a huge problem.  Again, from Diana West:

“I regret to say that Sen. Cruz does not support Trump's moratorium, deferring instead to a rosier vision of Islam and immigration screening both in order, politely, to reject it.”

Carson is bolder with the truth, but he fails in the leadership arena.  I agree with pundits who suggest “speak softly but carry a big stick” is excessively minimalist.  Sometimes speaking loudly is necessary to rally the masses and intimidate the asses.

Rubio speaks a good speech.  He is lucid, just like Obama, but moreso.  But he is weak on immigration, and is Bush-esque, rather reserved, really, on the Islam problem.

Those who are lower-end candidates based on my criteria?

O’Malley is barely running, like the lower half of the Republicans in the polls.

Clinton is a serial liar and has made a disaster of her credibility both in the Middle East and in defending her husband.

Sanders is an unapoligetic Socialist, some say Communist, who has dreams of more aggressive wealth redistribution, bigger government, world governance, with the consequences of reducing individual freedoms and initiative.

It would be refreshing if a few candidates shared former Muslim Nonie Darwish’s list of hopes for the new year as shown HERE.

The rational pessimist’s guide to 2016…

Left leaning Bloomberg Business posted this piece titled “The Pessimist’s Guide to 2016:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/pessimists-guide-to-2016/

I couldn’t resist countering Bloomberg’s leftist perspective with a more rational one.
So here is the much saner version of “The Pessimist’s Guide to 2016” based on reason and not on Bloomberg’s progressivist/communist perspective….
Global Warming/Climate Change:  Since weather always changes based on El Nino, solar activity, and a number of other yet undiscovered forces much greater than human influence, this is the more accurate pessimist’s vision:  The United States adopts international standards that elevate useless environmental restrictions above economic growth and jobs which  push the US into higher unemployment and crashes our economy.
ISIS and Islam:  Politicians and the media continue to call Islam “a religion of peace”, and we continue to spend billions of dollars on the various Whack-a-Mole iterations of Islam’s military wing which we call “radicals” while we continue to ignore the basic doctrinal evils of orthodox Islam practiced by “moderates” that persist in informing and motivating the “radicals.”
Immigration:  Our border remains open as a result of political correctness and the influence of liberals scamming for new welfare-hungry voters.  Illegal immigration continues unabated while the Muslims in high places in media and our government promote and adopt the immigration of a million more Muslims from Islamic nations that hate us.
Israel, Christians and Jews:  The US continues to show favoritism to Iran and its nuclear aspirations while handcuffing Israel’s ability to defend itself.  At the same time US domestic policy continues to prohibit practicing Christians from living their faith in their workplace while US foreign policy continues to ignore persecution of Christians abroad.
Hillary Clinton is elected which makes all the above pessimistic possibilities an absolute certainty.

The tension between “liberty” and “morality”…

Donald Trump has hit a chord with the average American.  Even if you don’t care for Trump’s style, that chord is his habit of speaking the truth boldly without fear of consequence.  The truth is his defense.  The secret of his campaign successes, whether you vote for him or not, is his understanding that most of us like truth spoken boldly by people not fearful of its consequences.

I experienced the joy of speaking the truth boldly when being interviewed for a job with the New York State Manufactured Housing Association.  During the interview I told them everything I thought was wrong with the public perception and their marketing of manufactured homes.  I didn’t care if I got the job or not.  I was offered the job.

Political correctness has led us into the dark hole of hiding the truth.  We have gotten into that habit for fear of criticism for our thoughts.  Political correctness is a form of bondage:  Being intimidated from speaking truth.  This is the same as losing our freedom of speech.  Loss of freedom of speech is a loss of one of our cherished liberties.

One example of this loss of liberty, more specifically, the loss of our freedom of speech, is the wave of criticism that inundates anyone who speaks the truth about Islamic doctrine and history.  Wow, what a hot button that has become.  Those who suggest that Islamic doctrine is the primary motivator of Muslim violence and atrocities unleashes a torrent of mocking, marginalizing and demeaning of any who dares to speak that truth.

Trump found that out when he suggested the immanently rational policy of keeping those who claim the Islamic doctrine as their belief system from entering this country until we can understand what is going on.  He was mocked, marginalized ahd castigated as a hating, intolerant bigot by virtually all other Democrat AND Republican candidates.

The same hatred is thrust on those who suggest that the practice of homosexuality is wrong.  Biblical morality held the standard that homosexuality was wrong for over two millenia.  Yet now anyone who attempts to uphold that standard is slandered as an intolerant homophobic bigot.

It seems that most behaviors we have for centuries considered immoral are now the protected new normal.  Everything from legalized drugs, to promiscuity, to gay marriage, to uncontrolled government spending, to disrespecting authority, to pornography are now ok.  And to speak against any of these things is now narrow minded and out of touch.

This new tolerance for everything has become a tyrant against liberty and free speech.  We are no longer allowed to speak about moral truths without fear of criticism and slander.  We have reached the point where there is little room for morality as Christians and Jews have understood morality for centuries.

Ask yourself this:  Without morality, at what point do our former liberties of freedom of speech and religion turn into  anarchy, choas, and oppression?

The question naturally arises:  Whose morality shall predominate?  Can we have a society with two very different sets of moral standards?  Can we have a nation who’s morality is based on the traditional interpretation of the Bible at the same time as we have a libertarian/atheist morality of “anything goes” at the same time we have an Islamic morality based in their Sharia?

I suggest that a nation that is no longer based on a single predominant morality is a nation whose end is near.  We are slouching toward that very end with our wholesale rejection of a unifying Judeo-Christian Bible-based morality

“And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand”, proclaimed Mark in Mark 3:25.  Abraham Lincoln paraphrased that Biblical quote by proclaiming “A house divided against itself cannot stand” in reference to the nation divided by the slavery issue.  Just as divisive as the slavery issue was back then are both the division created by the jettisoning of traditional Biblical morality and the invitation of Sharia resulting from our foolish immigration policies today.  However, I do not share Lincoln’s positive prophecy of unity he held in his day in our present situation without a renewal of our faith and God’s help.

The nation has become just as divided today by our our political correctness  that slanders morality and truth as it was in the darkest days of the civil war.  Both Mark and Abraham expressed a universal truth. 

Why we haven’t won a war in 70 years…

And why we are wasting resources on this one.

1945 was the last time we won a war.  WWII was the last time the American people celebrated a military victory.   Well, perhaps with one exception that most of us now admit didn’t turn out too well :  We ‘won’ in Iraq.  But the power vacuum we created in Iraq after Desert Storm created a worse monster than Sadam Hussein.  Iraq was surrounded by other nations dominated by even worse monsters than him.  Hussein was effective in keeping the lid on the roiling Muslim masses.  We removed the lid.

What’s different in our  victory in Japan compared to Iraq?  How come we didn’t create a power vacuum in Japan after we bombed the crap out of that place?

The Japanese were not Islamic.  They were civilized.   Come to think of it, all of the non-Islamic world seems civilized compared to most Muslim-dominated countries.

Here is the essence of why we haven’t won a war in 70 years:

• No subsequent engagement has been triggered by an existential threat.  Consequently, we have not felt morally compelled to ‘pull out all the stops’ that keep us from using all available means to win.

• We cannot win wars with our rules of engegement on lockdown, both at home and abroad. 

• At home we are forbidden to identify the ideology that breeds terrorism.  We refuse to “identify the enemy”.  Most of the presidential candidates, both Republicans and Democrats, say the enemy is “terror.”  Only a couple, Carson and Trump, are truthful and brave enought to call it even “radical Islam”, even though it is really the orthodox Islamic doctrine itself.

• Abroad our ‘rules of engagement’ require our soldiers to fight with one arm behind their back, their AR’s safties perpetually on, and both eyes closed.  And above all, don’t offend their “religion” and don’t hurt any “civilians.”

• God forbid we injure any “civilians” in our fight against ISIS, even though there is a 99.9% certainly that every Muslim civilian over there supports ISIS in some way.  How can I say that?  Because the ideology of ISIS is the ideology of orthodox Islam.  A headline from none other than Russia Today reads “US refuses to bomb Islamic State’s ‘media centers’ over possible civilian casualties.”  Ain’t we sweet.

• We refuse to stop the influx of Muslim immigrants among whom every US intelligence service warns include unknown numbers of terrorists.  We would be such devils to put a moratorium on any more Muslims immigrating to this country until Congress can figure things out. 

• Don’t talk evil of Islam.  The News York Time headline reads:  “Malala Yousafzai calls Donlad Trump’s Remarks on Muslims ‘Full of Hatred’  Yup, even the sweet little Muslim poster child, the new heroin of the Muslim-apologist left, Malala Yousafzai, warns “the more you speak about Islam and against all Muslims, the more terrorists we create.”  She is Islam’s new propaganda prop.  Can you imagine if we had that attitude during WWII?  Don’t offend the Nazis!  Imagine Congress and presidential candidates of the early 1940’s saying “if we prohibit Nazi immigrants from Germany coming into our country, we will offend them and we will create more violent Nazis.  We did have a few Nazi apologists.  They were called traitors and seditionists.

• We fail to acknowledge that just because there appears to be a number of good people who believe in a particular ideology, it does not make the ideology good.  There were some very nice Nazis, even as neighbors, perhaps.  There are some very nice Muslims.  A seemingly nice Muslim does not change the character of Islam.  Islam and those who believe in it reamin a threat.

• We have failed to understand the key ingredients of orthodox Islam and the culture it breeds:  Supremacism, intolerance, deception, sharia, and caliphate with the objective of world domination.  Nazism is mirror image of Islam doctrine, except without Islam’s religious fervor.

• And key, we have failed to recognize the doctrines, promoters and armies of orthodox Islam as an existential threat.  We are likely to prevail only after we acknowledge that existential threat.

  So we continue a domestic and foreign policy of half measures to protect our homeland and to address the enemy abroad.  He have failed to identify the enemy and we certainly don’t want to offend anyone.  Half measures lose.

  We’re warned that if we take truly effective measures to enhance our security, we will offend and create more jihadi’s.  It’s interesting that “offend” is a root of “offensive.”  We need to be doing a lot more “offending” to have an effective offence.  Those who only have a reactive defense – so as not to offend – will lose.

  Apparently we just need to lay down (as in “give up”; “surrender”) and let the dirty little bastards have their way with us.

  From ABC News:  In his effort to calm the American public and help us all feel more secure, Obama declared today that “We do not have any specific and credible information about an attack on the homeland” during our holiday season.

  With that assurance, I feel so much better.  Especially after he said virtually the same thing a few days before the San Bernardino attack which occurred as a result of his making social media and anything related to Islam or Muslms off limits to our intelligence services.

  Here is a quote closer to the truth from another woman…

How Shall We Respond to the Demands and Actions of Islam?

The Republican candidates for president have proposed varying means of confronting the challenges of Islam in this country and abroad.

They range from...

• Trump's proposal to temporarily halt all Muslim immigration to the US "until Congress can figure out what the hell is going on."
• To Carson's earlier suggestions that we need to create a Muslim watch list of some sort and monitor some mosques, which I'm sure we already do.
• To Cruz who believes that only "radical" Muslims, however he defines them, are watch-worthy.
• To Rubio who pretty much channels Bush and Obama in their open borders approach and belief that Islam is a religion of peace and would suggest that "ya'all come."

Actually, none of the candidates have publicly admitted that orthodox Islam as believed and practiced by most Muslims, both here and abroad, represent as severe a problem as I have claimed for several years.  

If we considered the views all US citizens on a bell curve, with the extreme left side reflecting those who believe Islam is just like any religion and poses no problem whatsoever, and the extreme right side being "OMG, we need to nuke Mecca and Medina and round up and deport all Muslims, most Republican candidates as well as the Republican establishement are somewhere on the left half of the bell curve. Most citizens are either in the middle section or slightly to the right, but within the 34.1% half of the middle.

Most Democrats, liberals and progressives likely fall below the -13.6% (-2 standard diviations (SDs) on the left side of the curve.

My understanding of Islam brings my level of concern and needed action to the +13% range on the right side of the curve.  Yes there are some folks to the right of me who propose more drastic self-preservation measures than I have so far.  I've posted their plan at the end of this blog.  But first, I want to speculate a bit about what may cause our collective concern about Islam to move further to the right - where the +2 standard divation (SD) becomes zero.

What will cause our population to demand that our reluctant leaders take the actions that Trump, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Bill Warner or those currently further to the right on the curve believe we need to take concerning Islam and Muslims to effectively defend our nation, our culture and our freedoms?

By the way, the Muslims who committed the San Bernardino terror attack were not radicals.  They were mainstream.  More on that HERE.

How many more 9-11's, San Bernardinos, Fort Hood 'Hassans', or worse, will it take?  How many "sleeper cells" are there?  How about a small EMP that destroys the electric grid in most of the northeast US for a month in the name of Islam?  How about a small nuke in the heart of 3 US cities simultaneously in the name of Islam?  Or how about an attack as portrayed in one of William Forstechen's books, "Day of Wrath" , where a dozen elementary schools are simultaneously attacked ala the Beslan school seige in south Russia in the name of Islam. 

With those possibilities, I present to you Ann Barnhardt's plan for handling what she calls "the Musloid problem."  I am not where she is - yet.  I am at the +2 SD while she is at the right-most fringe at +3 SD.  But, as noted above, it may only take a few more, or one large Islamic-sponsored event to trigger a hell on earth for a lot of folks - when the majority of us adopt the current mindset of today's +3 SD fringe.

How a Sane, Virile Leader or Leaders Would Handle the Musloid Problem

by Ann Barnhardt

THIS is how the musloid problem should be faced and solved.  It isn’t difficult.

1.  Formally declare islam a POLITICAL SYSTEM, and in no way a religion or falling under any religious protections whatsoever.
2.  Criminalize islam in every form.
3.  Formally recognize the islamic caliphate as a political entity. Define as Islamic Suzerainty ANY NATION that tolerates its existence or engages in any diplomatic negotiations or dialogue with any part of the Caliphate as defined above. (Man up, Switzerland.)
4.  Declare war on the islamic caliphate and all of its Suzerainties.
5.  Nuke Mecca and Medina to glass after generously, mercifully giving a 24 hour evacuation notice.
6.  Seize and physically destroy every mosque in the homeland.
7.  Arrest, intern and deport every musloid.  Cancel the citizenship of those with citizenship.  This was done with American citizens who were members of the German American Bund (American Nazi Party) during WWII.  And yes, you’re damn right it was the morally correct thing to do.  Read up HERE.)
8.  Establish a quarantine on all majority islamic nations, shoot down all aircraft attempting to leave the airspace, excepting deportation aircraft returning for the next load of garbage.  Intercept and tow back to port of origin all ships and boats attempting to leave any port.  Build walls on all land borders with every inch within range of .50 cal sentry guns.
9.  Send in the missionaries.  Consecrate all formerly islamic lands to Jesus Christ the Sovereign King.  Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  Pray the Divine Office.  Baptize every human being that asks for it.  The rest will take care of itself.

Agree or disagree on any of the above points, but understand that the gist of the solution is the following:

• Stop the spread.
• Contain them where they are.
• Use the only thing they understand – PHYSICAL FORCE AND STRENGTH.
• Aggressively proselytize.
• Fully acknowledge that even a converted musloid, like a domesticated wild animal, will be dangerous for the rest of his life and can never be fully trusted.

Ann Barnhardt
11 December 2015
Feast of St. Damasus

Why Trump's Plan is Right and Others are Wrong...

The entire Republican and Democrat establishment (difference, much?) went ape-dung with Trumps's plan to stop all Muslim immigration "until Congress can figure out what the hell is going on."

This "Daily Beast" site exemplifies the vitriole against Trump for his plan.  The "Beast" also slams all who highlight the orthodox Islamic ideology that drives the radicals.  This is little different than the attacks from the Republican establishment.

And then we have Breitbart, who "gets it" and publishes articles like "Roger Stone:  Trump's Muslim Immigration Ban 'Extraordinary, Brilliant' Move."

Even those who like Trump are suggesting his approach is wrong and a "less offensive " approach is better.  For example, Sean Hannity claims that a shutdown of immigration from specific Muslim countries like Syria would be better because it wouldn't offend an entire religion.

The problem with that is that 100's of thousands of devout (aka "radicalized") Muslims already live in US-allied countries like Great Britain, Germany and many others, and then emigrate to the US from there.  So what good is it to prohibit Muslim entry only from Syria, Iran, Iraq, and the other 99.9% Muslim-only intolerant Islamic nations?

The main beef with Trump's plan is that it targets a "religion."  Let's look at that alleged "problem." 

1. Is Islam just another religion? 
2. Are attacks by Muslims the major reason for our concern about terror attacks in this country?
3. Is our failure to identify the unpleasant characteristics of the Islamic ideology a major reason for our failure to stem terror here and abroad?
4.  How do we keep Muslims out (even temporarily)?
5. Why should this be a "temporary" ban?

Let's consider these questions in detail.

Is Islam just another religion?  No. It is miles different than any other because its significant components of deception, violence, hatred, intolerance, legal and political system and not a part of any other.  In fact there is a former civil prosecutor who wrote a paper titled "Is Islam a Relgion."  It can be downloaded HERE.  HERE is an abbreviated version of this reasoning.  The doctrines of Islam are in fact seditious in any non-Muslim nation and consequently practioners of Islam should be treated as a seditionists.

Are attacks by Muslims the major reason for our concern about terror attacks in this country? Yes.  The attacks of September 11, 2001, and all the subsequent Muslim-related threats and attacks in the US are the primary reason we created the Department of Homeland Security and why we have felt a need to spend billions per year more than we did before that attack.  HERE is a list of Muslim perpetrated terror attacks on US soil.  This does not include the hundreds of thwarted attacks.  HERE is an incomplete list of Muslim terror sympathizers in the US.  

Is our failure to identify the unpleasant characteristics of the Islamic ideology a major reason for our failure to stem terror here and abroad?  Yes.  HERE are the Islamic verses that promote violence and terror - and these are not rare, random "out of context" verses.  These are the foundation of Islamic doctrine embedded in centuries of Islamic belief and practice.

How do we keep Muslims out (even temporarily)?   We need a multi-layered approach, yet to be developed.  First, our government officials need to admit three things:  1) They do not have all potential Islamic attackers on their radar, obviously - and far from it,  2) The Islamic ideology is subversive and those who practice it are seditionists, and 3)  Islam, as currently promoted and practiced, is a subversive political ideology and not subject to religious protection.  

Once these facts are accepted, prohibit the entry of any individual who:

1) Is from any country that has a super majority Islamic population. The exception would be individuals who have been demonstrably persecuted minorities who have no evident Islamic preferences or tendencies.  "Evident Islamic preferences or tendencies" would include disavowal of the Shahada, specifically, as well as disavowal of the Five Pillars of Islam

2) Cannot disavow the Five Pillars of Islam.

3) Cannot pass subjective questioning.  Knowing that a well-practiced Islamic doctrine is deception (taqiyya), and that those with ill-intent will lie about their beliefs, additional layers of vetting are required. These include questioning feelings about various acts of Islamic violence in the world and observations of reactions that indicate standard known "giveaways" or "red-lights."

4)  Appear on standard intelligence data bases, no fly lists, and related indicators of hostile beliefs, actions or propensities of individuals to belive in or commit violent acts;  having a history of agreeing with or promoting Islamic doctrine, including Sharia, and related Islamic beliefs and acts incompatible with Western civilization.

Why should this be a "temporary" ban?  It shouldn't.  It should become permanant.  Once "Congress can figure out what the hell is going on" they should realize that Islam is a pernicious ideology that is thoroughly incompatible with the US legal system, our form of government, our culture, and our Judeo-Christian beliefs.

To set the record staight as to the exact words Trump used to convey his proposal regarding Muslim immigration, as opposed to the distortions in the headlines of liberal media, below is a copy of the statement by the Trump campaign: