Tag Archives: Left

Fifteen Years After 9-11, The Free West Has Lost, and Islam Knows It.


Darker, much darker days are coming.

Embracing a lie, embracing bigger lies, refusing to see a beast for what it is,  and then willfully and deliberately twisting the reality unfolding before their eyes while clinging to the Left’s insistent declarations about Islam has consigned our civilization to death.


The West’s Cognitive Dissonance and fatal Case of Normalcy Bias regarding Islam was a suicide pact.  If you did not see this video in the previous blog entry from yesterday – watch it now and understand the point being made with this blog entry:


The essay below by Robert Spencer encapsulates vital truths that the video shows you in vivid detail.  We have committed suicide as a civilization and consigned our posterity to a horror of an existence.  All because we listened to Leftists who share an unholy Alliance with Islam for the sake of bulldozing everything they hate so they can build a utopia in our wake.


On this day, December 7, 1956

This war has gone on for a very long time, and today, in all the reminiscences, and eulogies, and encomia, and lamentations, virtually no one has explained why, for the simple reason that essentially no one among the political and media elites knows why. Yet even the most dire estimates of exactly how long this is going to take have fallen wide of the mark. General Petraeus said in 2010 that it could take another ten years to defeat the Afghan “insurgency.” Do you think the Taliban is likely to be disbanded and Afghan a stable, functioning republic in 2020? In 2007, Britain’s security chief, Admiral Lord Alan West, said it could take 30 years to defeat terrorism in the United Kingdom. Do you think that in 2037, Britain will be peaceful and free of jihad terrorists?

The very idea is preposterous, and it is preposterous for the same reason that here we are 15 years after the September 11, 2001 jihad attacks, and no one know why this strange war has lasted so long. West said in that 2007 interview that to defeat terrorism, “I now realise that we are talking about a generation — and by that I would say 30 years. That doesn’t mean necessarily that we are going to stay at a severe level of threat for all those years. But to be able to say one has absolutely changed the mind-set and thought of people IS going to take a generation.” Yet in reality, nothing, nothing whatsoever, is being done in Britain or anywhere else to change “the mind-set and thought of people.”

And that is precisely why, fifteen years now after 9/11, the West is weaker and more vulnerable than ever: the entire Western intelligentsia, the totality of our political and media elites, steadfastly refuses to acknowledge exactly what the “mind-set and thought” of the terrorists really is, and where it comes from. And because of that refusal, policies that don’t deal with the actual problem keep being applied and re-applied, at the cost of thousands of American lives, billions of American dollars, and nothing to show for all this expenditure but a sharp and continuing loss of American power and prestige. The jihadis who struck the U.S. on September 11, 2001 have made such immense advances since then not because they are strong, or clever, or capable, but because we are weak, short-sighted, and resolute not in fighting them but in maintaining our denial about who they are and what they want, to the extent that we have taken numerous steps not to stop them, but actually to enable them to achieve their goals — the billions to the Islamic Republic of Iran and the massive Muslim migrant influx being just two of the most recent examples.

And today, instead of stories about the jihad threat and how it can be defeated or at least contained, the media is full of articles that would give an uninformed observer the impression that 3,000 Muslims were killed in the 9/11 attacks: the media preoccupation today is almost entirely with Muslims as victims. “Muslim Americans still struggle with hate crimes, 15 years after 9/11,” claims AOL. “For many Muslims, especially those born after Sept. 11, Islamophobia seems to be a fact of life,” laments the Huffington Post. The Washington Post has a piece by Rep. Keith Ellison: “I’m the first Muslim in Congress. I believe America can beat Islamophobia. Fifteen years after 9/11, American Muslims have seen both progress and peril.”

Coming after Fort Hood, and Boston, and Garland, and Chattanooga, and San Bernardino, and Orlando, as well as Paris, Brussels, Nice, and so very many others, this myopia is ludicrous to the point of being grotesque. And it is one key reason why this war drags on, fifteen years after 9/11: millions passively and unthinkingly accept the dogma that to speak honestly and accurately about the jihadis’ motives and goals is to descend in “racism” and “bigotry,” and to endanger innocent Muslims. And so fifteen years after 9/11, it is still almost unheard-of for there to be an honest discussion of jihadi motives and goals in the mainstream.

Fifteen years after 9/11, the free West is dug in: wholeheartedly committed to denial, willful ignorance, and policies that are self-defeating to the point of suicidal. In light of that, the wonder is not that this war has lasted so long, but that we have held out so long. Unless the political landscape changes considerably and this denial is decisively rejected and discarded, darker, much darker, days are coming


Filed under War On Jihadists

The Incredible Shrinking Christian

If articles and essays I have been reading in the past year indicate a pattern, then Bible-believing Christians in America need to wake up to the fact that they are soon to become a targeted minority by the very culture and political structure that they surrendered to the Left over the last few decades.

It is no surprise to me, understanding the intentions of our Founders, the role that Christianity was to play in keeping our liberties and this republic from falling into the same ruin every republic that preceded us fell into.  As Evangelical and Bible-believing Christians shrink from active roles in both the cultural and political landscape – the neo-religious and secular Left is filling the void left behind with every abomination to both religion and liberty.

Socialism is replacing individual liberty and faith in God in this country.  Government is now being seen as our Lord and Master in every way imaginable.  Politicians are being heralded as messiahs and promoting ‘change’, that the worshipping masses praise, whereupon close inspection beyond the rhetoric reveals the worst possible kind of change for a former free republic; a politburo elite ruling over a starving mass of serfs made slaves to serve an all-powerful and all-seeing government.  Christ will no longer be Lord in such a society as we are devolving into – as history demonstrates time and again that human nature in governmental power will suffer no rivals of allegiance.

The rails are already being greased for the masses to accept the denunciation and persecution of Biblical Christians, with all kinds of works from the Left that depict fundamental Conservative Christianity as the largest threat to mankind and the nation in matters of tolerance, race, fairness and even belief itself.

We of course did not arrive here overnight, and our cultural decay and political circus of today is being made possible by the failings of the American Christian church to remain active, vigilant, steadfast and resolute in the face of the attacks by the political and cultural Left.  Instead the church has either ignored these assaults on liberty, or compromised with the promotion of sin and vice as a legitimate choice that one should never judge.

This political season is just a testament to the fact that Christians in America have surrendered their God-given liberties and abandoned the battlefield of principles and ideas to a ravenous Socialist juggernaut.

Of course, even among the ‘Moderate Left” – they too have now picked up on the retreating Evangelical Christian as a political force and culture guardian.

The Incredible Shrinking Evangelical

By Heather Wilhelm

Ah, spring. Fresh flowers, fresh leaves, fresh leases on life…and, in step with a tradition dating back to around 2004–the year when Christian “values voters” reportedly seized our fragile nation’s helm–there’s also a fresh crop of new books unabashedly bashing evangelicals.

Leading the pack is “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power,” which is yet another entry in the behind-the-scenes, just-like-Skull-and-Bones Christian conspiracy genre. Luckily for yawning readers, there’s also a newer, cuter, echoes-of-Jon-Stewart form of Christian-bashing on the 2008 market, which involves shelving the drama, loading up on the irony, going undercover and making merciless fun of the poor religious saps. In early May, self-affirmed tolerant and open person Matt Taibbi (who, in a recent Rolling Stone article, ridicules “nerdy” evangelicals wearing “the gayest” shirts as “a slow-moving hulk of confused, shipwrecked masculinity, flailing for an Answer”) comes out with “The Great Derangement,” his own book on the topic. Daniel Radosh, meanwhile, offers a kinder, gentler evangelical skewering–but a skewering nonetheless–in his new book on Christian popular culture, “Rapture Ready.”

The funny thing about all of this is, of course, that it’s not 2004 anymore. And as any barely alert political observer can tell you, evangelicals are certainly not running the show. They’re…well…where are they, anyway?

Seriously, where’d all those hard-right, Republican evangelicals go?

The supposed storyline is a familiar one: Religious fundamentalists, a.k.a. “values voters,” catapulted Bush into office. (John Kerry’s “I voted for it before I voted against it,” in this questionable-at-best narrative, had nothing to do with it.) In the wake of the Kerry disaster, Democrats scrambled to appear more religious. As Austin Dacey recently pointed out in USA Today, “The Democratic Party concluded that because values voters are religious, the way to Washington must lie on the road to Damascus. Since then, it has been closing the God gap that is thought to stand between it and the White House.”

As it turns out, Christians, including evangelicals, aren’t as monolithic as everybody thought. The rising religious left has enthusiastically agitated for the environment, a more “fair” budget, and for other “social justice” issues. More importantly, the religious right, made up largely of those dastardly evangelicals, just isn’t playing that large of a role in Road to the White House 2008.

Sure, we see all three presidential candidates offering lip service to faith. But that’s an occasional outlier among the greater themes–the economy, health care, Iraq–of the 2008 White House race. And sure, there was that feverish spurt of support for Mike Huckabee. But we all know how that worked out. John McCain, the ostensible GOP (or, as the latest crop of books would likely have it, “God’s Old Party”) nominee, is famed for being tight-lipped about his religious beliefs, and he frequently annoys evangelical leaders by being notoriously tight-lipped on other issues as well. This week, the LA Times reported that Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, said that the nation’s values voters “are posing a very different question than they did four years ago: What are we going to do in November? ‘The question this time four years ago,’ Perkins said, ‘was: ‘What are we going to do to help Bush win?'”

Smell that shift in the zeitgeist? If anything, it’s towards the material rather than the ethereal. On April 20, Slate writer Mickey Kaus offered a fascinating and honest dissertation on the philosophical roots of Obama’s “yokels clinging to their religion” remarks, along with their larger implications for modern politics. “But of course it was a Marxist thing to say,” Kaus wrote, “wasn’t it? If Democrats had delivered on the economy, Obama suggests, all those GOP cultural “wedge” issues would lose traction. This idea–that the economy trumps culture–isn’t new. It’s ‘materialism.'”

And it may be on the rise. While evangelicals loom large in the popular imagination, they’ve shrunk on the map of reality, particularly in context of the current campaign. Our presidential candidates, particularly Obama and Clinton, whisk past pressing cultural problems like disintegrating families, unwed mothers, and abortion with startlingly sanitized economic arguments. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page, long lambasted by liberals for its “bias,” has picked up one of America’s more prominent modern materialists as a regular columnist: Thomas Frank, author of “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” Frank, interestingly, also offers a glowing blurb for the most conspiracy-minded of the latest batch of Christian-bashing books: “Of all the important studies of the American right, ‘The Family’ is undoubtedly the most eloquent. It is also quite possibly the most terrifying.”

Terrifying? For all of the hullabaloo about radical right-wing evangelical power, they’re certainly acting fairly scattered, and they’re certainly not making a very big impact on the domestic front as of late. 40% of births in America are out of wedlock. Gay marriage thrives in Massachusetts. Evolution is still taught in schools, and, yes, “Gossip Girl” is still on the air. Secular America seems to be safe, sound, and thriving.

What, then, is so scary about evangelicals? Why the fixation, particularly when the real shift in the political debate seems to be toward secular materialism?

The most common complaint about born-again Christians, often heard from left-wing quarters, is that the God-boggled can’t “learn to be rational” when it comes to serious policy debates. Science and fact, they argue, are all left behind once one enters the hard-core Christian realm. Meaningful policy debate is impossible. Irrationality, prejudice, and apocalyptic fatalism rule the day.

This is all highly ironic, of course, given that materialism, in its essence, often misses obvious facts–particularly when it comes to connections between cultural realities and economic, material results. Perhaps even more to the point, many modern secular crusades find followers scoffing at facts and, yes, disengaging from science. Two prominent examples include abortion (an article on fetal pain in the New York Times, for instance, caused an uproar in certain circles, as have current pending laws requiring ultrasounds before abortions) and the environment.

Are there nutty fundamentalists out there? Sure. Are hard-core evangelical events and culture sometimes goofy and cringe-worthy? Certainly. Are there some wacky political ideas that can grow out of religious fundamentalism? You bet.

But “clinging” can happen on both sides of the aisle. In both the sacred and secular realms, zealots can come across information they don’t want to hear–and on both sides, there’s the capacity to ignore that information in favor of a certain belief system. And in this election, contrary to the tired old narrative, that capacity might be more likely to come from the fans of Marx and Engels than the fans of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. 

1 Comment

Filed under Culture War, Politics

France Says NIE Report Bogus; Has Evidence Iran Seeking Nukes


As America turns harder to the Left, we are beset with stupidity, foolishness, outrageous lies, scandals, and endless political folly to our own detriment.

We are become like the Melba toast European Socialists and strive to be more like them. Even today, presumptive Liberal Republican nominee John McCain has suggested that America “listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies”. I don’t know what could be more stupid. If we listened” to these “democratic allies” Mr. McDufus – we would NOT be in Iraq OR Afghanistan taking the war to the Jihadists. We would be cowering with one appeasement policy after another while we are turned into a Muslim state from within as it is in Europe.

America has obviously lost it’s gonads as well as it’s brains and McCain might as well be John Kerry, Clinton or Obama, because they all state the same imbecillic nonsense in once capacity or another.

Meanwhile, the country Americans love to denounce; France – has suddenly jumped into the realm of common sense that America has abandoned, in order to state what many of us already knew the day the bogus NIE report was released by the CIA last December.

The French newspaper “Le Monde” says that it has documentation that Iran is still seeking to possess nuclear weapons and that last December’s NIW report that stated that Iran abandoned that quest – is bogus, and that it was a politically motivated report that did not give a true picture of the present nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Duh. Those of us in America with a brain left already figured that out the day the bogus report was released.

They say the documents detail discussions between top Iranian officials about their ongoing nuclear program.

The article is translated through Babelfish:


At the time the Security Council of UNO recently adopted a third series of sanctions intended to force Iran to stop his nuclear program, (Le Monde) had access to documents attesting that Teheran continued a military nuclear program after 2003, as opposed to what a report/ratio of the national direction of the American information affirmed, published on December 3, 2007.

February 25, the assistant general manager of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Finn Olli Heinonen, had presented evidence of the existence of this Iranian nuclear military program. A letter addressed during 2004 Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, to vice-president of the Organization of the atomic energy of Iran (AEOI), by engineer Mahdi Khaniki, one of the principal interlocutors of the IAEA and former ambassador of Iran in Syria, confirms its charges.

This document draws up an inventory of fixtures of the relations between Teheran and the inspectors of the agency of Vienna. Mahdi Khaniki recalls in particular that the inspectors of the IAEA – who act under the direction of Mr. Heinonen – required to see the contracts relating to the acquisition of spare parts entering the development of the centrifugal machines. Assembled in “cascade”, these centrifugal machines make it possible to enrich uranium, possibly until obtaining a military quality.

“At a meeting which proceeded on January 31, 2004 in the presence of Dr. Rohani (Hassan Rohani, principal negotiator of the Iranian nuclear program until the end of 2005), this one decided that these contracts were to be prepared formedlies to the wishes of the AEOI, so that they are ready to be provided with the IAEA.” “It is necessary to note, adds it, that the representative of the ministry for defense and assistance to the mées rearforces indicated at this meeting that the contracts had been written for a presentation (with the IAEA).”

“But, Mahdi Khaniki continues, of the parts of these contracts, which I myself saw with the ministry for defense, were crossed out black lines and the quantities did not appear; it thus seems that these contracts will cause more questions than those which should (normally) be presented at Agency (IAEA).” And to conclude: “Naturally, I asked as a preliminary to engineer Mohamadi to prepare the number necessary of contracts (corrected) and I hope that it already did it.”

For the specialists in the Iranian file, this letter represents an obvious proof of the implication of the Iranian ministry for defense in the nuclear file. What consolidates the suspicions on the military character of this program, while attesting efforts of the Iranians to dissimulate nature of it.

According to sources’ close to a service of information, this mail lies within the scope of the “Project 13”, whose heading is “project for the disappearance of the threats”.

Given what Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric has been in the past, is “project for the disappearance of the threats” in reference to his call for the annihilation of Israel and the punishment of America? The intents of Iran are clearly made, and I’m amazed at the deliberate level of ignorance we wish to place on this problem as the shouts grow louder against any kind of military action against Iran.

This project would have vocation to mislead the inspectors of the IAEA. The Research center in physics (PHRC) of Lavizan Shian was thus renamed “AMAD”, and its “departments” became “projects”, in order to scramble the tracks. In the second time, probably in 2006, name “AMAD” was also removed. Since, it is more made mention only of the “Center” to indicate the management of the military nuclear program.

The American services of information collected, in mid-December 2006, a conversation between two not identified civils servant held with the ministry for defense in Teheran and making state of divergences between persons in charge for the AEOI and the ministry for defense. One of the two interlocutors refers to the “Center” and underlines: “the AEOI was occupied of its interests, and its policy was at 180 degrees of ours. Currently, as for the CTBTO (Organization of the treaty of complete prohibition of the nuclear tests), I think that the ministry of defense must have the last word, parce that they (leaders of the AEOI) know that with the end of the account we intend to lead tests.” The doubt remains on the nature of these “tests”, but this reference reinforces the suspicions.

The information made public by Olli Heinonen, in February, in Vienna, contradicts a part of the conclusions of the report of the American services in December 2007. To explain this inconsistency, certain French diplomats evoke a “major dysfunction” within the American administration.

Other sources advance that, during 2007, the American services of information, as well as the Pentagon, worried about the climate sabre-rattler which reigned then in Washington, and about the risk to see president George Bush opening a new military face against Iran. The purpose of the report/ratio of December would then have been to cross short to the temptation of the American executive to resort to the force.

In other words, the purpose of the NIE report that was celebrated by every Democrat and mainstream media source in America, was to short circuit and circumvent any attack and war plans that were on the boards at the White House and Pentagon to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat.

I would call that treason, but Americans no longer like that word, unless someone dares question Global Warming – then it’s treason. But to undermine the country in favor of those who are sworn to our destruction – is today called patriotism by those that have racist pastors asking for God to damn the country or claim they were shot at by snipers in Bosnia.

Even the Treason Rag of Record, the New York Times is finding that it has to tapdance backwards on their celebration fo the NIE report they so loudly cheered and toasted.

NY Times Backpedaling on Iran NIE

March 7, 2008 – by Craig Karpel

The other day a friend who’s a distinguished journalist emailed me, “How about the New York Times’ FURIOUS backpedaling on the National Intelligence Estimate? They could have done the same analysis when it was released!”

At the gathering of ambassadors and arms-control experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Vienna headquarters, newly obtained and declassified documents were revealed that are “not consistent with any application other than the development of a nuclear weapon.”

“France’s ambassador, François-Xavier Deniau,” the Times reported, “said questions raised by the Vienna meeting had opened a ‘new chapter’ in the West’s effort to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear arms.” The Times explained:

This confrontation is different from the long-running American-led campaign. Gone are the veiled threats of military action from the White House. The wind largely went out of that effort in December, when American intelligence officials surprised Western allies — and angered Bush administration hawks — with a report saying Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Ah, so this confrontation was different, because the French, with their savoir faire, their joi de vivre, their déja vu all over again, were at last convinced that Iran — which has a space program whose covert goal is to put into orbit satellites capable of dropping nuclear weapons on any city on earth, such as Paris — must be subjected to a higher level of inaction, such as the toothless additional sanctions the Security Council authorized this week.

…But the NIE says Iran put an end to its secret nuclear weapons program, no?

Well, no.

Virtually all commentators have either misunderstood or misrepresented the NIE’s “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”

The NIE goes on to say, “We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”

So “Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program” doesn’t mean “Tehran ended its nuclear weapons program.” It means the program was suspended.

It inconceivable to me that the word “halted” wasn’t deliberately chosen as an alternative — misleading because of its ambiguity — to the unmistakably clear word that should have been used. The intelligence official(s) who signed off on using “halted” instead of “suspended” in that life-and-death sentence should be found and fired.

Moderate confidence — I wish I had that much confidence in our intelligence agencies.

….The Times has found itself in a position where it needs to account for having neglected to report last December that — as to the intelligence community’s assessment of when our most virulent and implacable enemy will be able to make nuclear weapons — between the 2005 NIE and the 2007 NIE “basically nothing had changed.” Is the paper of record now pleading myopia?

It will probably utilize the Hillary Clinton Method: “Those are what our memories of it are” defense and say they ‘mis-spoke’.

Or…they can employ the Obama Defense and simply deny their assertions were ever made to the contrary, and then throw their reporters under the bus to join Obama’s grandmother.

But actions speak louder than words, and France is acting on the belief that Iran is on the verge of nuclear weapons that it will use on it’s enemies. This has resulted in Tehran getting angry and issuing a warning to French President Sarkozy.

I think that speaks to the truth of Iran’s ready-to-premiere nuclear weapons ability.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, War On Jihadists

Wimps In The Face Of Barbarians


Great essay by Erik Rush here.

Cultural Cavemen & The Wimps of the West
World Erik Rush, Featured Writer
January 1, 2008

“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahedeen.” – al Qaeda commander and spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, referencing the assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto; Adnkronos International News Service (AKI), December 27, 2007.

Lest I wind up standing back-to-back with actor Will Smith tomorrow morning defending myself against flying produce (Smith is taller, so I might not fare too badly), I’ll insert the disclaimer here: My personal, moral and religious values preclude a belief that any ethnic group is inherently superior or inferior to any other.

That being said, periodically I find it necessary and useful to state that such values do not preclude a belief that a particular culture might be inherently superior or inferior to another, and this is precisely the comparison I am making as regards Western culture versus the retrograde Indo-Arabic culture that spawns the mentality and social convention we glimpse in radical Islam.

True, the West and Western-influenced cultures do produce our share of sick freaks, however one cannot compare the body counts generated by one Jeffrey Dahmer, Jim Jones or even Aum Shinrikyo to that of radical Islamists worldwide or the primal, inhuman barbarity that is the hallmark of so many of their atrocities. Islamic extremists around the globe are currently averaging one People’s Temple-sized massacre each month, according to a cross section of media outlets, both reputable and questionable.

Benazir Bhutto, like many heads of state, particularly in the Third World, was no saint. Though definitely a cut far above her craven killers, this wasn’t Gandhi getting gunned down. In addition to the charges of corruption that plagued Bhutto during her tenure, the former Pakistani prime Minister was party to the repression of religious minorities in Pakistan. As is the case with many foreign politicos America has supported (and perhaps should not have), being an open advocate of cooperation with the West was Bhutto’s chief appeal. It was widely expected that her pro-Western stance would result in a government more cooperative and less duplicitous than that of the Pervez Musharraf regime.

This brings us to the likely course that might have been taken by the Bush administration and whichever administration follows. Was the hope that Bhutto would have immediately allowed NATO forces into northern Pakistan to wipe out Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives – as opposed to sucking another $10 billion in American taxpayers’ money out of the invertebrates in high office as did Musharraf? The scenario is indeed reminiscent of that in Egypt, where a “cooperative” Sadat replaced the anti-West, anti-Israel Gamal Abdel Nasser, with Bhutto being an avatar of the former. As long as the U.S. aid dollars kept flowing, Sadat was willing to come to the table with Israeli leaders. It bears mentioning that he too was gunned down for his political coziness with the West.

America cannot bribe the whole world into “playing nice,” although many Western politicians and globalists think we can. If this sort of foreign policy strikes the reader as profoundly stupid, that’s because it is. For some reason, the West has a habit of employing such doctrines (profoundly stupid ones) in order to forestall clashes which seem inevitable to the lay observer, and which result in protracted global conflagrations (as opposed to transitory hostilities) as a result of inaction (or indecisive action) on the part of the West.

In the case of radical Islam, the establishment media conveniently skirts the magnitude of the Islamofascist problem. In the Sudan, 2.2 million people, mostly Christians, are dying slowly in concentration camps at the hands of Islamic militias who to date have killed tens of thousands of Sudanese. Al-Qaeda has even made inroads into Africa. Civil unrest, promoted by radical Muslims and allowed to fester into a full-scale and intractable insurgence in the southern Philippines and southeast Asia was apparent since the late 1990s, although it began long before then. Among the thousands of kidnapping, rape and murder victims of these thugs who claim Allah was an American missionary couple and most notably of late included the slaughter of Buddhist monks at Myanmar in Burma. I could easily go on…

Another key point that has been poorly analyzed by the press: “Radical Islam” is not monolithic. As evidenced in Iraq, sects not considered to be part of the global jihad have no compunction toward killing and persecuting one another. This is the way it has been in the Islamic world for centuries, and what we in America have to look forward to if we deny that elements of this religion are fundamentally incompatible with our culture, and therefore inassimilable.

The aforementioned lack of decisiveness on the part of the West that has served to embolden these cultural ubermenschen has its roots in one place: The political Left. A cursory study of history is all that is required to confirm the rot which began with Karl Marx and spread to putrefy first Russia, then much of Europe and parts of Asia, Africa and South America. In the United States, the “struggle” to bring about a socialist or communist model of government has been ongoing since the days of the Bolsheviks and Jack Reed. The degradation of America’s cultural fiber, the advent of moral relativism and the Orwellian representations of the press and far-Left politicians have been initiated by design in order to further this end.

As a result, Europe and the Americas have become overrun with intellectually pathetic milquetoasts, lambs for the slaughter by elitist secular-socialist gangsters in government.

It’s ironic that a nation – ours – which used to be unashamedly Christian also used to be intelligent enough to take prudent action against its enemies, even when that meant the regrettable tragedies associated with collateral damage. Now, a U.S. soldier on active duty overseas cannot accidentally bump into a civilian at the bazaar without it appearing on the front page of The New York Times; we legitimize manifestly criminal organizations like The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and are admonished by dull-normal entertainers to tolerate or even embrace our enemies’ point of view – regardless of the fact that our enemies have sworn to utterly destroy us and our way of life no matter what we say or do. The employment of this relativism in putting backward cultures on a par with America’s is ironic, an intellectually dishonest conceit and a dangerous example of false humility.

Cavemen emerged from the caverns in which they had dwelt since the seventh century, and the culture shock melted their brains. Are we expected to abide and endure their unformed primitive social paradigms and their antisocial reactions to the world that passed them by?

I think not.

All of which begs the proverbial question: If we abandon all restraint and show our enemy no quarter, are we not then in danger of perceiving him as the subhuman creature he perceives us to be, and “becoming what we behold?”

The answer: Only if we have hatred and bigotry rather than prudence in our hearts. If we objectively examine the extremes of our enemy’s philosophy, it simply comes down to an issue of self-preservation. The homeowner ought not be expected to pause and examine the motives of an armed home invader when he or she has the means to defend themselves, nor should the camper consider the legal ramifications of taking down the bear that’s about to rake his ribcage open with one swipe if he or she happens to have a rifle at the ready.

The individual who believes America is not entitled to that – at least – is a damn fool.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture War, War On Jihadists

Iran-Nuke Intel: Politics Trumps American Security in Bogus NIE Report


My suspicions ran rampant the moment the media began singing hosanna’s of the NIE’s report that became the darling story of the Defeat At All Cost Brigades. The news since Ahmadinejad’s first address to the UN in 2005, where he subsequently announced that he had a “divine” epiphany of destroying America while we sat helpless, has been one confirmation after another from his regime that Iran is on the fast-track to nuclear weapons status.

As forthcoming and truthful as a CNN-hosted political debate, the NIE report has become the Hail Mary Pass for the Anti-war Left, who were screaming against any action against Iran’s nuclear program, or their madman’s proclamations of starting an Apocalypse to fulfill his nation’s supposed destiny in bringing back the 12th Imam.

But true to our suspicions – comes word that the NIE report was written by political hacks and their analysts – not by actual members of the spook community:

A highly controversial, 150 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear programs was coordinated and written by former State Department political and intelligence analysts — not by more seasoned members of the U.S. intelligence community, Newsmax has learned.

Its most dramatic conclusion — that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in response to international pressure — is based on a single, unvetted source who provided information to a foreign intelligence service and has not been interviewed directly by the United States.

We discover that this is not new with political operatives running loose inside America’s national security operatus:

This carrot and stick approach has been the State Department’s preferred policy for the past 27 years, and has only strengthened the resolve of Iran’s leaders to continue defying the United States.

Of course as Timmerman’s article points out – the Democrats and the Ron Paul and Anti-war brigades are giddy as a schoolgirl in Spring over the NIE report, which really serves the interests of Ahmadinejad and his quest for destroying the Great and Little Satan. Jihadists from Bin Laden to Ahmadinejad understand just as Vietnamese General Giap noted in his memoirs, that America’s defeat lies not on the battlefield, but in securing the defeat of America at home by the anti-war forces, and striking a killing blow upon our retreat. It would seem that the NIE operatives are willing to work with the Democrats and the Anti-war Left to serve that defeat up on a Silver platter if it means attaining political power, regardless of the costs we may endure down the road. At best the NIE is completely clueless and has absolutely no idea what is really going on inside Iran’s nuke program outside of what they hope, and at worst – they do not care.

Iran could not wish for better freinds.

If anything is clear from the new National Intelligence Estimate, it’s that the U.S. intelligence agencies have no clear idea of what’s going on in Iran. The authors of the intelligence estimate concede that despite their earlier conclusions they can’t really say how far Iran’s nuclear program has advanced, or how close Iran is to developing atomic weapons. It’s irrefutable that Iran may have a nuclear weapon in the foreseeable future — whether in 2009, 2013 or 2015 is not so clear.

The only weapon the Democrats want to employ against our enemies in the Middle East is a white flag. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, as wobbly on Iran as on the Iraq war, says the Bush administration should be pushing for a “surge in diplomacy” with dealing with Iran.

Mr. Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats have a “can we talk?” message for the terrorists in Iraq — where Tehran, working through proxies, has been actively working to destabilize the country and kill and maim American soldiers. They’re eager to embarrass President Bush and denying sufficient funding to the military to do the job against al Qaeda terrorists for another year is the way they’re determined to embarrass him.

Par for the course it would seem, with an intelligence apparatus that has become nothing more than a domestic political tool that our enemies have learned how to use against us by appealing to the selfish motives of power that our intel services are consumed with. After all, Congress and the Left have steadily worked for decades to undermine and deconstruct our military and intelligence capabilities.

As this article details, our intelligence agencies have missed the mark from everything from the deposing of the Shah in 1979 to 9-11, due a history of political meddling and efforts to undermine and politicize the one tool we most desperately need in this world to stay one step ahead of our enemies. As the analysis of the article reveals:

Democrats, with occasional exceptions, have spent a quarter century of undermining, mismanaging and debunking our military and our intelligence capabilities (including attempts to abolish the CIA) …no fair-minded person can ignore that on several critical fronts our intelligence was wrong and our decisions based on false assumptions and erroneous information. The Bush team has likewise been slow to deal with homeland security issues satisfactorily, most notably border issues.

Much hay will continue to be made by the media and the Anti-war Left of this NIE report.

But one has to ask, since this is the SAME NIE group that gave “High confidence” info of Iran’s threshold of attaining nuke capability in 2005 – with documented evidence that Tehran was “Much further along than we thought” – were they lying or mistaken then, or are they lying now?

Remembering how shocked and surprised they all were when Pakistan and India suddenly tested nuclear bombs that our Intelligence had assumed were decades from being able to create – I can only assume from recent history that America will one day awaken to a similar suprise of Iran detonating a nuclear weapon, much sooner than we would have thought – and hopefully not from within an American or Israeli city.

Given Ahmadinejad’s promises of a “world without America” and “Wiping Israel from the map” – such a hope may be nothing but a fool’s hope at best.


Filed under News, Politics, War On Jihadists