Michael Scheuer | Non-Intervention

This writer carries no brief for Israel. All that is written and argued about “Israel’s right to exist” is nonsense. Neither Israel nor the United States nor any other nation has a right to exist. A state’s ability to survive depends solely on its own social cohesion, economic viability, and domestic political, international, and military behavior and actions, not on some non-existent right the Israel-First lobby dreamed-up to use to propagandized the American people into eternally supporting a nation that is completely irrelevant — and, indeed, bloodily counter-productive — to genuine U.S. national security interests.

That said, Israel and all nation-states have an absolute right to defend themselves in the manner they deem mandatory for their survival. In the now-dying Western democracies that defense includes the process of national elections to choose national political leaders. For a foreign nation to interfere in such elections — as the disloyal U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters and Mexican governments routinely do in U.S. elections — is to undermine the intervened-in nation’s absolute right of self-defense. The Obama administration’s State Department apparently identified disloyal Israeli citizens in Israel and transferred to them at least $350,000 for to use in a campaign meant to defeat Mr. Netanyahu in the recent Israeli election. Such intervention is tantamount to an act of war, just as it is criminal negligence for any government to refuse to identify and aggressively prosecute those of its citizens who use foreign money to influence a national election. And this is at least the second time that the Obama administration has deliberately compromised the ability of the Israelis to defend themselves. Recall that it was Obama’s White House, in spring, 2012, which leaked information about a deal that Israel had worked out with Azerbaijan to use Azeri airfields if it decided that its security required an attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. (See, www.non-intervention.com, 2 April 2012)

The Israelis will not attack the United States, of course, but a well-merited retaliation against America is simple enough to execute and probably will be. Netanyahu’s government can cut back on whatever intelligence is shared with the U.S. intelligence community; continue to pass sensitive U.S. technologies to other nations; pick up the pace of recruiting penetrations of the U.S. government’s intelligence and defense communities; and, as always, seek to influence U.S. elections and further corrupt U.S. politics via the money of disloyal Jewish-Americans and their organizations.

What makes matters worse for U.S. security is that this intervention in Israel’s national security affairs is only a part of the campaign that Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton inaugurated to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries in the name of spreading democracy, while actually seeking to establish abroad the kind of liberal-authoritarian government they are trying to build in the United States. And Republican hands are not clean on this funding for counterproductive interventionism unless all of them voted against the State Department appropriations that allowed the democracy crusaders Obama and Clinton to fund the disastrous-for-the-United-States actions that follow.

• The funding of Iranian oppositions groups, the result of which was scores of dead young Iranians, more Muslim hatred for U.S. interventionism, and less domestic political freedom in Iran.
• The funding — along with EU funding — of opposition groups in the Ukraine that ultimately led to overthrow of Ukraine’s government; justified Putin’s annexation of the Crimea to protect Russia’s national security interests; started a Ukrainian civil war; and inaugurated a U.S.-led Western effort to economically strangle Russia that has created a European environment in which war between NATO and Russia is again being discussed and warned of.
• The funding of Egyptian groups opposed to Mubarak’s regime, which resulted in Mubarak’s fall; the election of an Islamist government; a U.S.-EU approved military coup to overthrow the Islamists ,which restored a Mubarak-like dictatorship; and the beginning of the destabilization of the region that has been, quite literally, an Allah-send for the Islamist movement.

U.S. interventionism always ends up costing America lives and money and earning it enduring hatred and war, and never more so than when it is conducted by reality blind and terminally adolescent theorists like Obama and Hillary Clinton.

I have long argued that the United States has no compelling national security concern that requires more than a nominal relationship with Israel, perhaps an exchange of Consul-Generals, at most. Our current bilateral relations with Israel cost American taxpayers untold billions of dollars that could be much better spent — or saved — at home; prompted President Bush’s Israel-First war against Saddam’s non-U.S.-threatening Iraq, the intensely negative repercussions of which have only started to be felt; provides one of the half-dozen major motivations for the anti-U.S. Islamism that has grown from Usama bin Laden’s 40-man al-Qaeda in 1988 to today’s worldwide Islamist movement; and facilitated the opportunity for Israel-First U.S. citizens and their organizations to corrupt both houses of Congress and much of the U.S. political system. For these issues and others, U.S. ties to Israel out to be reduced to the lowest possible level. Preferably they should be cut altogether.

This termination process can and should be done in a publicly forthright, manly, and dignified manner; of course, no one would ascribe such character traits to Obama or any of his senior lieutenants. But the termination of relations must be done solely in the interests of the United States, not in a punitive manner that makes the United States an agent of Israel’s destruction, although constant U.S. intervention in the Muslim world — championed by Obama, Hillary Clinton, McCain, Wolfowitz, Graham, Firth, AIPAC, Cheney, all the Bushes etc. — has already contributed massively to what seems likely to be Israel’s inevitable demise.

In all of this, two facts stand out. First, the United States has no national-security reason to be involved in Israel’s problems or in its protection. Second, Israel has every right and an unquestionable responsibility to defend itself as it sees fit and, in doing so, work out its own destiny. Iran is Israel’s problem and Israel will address it as its leaders and voters deem necessary. The United States should neither play the part of Israel’s Muslim-hating protector, nor should it lift a finger to — as it already has done twice — to make Israel’s ability to defend itself more difficult. Obama would do much better if he and his advisers began to prosecute those disloyal Jewish-Americans and Mexican diplomats who seek with money and media to influence U.S. national elections.

Finally, Obama’s absurd anger over Netanyahu’s comment about the worrying “drove” of Arab-Israelis who went to the polls speaks to all Americans about the depth of incompetence, naiveté, and ignorance that resides in and fairly oozes from Obama and his team of advisers. Does Obama really think that the Israelis believe that their Arab citizens are their equals and that Israelis will someday be ready to be governed by a Muslim majority? Does Obama not recognize that, of all of Israel’s problems, demography — the rapid growth of the country’s Arabs population — is one of the most lethal? Does Obama believe that there is even the most remote chance that two peoples who have been murdering each other for nearly seventy years are simply going to forgive and forget and agree to live amiably together simply because he and fatuous “International Community” believe they should? Can Obama, his party, and the Republicans possibly believe that the two-state solution remains plausible even as it lies dead, mutilated, and rotting in the full glare of the public spotlight? Can Obama conceivably believe that the walking-dead peace process is just between Israelis and Palestinians, rather than between Israel and the entire Islamist movement that his arrogant and amateurish interventionism has motivated and nurtured?

The answer to each of these questions is a resounding yes, and that affirmative goes far to explain the U.S.-produced or -assisted disasters not only in Israel and Palestine, but also in Iran, Ukraine, and Egypt. Obama’s inability to understand the diversity of the world’s peoples, cultures, and faiths; his ignorance of the eternally unchanging nature of human nature; his hatred for all religions that are not what he believes they should be; and his refusal to recognize that hatred and revenge are as much valid and timeless human characteristics as love and forgiveness, and that none of the four can be banned or mandated by a governmental diktat or international agreement, are hardly the traits that make a competent national or international leader. They are, however, the traits of a wholly unqualified national leader who, with arrogance and always simmering hatred for those he believes cross him, may well bumble his nation and perhaps the world into a great war.

The Senate Republicans’ letter to Iran’s Ayatollah is addressed as much to Barack Obama as to the cleric; neither man has a clue about how the American constitutional system works. In his self-righteousness, intellectual arrogance, and thin skin, Obama resembles no other president so much as Thomas Woodrow Wilson. In fact, one must wonder if Wilson has not returned from the grave, this time as a Black man but still determined to do as much damage as he can to America in the fields of foreign affairs, national security, and fidelity to the Constitution.

Wilson, of course, used the U.S. military to intervene in Mexico and other South American nations — using the bayonet to teach Mexicans to “elect good men” — and took the United States into a war in which America had no genuine national interest at stake, a little European fracas known as the Great War (1914-1918). He also established and championed the theoretical “right” of self-determination, a right from hell that caused multiple, and enormous blood lettings through the rest of the 20th century, and does so right up to today. Wilson and all succeeding U.S. presidents have touted this as a “universal right,” but of course have only been willing to apply it if they approve of and support the group or nation that is seeking self-determination. In recent decades, for example, no Muslims need not apply for the right.

Wilson also tried to single handedly orchestrate the making of the peace treaty that ended the Great War, taking to the Paris Peace Conference as his assistants only those who were made in his image: a gaggle of theory-palsied and common senseless professors from the “best” American universities. He took few elected officials with him, and no Republicans at all. He also failed to keep the Senate informed about what was going on in Allied councils — the “Big Four” were the leaders of the U.S., Britain, France, and Italy — as the peace conference unfolded. The hapless Woodrow and his professorial lackeys, as matters turned out, were thoroughly slicked by the common sense, lethal political acumen, and willingness to flatter Wilson of Britain’s David Lloyd George and France’s Georges Clemenceau. The brilliant and narcissistic Woodrow then put his signature to a treaty that did nothing but ensure the occurrence of a second and more murderous great war.

If this was not absurd enough, the wondrously unrealistic Woodrow also pushed for the United States to join the League of Nations organization that was formulated at the Paris conference and became part of the Treaty of Versailles. In the League of Nations’ Covenant, Article 10 obliged the United States to automatically go to war in support of any member of the League that was the target of “external aggression.” Had Article 10 been ratified by the U.S. Senate it would have negated American sovereignty and independence of action on the most important question the nation can face: When, against whom, and for what will the United States go to war?

Senate Republicans, already smarting from Wilson’s refusal to either keep the Senate informed or take Republicans with him to Paris, refused, all praise to God, to ratify the treaty and the League Covenant. They thereby protected America’s sovereignty and independence of action until a later Senate surrendered both by joining NATO and the UN in the wake of the second Great War, a conflict that Wilson had helped mightily to facilitate. By exercising their legitimate constitutional role Senate Republicans also, hopefully, helped to bring on the stroke that disabled that curse of a man. Interestingly, Wilson’s stoke yielded in the form of Mrs. Wilson the first — if de facto — female U.S. president. She seems to have treated the national government as her fiefdom, controlled access to Wilson, and was a thoroughly unpleasant and haughty woman to those who questioned what she had unilaterally decided were her sole prerogatives. An early but eerily similar version of Hillary Clinton, I suppose.

The letter sent by Senate Republicans to Iran’s Ayatollah, therefore, is just another means of playing that body’s completely constitutional role. I say this knowing full well that most of the Senators — including Democrats who agree with but did not sign the letter — want a war with Iran. The Senators want war for Israel’s’ sake, and Obama’s amateur, Jimmy Kimmel-style diplomacy could make Israel decide to attack Iran — for which Muslims would blame the United States. Perhaps our genius politicians are creating another component of what seems to be their specialty, an endless caravan of lose-lose situations for America.

Nonetheless, the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, has been ignored and its constitutional prerogatives derided by Obama, Kerry, Biden, Rice, and their detestable lickspittles at the New York Times on the issue of an agreement with Iran. In addition, Obama and his team of amateurish diplomats have given every indication that Obama will try to negate the Constitution’s requirements for treaty making by side-stepping the Senate and taking the Iran deal directly to the terminally anti-American UN for ratification.

In this train-wreck of an episode the only thing that may be salvageable is the rule of law. The Senate Republicans know and, at times, respect the Constitution far better than Obama — who all but drips contempt for its provisions — and destroying any Kerry-made treaty that does not serve genuine U.S. interests would be a good and undeniably constitutional day’s work. If Obama does not bring the agreement to the Senate for advice and consent, it should be deprived of funding for implementation. As a bonus for America, such a result might also produce the same impact on Obama as the Senate’s non-ratification appears to have had on Woodrow Wilson.

Since the Islamic State (IS) arose in Syria and then Iraq in 2011 it has killed few Americans. Most of those killed chose to be on or near the battlefield, either reporting the war or working in civilian activities. They were where they wanted to be, knew the chances they were taking, bet they would survive, and lost the bet. In other words, these Americans were killed because they wanted to be in a battle zone dominated by a brutal enemy, knew the danger attendant thereto, and paid the price of going to a war as a non-combatant. Too bad, but hardly surprising.

The wild, nearly hysterical political, media, and clerical responses to the deaths — especially the executions by decapitation — are mildly amusing and very, very ironic. “The savage IS barbarians cut the heads off of innocents!” tearful politicians and commentators screech, even though most of them would defend to the death the same method of execution if it was conducted under the term “abortion.” Perhaps IS legal experts should go to an Islamic court and argue for a ruling that mirrors Roe-vs-Wade. If successful, IS leaders would have a legal order defining Americans, Westerners, and non-Muslims generally as non-humans — as the U.S. Supreme Court did for the unborn in 1973. Even with such a judgment in hand, however, IS would have a hard time killing the nearly 60 million “non-humans” that to date have been murdered by American women, the ISIS-like members of the American Medical Association, and the always compassionate and life-affirming Democratic Party — as long as the life needing affirmation is not that of infant or a U.S. Marine, soldier, or diplomat serving overseas.

The point here is not only to cite the blatant, mindless, and, may I say, barbaric hypocrisy of those who wail and weep over the Americans who were murdered by IS only because they knowingly went to ply their trades in a war zone, but to point out that no U.S. political leader in either party has precisely described what direct threat IS poses to the United States here in North America. That there is one is certain. But that threat is authored by the U.S. government and its dereliction in controlling U.S. borders and immigration; its adherence to policies that are not only palpably worthless but socially and economically destructive, namely, diversity and multiculturalism; and its chronic addiction to intervention and losing wars in the Muslim world. The threat posed to America by IS and other Islamist groups is the result, to paraphrase George W. Bush, of “fighting and losing to them over there while allowing them to easily come here.” The mujahideen will cause much destruction and death inside the United States, and the U.S. military, with the help of local police, will have to do whatever is necessary to utterly annihilate them and their supporters. Many in both categories will be U.S. citizens.

So there is a threat to the United States from IS and other such groups, but that threat was only made possible by the prolonged indolence, ignorance, political correctness, and wishful thinking of U.S. government under both Republicans and Democrats. Currently, America is unprepared to handle the Islamist violence that is coming its way, but that lack of preparation can be rectified if voters can find and elect a man with common sense, without an Ivy League-education, and who is not a lawyer. As additional parts of the preparation, at least four other steps also are necessary:

1. Get out of Iraq and Syria with all possible speed. (N.B.: Ditto for Yemen and Nigeria). IS cannot be defeated without a massive ground force, and such a force can only come from the United States, Britain, Canada, and Australia, none of which has a force of sufficient size, ruthlessness, and effective leadership to do the job. The Arab tyrants we support are scared to death to put their infantry into the field because they know that high desertion rates to IS would result. All of the Arab tyrants’ militaries have been thoroughly infiltrated and propagandized by the Islamists; many of their soldiers identify U.S. interventionism as an attack on Islam and only lack an opportunity to join the mujahideen and fight it; and putting them on the battlefield to kill fellow Sunnis in the interests of the United States, Europe, and Shia Iran would open the floodgates for desertion. A multinational Arab field army on the ground in the Syria-Iraq theater ultimately would be a plentiful source of arms, reinforcements, and intelligence for the Islamic State and other Islamist groups, and any U.S. forces on the ground there would become the deserters’ targets. The beginning of wisdom for America is to get out and let the Sunni-vs-Shia war continue to develop and engulf the region.
2. Disengage from the Europeans and let them handle their own Islamist problems. They are now going to have to pay for their own border-and-immigration negligence, their deep, anti-Muslim racism, and their elite’s moronic adherence to the theories of diversity and multiculturalism, even after it has become clear that the policies’ chief products have been the unraveling of Europe’s social cohesion and the specter of seeing their diversity-loving Muslim citizens kill their own countrymen. Let the Europeans also handle Russia. It was their EU’s mindless democracy-mongering that ensured the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, provoked Putin to retake the Crimea, and yielded an on-again, off-again civil war. Putin is no threat to the United States unless Washington allows America to be dragged into a European-caused war with Russia. The European governments, America’s Neoconservatives, and the media on both sides of the Atlantic would push for the United States to lead a military coalition of the so-called “Free World” against Russia, but Americans would do all the spending, fighting, and dying because European governments have systematically gutted their militaries since the Cold War’s end, believing the United States would always rescue them. America helped to save Europe’s bacon twice in the dirty 20th century. Leave them fend for themselves the third time out in what Obama and his European colleagues like to describe as the enlightened 21st century.
3. Close the southern border of the United States using the U.S. military.
4. Once regular and probably widely dispersed Islamist attacks begin in the United States, the U.S. military, National Guard, and local and state police forces will be unable to be in all the places they are needed to engage and defeat the mujahideen. Had the national government not unconstitutionally deprived the states of their militias, those units would have been a most useful complement to the forces just mentioned. Without them, it will up to the citizenry to defend themselves and their homes, families, communities, and businesses until the cavalry arrives. Fortunately, some parts of the country already have local voluntary militias that are well-armed and determined, if they are needed, to fight terrorists, foreign enemies, and/or lawless domestic foes that ignore the U.S. Constitution. But many more are needed, and Americans must arm themselves as fully as possible, especially with automatic weapons, and especially now that President Obama is banning ammunition for some of those weapons, and so deliberately decreasing the ability of citizens to defend themselves and their property. Obama also is unconstitutionally filling the country with millions of unwanted and unneeded illegal aliens — some of whom are, or soon will be felons — and, in doing so, adds to the Islamists another U.S. government-generated enemy that American citizens will have to defend themselves against.

Pertinent to this issue, the revolutionary patriot Josiah Quincy once said that “supreme power is ever possessed by those who have arms in their hands and are disciplined in the use of them.” It is time for Americans to take those words and the words of the 2nd Amendment to heart and get cracking in terms of arming, organizing, and training. They must also seek the expert assistance for that effort that can come from America’s many retired and U.S. government-abused military veterans.

Time is growing short.

Mayor Giuliani and all Neoconservatives too often confuse the sound of their own voices with the voice of God and therefore expect the great unwashed American citizenry to believe what they have said and do what they have ordered without a second-thought. When Giuliani said that President Obama does not love America, he may have expected the citizenry to collectively stand up and agree. Well, much of it has not done so, and probably will not unless Giuliani can tie an unmeasurable — “love” — to some recognizable metric. Needless to say, he will not be able to do so. One could, I suppose, turn the table on Mayor Giuliani and his Neoconservative brethren and argue that they do not “love” the United States and are disloyal to it because they are always eager to expend American lives, honor, and treasure to support Israel, a nation which is irrelevant to U.S. national security. American patriots, after all, generally do not knowingly waste American money and lives to serve foreign interests that are counterproductive for U.S. national security.

Anyway, George Washington and his founding colleagues believed that the only way to judge a man’s character, loyalties, and intentions is to observe and evaluate his words and actions, as well as the company he keeps. If Mayor Giuliani had kept the Founders’ admonition in mind, he would have been able to make a telling and easily provable point. He first would have referred to the following passage in the U.S. Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Setting aside the sentence’s non-pertinent first clause, Giuliani could have focused on the clause that explains that treason can be identified and punished in individuals or groups found to be “adhering to their [America’s] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” The specifics that support this charge against President Obama are abundant and have been witnessed by tens of millions of Americans.

It was this tack that I took in June 2014 when writing the essay I have included below. Since that essay’s publication, President Obama has continued to adhere to enemies of the United States, and has undeniably given them “Aid and Comfort.”

• He has released at least nine additional Islamist fighters from Guantanamo Bay and sent them to governments that have a substantial and urgent national security interest in getting those fighters out of their territory as quickly as possible, even if that means allowing them back on the battlefield to kill Americans and others.
• He has continued to deliberately lie to Americans by denying that the Islamists are waging a genuine religious war against the United States. By saying publicly that the mujahideen have nothing to with Islam Obama attains a lose-lose result; he reassures the enemy that the leader of the world’s greatest military power does not have a clue about the foe his is up against, and he offends the tens of millions of Muslims who believe that the mujahideen have everything to do with protecting Islam. By angering those Muslims the president certainly hardens their support for the Islamists. The only winners from the president’s seemingly pathological deceitfulness are several of the Democratic Party’s fundamentally anti-American interest groups: the Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States; the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the faculties of Ivy League and other universities that are inexplicably described as elite.
• He and his White House staff have leaked plans for a U.S. military orchestrated and supported Iraqi-Kurdish spring offensive against the Islamic State-held city of Mosul, thereby giving the Islamists several months to prepare to defend the city and pin a humiliating defeat on the to-date feckless Iraqi and Kurd military forces. Indeed, the forewarned Islamic State took its first defensive measure today by seizing nearly 100 Assyrian Christians in Syria. Odds are that if Obama launches his offensive against Mosul, the lives — and perhaps the heads — of those Christians will be forfeit.
• He today vetoed the Keystone Pipeline Bill which will — as part of his larger campaign to prevent U.S. energy self-sufficiency — keep America closely involved with and protective of the Arab tyrants who rule the oil-rich, Arab Peninsula police states. This will promote additional support, volunteers, and donations for the mujahideen which they will use to wage their religious war against America and those tyrants. (NB: The veto also keeps 40,000-plus unemployed or underemployed Americans from getting the kind of solid, middle-class jobs that Obama deceitfully claims he wants for all citizens. Of course this result does not equate to treason, only to a wicked and savage heartlessness.)

What Obama “loves” — beyond himself — is ultimately an unknowable. What is known and provable is that with his actions President Obama has knowingly aided America’s most lethal enemies, and with his words he has comforted that enemy by deliberately misleading Americans about their foe’s religiosity, motivation, and size, as well as about the treat it poses. Perhaps a politician — or better yet a prosecutor — more serious and able than Mayor Giuliani ought to give it another shot?

See also:

Despair for America’s future security is a difficult sentiment to subdue as events in the Middle East continue unfolding. The U.S. military can neither win wars — hopefully because of political restraint — nor effectively train Arab armies. The leaders of both U.S. political parties refuse to recognize that ISIS, al-Qaeda, and like organizations are indeed — according to 20-years of their own public words and a quick check of the Koran — waging an increasingly popular religious war against the United States, in large part as a response to Washington’s relentless intervention in the Muslim world. The same political leaders and President Obama and his administration have set themselves up as expert Islamic theologians to endlessly assert that the Islamists are madmen and nihilists who have nothing to do with Islam, which is, more than anything else, a signal that they are determined to help the United States commit suicide by refusing to level with Americans and tell them that they are up to their hips in a deadly religious war in which their own government is the enemy’s main motivator.

Since 2002, I have written four books dealing with Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the Islamist movement in general. Each of them is primarily based on the words of writings of bin Laden, his lieutenants, and other important Islamist fighters and leaders. One of the goals of each book was to correlate the convergence of the Islamists’ words and deeds; that is, did bin Laden et al. do what they said they were going to do. Each book found a very high correlation between words and deeds; indeed, it seems likely that the United States has never had an enemy that was and is so willing to tell us in advance what he is going to do, why he is going to do it, and what ends he means to attain. Because of this reality, the Islamist enemy is not at all difficult to understand. When Western political leaders speak of what a complex problem we are facing in the war the Islamists are waging, you can be sure they have either not read what the enemy has publicly said and taken it seriously — a repeat of their predecessors’ catastrophic failure to take Mein Kampf seriously — or that for reasons of political necessity, ideology, or, most likely, faulty educations they simply cannot credit the idea that anyone would be willing to fight and die for their faith in the “enlightened” 21st century.

Because the Islamist leaders have detailed their movement’s motivation, and have then proceeded to do what they said they would do, there is no such thing as “unintended consequences” in this war. The impact of every major post-2001 action taken by both sides in this war was perfectly predictable. For the West that means each of its decisions and actions have yielded perfectly predictable negative consequences. Those consequences could be detailed at length, but it is enough to say that the Islamists’ war against the United States and the West is largely motivated by their interventionist policies and actions in the Muslim world, and the U.S. and Western response to the war the Islamists started has been increased intervention undertaken without any intention of winning and with a willingness to curtail civil liberties in the West in the name of internal security  — a response quietly predicted in the speeches and writings of bin Laden.  The West, in essence, has followed to the letter a script written for its demise, one that has been easily available for reading by all Western leaders since late-summer 1996.

While it is quite late in the game it is worth recalling what bin Laden believed was the one factor that could derail the Islamists’ war against the United States, and perhaps their whole agenda. Bin Laden was very clear that the strategy the mujahideen had to follow to victory could be divided into three parts. First, to cause enough human and especially economic pain to the casualty-averse, legally hamstrung, and radically impatient United States to drive it as far as possible out of the Islamic world. Second, to thereafter focus on destroying the Arab tyrannies and Israel. Third, to settle the scores with the Shia Muslim heretics. Today, driving the United States from the Islamic world is goal that is close to being accomplished; America has lost two wars there, will lose Obama’s re-intervention in Iraq, and anti-U.S.-Government hatred has grown across the region. On the second point, several of the Arab tyrannies, with U.S., UN, and EU help, are gone, and Jordan and Lebanon probably will be the next to go. These Western-aided victories for the Islamists — and the ones to come — have substantially eroded Israel’s security and yielded a steady flow of new fighters and enormous quantities of modern weapons from the tyrants’ emptied arsenals. Third, in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon it appears that a regional Sunni-Shia sectarian war is being kindled. And that fact would be the great and deeply troubling rub for bin Laden if he was still alive.

For the three-part strategy described above to succeed, bin Laden argued, the parts had to be accomplished seriatim, not in parallel. In short, the al-Qaeda chief believed that the Arab tyrants’ power and ability to rule depended on them continuing their half-century-plus de facto alliance with the United States and its European allies. Thus, the Islamists should push the United States as far out of the region as possible and then turn and work to destroy the Arab tyrannies and Israel. The first part of the strategy is largely complete, and the second is now underway and, I suspect, is further along than the mujahideen themselves can believe.

Notwithstanding this astonishing success, the problem that bin Laden appeared to fear most and believed could be fatal to the Islamists — taking two steps in the strategy at the same time — also is now underway. Bin Laden constantly preached that settling scores with the Shia had to wait until America was driven from the region and Israel and the Arab tyrannies were destroyed. His words of warning took on substance in 2005-2006 when al-Qaeda’s commander in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, began a campaign that focused on indiscriminately murdering Iraq’s Shia, as well some Sunnis, especially those who worked for the U.S.-led occupation and others who would not obey Zarqawi’s orders. Zarqawi’s murderous behavior — including videotaped decapitation — earned him and al-Qaeda enormous enmity from much of the Sunni Muslim world; indeed, the negative Muslim reaction to Zarqawi’s actions has been the only serious strategic threat to al-Qaeda since 2001, for more dangerous than any action that the United States and its allies have been able to generate against it. Fortunately for al-Qaeda, U.S. forces killed Zarqawi. They saved al-Qaeda from having to do so, and allowed bin Laden and his lieutenants to begin a remedial campaign to retrieve Muslim sympathies and support. (NB: It is important to note, I think, that there has been very little outcry in the Sunni Muslim world about the ISIS attacks on Shias in Iraq. There has been much Muslim gnashing of teeth and weeping over the beheading/burning of Western prisoners and the Jordanian pilot — some part of it posturing to placate the West — but nothing similar to the protests that greeted Zarqawi’s binge of Shia slaughter a decade ago. Perhaps times have changed, perhaps ISIS has deliberately refrained from killing Sunnis at the pace practiced by Zarqawi, or perhaps there is support in the Sunni world for finally eradicating Islam’s hated heretics.)

Today, as noted above, the fire has been lit — and lit by Muslims — for a Sunni-Shia war that has been a millennium in the making and will be far larger than anything Zarqawi could have managed. Bin Laden believed that such a sectarian war would derail the jihad against the United States and its allies because: (a) Sunni fighters — especially Salafis and Wahhabis– consider the killing of Shia heretics as an extraordinarily worthy and Allah-pleasing endeavor, and (b) the Sunni Arab governments would become the much-needed sources of the funds, armaments, and safe havens for the Islamist groups fighting the Shia, something that the tyrants are as much in favor of as the mujahideen. These two factors, bin Laden knew, would turn Muslim eyes, efforts, and resources inward toward the Islamic world and so could leave the Arab tyrannies intact and perhaps stronger and even popular if their support allowed the Sunni Islamists to prevail.

Given the combination of the West’s inability to recognize the obvious, that there can be nothing but a military solution to the religious war started by bin Laden and the Islamists, and bin Laden’s well-grounded fear of the mujahideen moving against the Shia while still at war with the West, Israel, and the Arab tyrants, the developing Sunni-Shia war may well be a God-send for the security of the United States and the West. President Obama momentarily slowed the development of the war by re-intervening in Iraq in 2014, but a second chance has now appeared in Yemen, just as ISIS has resumed its offensive. The Sunni mujahideen and the Sunni Gulf tyrannies will not tolerate a Shia state in Yemen. And Iran, while knowing that the Houthis — crammed in northwestern Yemen and only a third of Yemen’s population — will eventually be destroyed, will now have to bear the cost of its rhetoric about being the protector of Shia by supporting an undeniably lost cause in Yemen (along with those in Iraq and Syria).

The stage is thus set for a regional sectarian war, which after nearly twenty years of U.S. and Western Islamist-motivating intervention accompanied by military, diplomatic, and political incompetence, may be the best near-term means for improving U.S. and Western security. For now, the U.S. and NATO governments ought to step aside, let the Sunni-Shia sectarian war take its course, and urgently address the pathetic and steadily worsening mess they have made of civil liberties and domestic security in the United States, Canada, and Europe.

Now, if someone told you that the Congress of the United States invited a foreign leader to address it without coordinating with the president and seeking his approval, the natural reaction, I think, would be to respond that while such an invitation might be legal, it clearly is a case of the legislative branch arrogantly ignoring the executive’s prerogatives in the conduct of foreign policy. Even though the Obama administration does not have a coherent or commonsense foreign policy, the Congress’s action can only make the Obama-made overseas mess worse and thereby further undermine U.S. security. Constitutional prerogatives ought to be honored — in letter and spirit — by all three branches of government, and so this unilateral congressional invitation ought to set off some alarm bells.

Now, if the same someone went on to tell you that the foreign leader invited to address Congress is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and that he is going to deliver a speech meant to promote the involvement of the United States in an unnecessary war with Iran, the ringing alarm bells ought to become a deafening nationwide clanging. Our elected interventionist representatives are giving a war-wanting foreign leader a superb platform from which to intervene in U.S. politics, and from which he will try to drag/push/force the United States into Israel’s war with Iran. If Netanyahu succeeds at some point in the future, it will be the soldier-children of American parents who will be killed fighting for Israel in a war in which the United States does not have a horse. Iran has third-rate military that is not capable of successfully attacking North America; that is, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards will not be victoriously goose-stepping down the main street of any American city. And, lest we forget, the U.S. military is still the earth’s preeminent military power and if we are attacked by Iran it could render Persia uncomfortably radioactive. If Israel wants a war with Iran, let it rip, but Washington’s only duty in the case of such a war is to stay completely away from it, support neither side, and refuse to publicly comment.

Another reason why Washington must avoid participation in an Israel-Iran is the catastrophic disaster that our immigration and border policies have wrought in terms of allowing Iran’s intelligence operatives, Revolutionary Guards, and their murderous colleagues in Lebanese Hizballah to establish a strong presence in the United States. Iran has been deploying its fighters here pretty much at will since the early 1980s, and now controls a wide-ranging set of capabilities with which to attack in the United States. (NB: These capabilities are supported by the similar ones that Iran has built in Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and parts of South America.) The odds are very much against Iran using these capabilities unless we join in Israel’s war against the Islamic Republic. In that event, Tehran probably would use its U.S. based fighters to cause damage and death in the United States at a level the conventional Iranian military could never achieve. Joining Israel’s war against Iran, then, means Americans will fight a two-front war — one in Iran, the other at home — and would certainly come out the loser in both.

It is important, however, that Americans not misplace blame for this episode by damning either Netanyahu or Israel for taking advantage of the opportunity that the Congress has offered them. Netanyahu is responsible only for Israel’s national security, and that consideration apparently demands that the United States be on-board and fighting when Israel attacks Iran. The Israelis have an absolute right to defend themselves by whatever means they deem necessary, but the United States has no obligation — legal, moral, or security — to join them in their war on Iran. The U.S. government too has an absolute right to defend itself against perceived threats in any manner necessary, but it has an even greater duty — legal, moral, and security — never to become involved in other people’s wars in which no life-and-death U.S. interests are at stake and can only yield ruin for America.

There is much blame to be laid, however, and that blame lies squarely with pro-Israel Jewish-Americans and their organizations. They have been outspokenly critical of both the Obama administration’s failure to supinely do Israel’s bidding and the president’s apparent personal dislike of Netanyahu. The invitation for the Israeli prime minister to speak clearly is meant to demonstrate to the U.S. governing elite the power that the disloyal Israel-Firsters have acquired with — apparently — almost all members of both houses through their campaign contributions, their ability to arrange exclusion from the media, and their vicious eagerness to identify as anti-Semites all Americans who advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy and a resolute hands-off approach to the Middle East. The Israel-Firsters have long experience in deliberately damaging genuine U.S. national interests and silencing American citizens, beginning with their public and covert work with Britain’s information and intelligence services to push the United States into war with Germany before genuine U.S. interests were threatened, and their simultaneous defaming and ultimate destruction of the reputation of America’s last great hero, the courageous non-interventionist, Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh.

What is on the table for Americans to see, then, is constitutional disorder — who runs foreign policy? the extraordinary hyping of Iranian power, which is a marginal threat to the United States; the criminal, multi-decade negligence of U.S. governments in regard to immigration policy and border control that has yielded a serious threat from Iran’s resident operatives in America; and the astounding, disloyal, and possibly illegal anti-American activities of so many Israel-First U.S. citizens, men and women for whom Israel is their country of first allegiance and who have no qualms about suborning 535 U.S. congressmen and senators to serve as agents of a foreign power willing to involve the United States in Israel’s wars.

“Lieutenant al-Kasasbeh’s dedication, courage, and service to his country and family represent universal human values that stand in opposition to the cowardice and depravity of ISIL, which has been so broadly rejected around the globe.”

Barack Obama, 3 February 2015 (www.whitehouse.gov)

President Obama’s reality-free statement about the Islamic State’s (IS) burning to death of a Jordanian Air Force pilot who had bombed the mujahideen before he crashed and was captured is par for the course. In a world where, under Obama’s watch, the military and media power, armaments, manpower, ideological appeal, and geographical reach of IS and other Islamist groups have grown exponentially, the president claims IS and the Islamist movement have been “broadly rejected around the globe.” Over the weekend, Obama also was quoted by Real Clear Politics as saying the United States and the West make too much of the Islamist movement because, after all, it is not an “existential threat.” This statement came after a month in which the West saw three important NATO leaders — Cameron, Harper, and Hollande — respond to the lethal Islamist attacks in Paris and Ottawa, not by killing the enemy mercilessly, but by seeking stronger internal security measures that will further constrict the civil liberties of their own citizens. That shoe does not yet seem to have fallen in the United States, but probably only because Obama and Eric Holder — with broad Republican support — have already shattered the protections afforded to civil liberty by the 4th Amendment.

If common sense might for a moment be used in place of Obama’s theoretical fantasizing, the ever tightening noose around civil liberties in the United States and Europe — the latter is too bad, but irrelevant to U.S. interests and typical of the authoritarian EU — seems to indeed pose an existential threat to the ability of the American people to live as they want to, rather than as they have to. An existential threat does not necessarily have to be nuclear in nature. Americans have had three consecutive presidents — Clinton, Bush, and Obama — who have been confronted by the Islamists’ mortal and growing threat to the United States and each has refused to kill it with the most powerful and expensive military the world has ever known. Nearly twenty years into this war, it seems crystal clear that the combination of the Islamists’ piety, determination, talent, and ruthlessness with the politically correct moral cowardice of U.S. presidents — not to mention Obama’s tyrannical bent — does indeed yield an existential threat to the American people, their property, their way of life, and their Constitution.

Much more could be said on this issue, but all of it would arrive at the same bottom line; namely, if we are neither prepared to abandon the U.S. foreign policies that are the main motivators of the Islamists nor ready to militarily annihilate the Islamist groups, their civilian supporters, and whatever infrastructure they control, U.S. citizens must accept the fact that continuing Islamist attacks will be used by the U.S. government — under either party — to slowly eliminate their civil liberties in the name of domestic security. Americans gradually will be enslaved in their own land because their presidents and leading politicians prefer that end-product to having to admit that their unchanged policies and deliberately lost wars have allowed the Islamist movement to grow from a lethal nuisance to an existential threat. For Americans, the reality is that of a two-front war, one which they will have to wage against a de facto alliance of their own politicians and the Islamists. Both are equally their enemy; both merit the most severe punishment.

Winston Churchill once said that the Lord always looks after drunks and the United States of America. And though we hardly deserve it, Providence may have again stepped into the breach and given the United States a second chance to take advantage of a hard, murderous, but very real opportunity in the Middle East.

The overthrow of the Yemeni government sets the stage for a Sunni-vs-Shia conflagration on the Arab Peninsula. The late Yemeni regime is a zero loss to the United States. What President Obama once described as a vital regional ally — media pundits are now echoing this lie — was nothing more than a Arab strong man and his gang who ruled the Yemeni capital of Sana and almost nothing else, men who generously agreed to take hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military equipment, cash, training, and who knows what else. In return, the Yemeni regime allowed what it could not stop in any event: U.S. drone and Special Forces’ attacks that violated Yemeni sovereignty. Silence was the Yemeni regime’s main contribution as Obama’s vital regional ally, and now with that government gone, and none ready to take its place, the attacks can continue because there is no sovereign government to object to them.

What good such attacks would do is another matter. They have killed some important Yemen-based Islamist leaders and may have destroyed some arms caches, but the fact is that Al-Qaeda-on-the-Arab-Peninsula (AQAP) is stronger than ever before. The U.S. attacks in Yemen — as well as those in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and elsewhere — amount to nothing more than make-Americans-feel-good tactical victories that, as always, leave the strategic advantage and momentum with the Islamists.

Today’s reality in Yemen again demonstrates the extraordinary fecklessness of the U.S. government, both U.S. political parties, U.S. and NATO generals, and their EU sidekicks. Expensive support from all of them brought no stability to Yemen; U.S. and NATO-country military training did not create a force that could defend the regime; and Special Forces’ and CIA pin-prick attacks and drone strikes did nothing to slow the enemies’ growth. In addition, two Islamist insurgent organizations — the Houthis and AQAP — have grown larger, stronger, and better armed since the United States and Europe started supporting and publicly praising the Yemeni regime, while simultaneously lying to Americans and Europeans about how our now-deceased key regional ally was beginning to pull its own weight and was a shining example of the success of U.S. and Western policy.

There is, however, one bright spot in this otherwise dismal story. The arrival of the Shia Houthi insurgents as a potent rival of the Sunni AQAP gives the United States another — even if unmerited — chance to step back and watch the marvelously positive impact a regional Shia-Sunni sectarian war would have on U.S. national security. Such a war would hurt the U.S. economy a bit because Obama, Cuomo, and their deeply anti-American party have blocked U.S. energy self-sufficiency, but otherwise there is nothing but upside for the United States.

First, in Yemen, as in Syria and Iraq before Obama intervened and hurt U.S. interests, all the people that U.S. governments have for forty-five years identified as “enemies” would be killing and maiming each other. In addition, Saudi Arabia would aid AQAP and Iran would aid the Houthis, so the benefactors of al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, Lebanese Hizballah, Bashir al-Asad’s Syria, Iraq’s Shia militias, and the Houthi fighters would be drawing each others blood and spending wastefully. While all of this lethal mayhem is proceeding, the United States could simply watch and “officially regret” a religious war that has been in the making for a millennium, and which, with a little luck, will bleed each side white and move the United States a bit off the Islamists’ bull’s eye.

Second, the United States should withdraw all of its personnel and moveable physical assets from what the Obama called the Yemen success story. This should be done, of course, because we do not want our personnel to have to fight their way out with the help of the U.S. Marines. But more important, Washington could use Yemen as the opportunity to begin a policy of non-intervention in the Middle East, and thereby begin to sap the Sunni Islamists motivation to attack America. We could publicly say that our withdrawal is evidence of America’s granite-like support for self-determination — a lie, our governing elite loathes the idea for Americans or anyone else — but Obama’s arrogance will need some noble-sounding reason to abandon his now in-flames success story.

Third, Washington should build on a successful de-intervention in Yemen by beginning the same process in the Syria-Iraq theater. Obama and the Europeans clearly have no intention of defeating the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda there — and U.S. generals clearly have no talent whatsoever in training Muslim armies, witness Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. — and so whatever funding, weapons, and lives that are expended there amount to pure waste. Once U.S. forces leave, the road will be open for a resumption of the Sunni-Shia religious war in the Levant and Iraq that was perking along and expanding nicely until Obama and British Prime Minister Cameron saw themselves as the second coming and launched their avenging if always war-losing angels to save “innocent foreigners” at the expense of decreasing the security of their own nations and citizens. Who knows, two quick de-interventions might cause everyday Americans to press their bipartisan governing elite to abandon the knee-jerk, ruinous, and war-causing habit of intervening in countries where no life-and-death U.S. interest is at stake, as well as to reestablish the tradition of quickly and utterly annihilating those few enemies who pose a genuine threat to U.S. national security.

Because multiple second chances to redress errors, as Churchill said, come only to drunks and the United States, Obama’s Washington ought not to miss the Yemen opportunity to do something that would contribute to rather than erode U.S. national security. Relentless interventionism and open borders have, respectively, earned America a war with an increasing portion of the Muslim world and allowed our Islamist enemies into the United States undetected. A de-interventionist foreign policy and closing the southern U.S. border would head the United States toward a much more effective and Americans-protecting foreign policy summed up in the time-honored and commonsense phrase “America First.”

“We are gathered here tonight because we believe in an independent destiny for America. … An independent destiny for America means … that our soldiers will not have to fight everybody in the world who prefers some other system of life to ours.” — Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh, 23 May 1941

Media commentary on the well-planned, professionally executed, and completely successful mujahideen operation in Paris is really quite quaint. Listened to closely, the ponderously somber pundits will have you thinking that it is September, 2001, rather than January, 2015. The canned, 15-year old comments and questions flow freely: “Horrific attack kills 12 innocents”; “the attackers have nothing to do with Islam”; “how are the young men radicalized?”; “an attack on freedom;” “Muslims must condemn the attacks;” “we are not at war with Islam;” “why this senseless violence?”; and, of course, the maddeningly absurd and irrelevant “we will bring them to justice.”

Fortunately, just before this tripe put listeners to sleep, the prize jackass of the week trotted on stage in the person of Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper. “The fact of the matter is this, ladies and gentlemen,” Mr. Harper told a small audience, “The international jihadist movement has declared war.” Here, then, is one of the main reasons why the West has gotten its collective behind so regularly kicked, humiliated, and defeated since 2001. An important NATO leader, Mr. Harper seems not to know — even though the fine Canadian army along with all NATO militaries were defeated in Afghanistan — that the jihadists declared war on the United States and its vassals in August, 1996. Harper’s ignorance is important because it reminds all Westerners how hard it will be to survive the war the Islamists are waging against them when their leaders are just beginning to think there might be a war at hand fifteen years after the enemy began to fight it in earnest.

The inane gabfest over the Paris attacks will end in a few days and nothing much will change — at least for the Islamists. Western leaders will continuing to thunder about the rule of law, the peacefulness of Islam, the protection of freedom of the press, but will scurry to avoid doing anything that will destroy the enemy in numbers that have any strategic impact whatsoever. They will savor and gloat over the fact that it only took 90,000 French police and military personnel to kill three Islamist shooters. They held an impromptu summit of senior officials to condemn terrorism and have set another, both will promise “unity and future action.” And they will publicly beg the Arab tyrants to do the dirty work they are too embarrassed or cowardly to let their own military and intelligence services do. And, of course, the public purse will be robbed by the whores who masquerade as social science professors. The will descend on Western capitals armed with quack answers about how to solve “the Islamic radicalization of youth,” and legislators will give them gobs of tax dollars just so they appear to be doing something. The sum of all of this will be what it has been since 2001: motion without movement.

The substantive post-Paris changes from Western leaders will come when they inevitably enhance the war they are already waging against their own people and their peoples’ civil liberties, rather than by ordering the hugely expensive Western militaries to annihilate the Islamists, their civilian supporters and funders, and whatever infrastructure they possess. Because it is so utterly unfashionable to kill in the necessary numbers those who are killing you, perpetual adolescents like Obama, Harper, Cameron, Hollande, Merkel, and their colleagues will increase surveillance of their own civilians, their communications, and their bank accounts; make international air travel more intrusive and arduous; and work overtime to silence and/or penalize those citizens who speak the simple, irrefutable fact that an increasing part of Islam is at war with the West, and that that war is motivated not by Western lifestyles but by what Western governments do in the Muslim world — be it invading Muslim countries, coddling Israel, or championing those who blaspheme the Prophet.

In many ways, the Islamists are the Western leaders’ best friends in that they give them credible reasons to progressively eliminate civil liberties and continue building the authoritarian states many of them seem to desire. Obama, in particular, is likely to take advantage of the Paris attacks to further savage the 1st and 4th Amendments of the Constitution. And it will not be long before Obama and his pro-tyranny sidekicks in both parties undertake a renewed campaign to gut the 2nd Amendment, probably claiming that the national government needs to control all arms so that domestic Islamists — or those who come in across the open southern border — cannot assemble an arsenal to use in attacks.

[NB: For two reasons, I think that seldom in American history has it been more important for every American to be armed, and armed with as deadly a weapon (or weapons) as possible. First, as the Paris attack shows, the cowardly refusal of the French and all other NATO regimes to militarily eradicate the Islamists abroad wherever they can be found means more and more attacks in NATO countries. The attacks will occur not because of George W. Bush’s nonsensical argument that if we do not kill them overseas we will have to fight them at home — those who attack at home will have been residents most or all of their lives — but because Washington and its NATO partners have deliberately lost wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Young Muslims believe Allah has given Islam victory in both places, and, as Osama bin Laden predicted, they are following the strong horse. American citizens need weapons to provide the protection against domestic Islamists for themselves, their families, and their neighborhoods that the national government deems unimportant. Second, if Obama sends his Islam-loving multicultural thugs to unconstitutionally do an inventory of privately held weapons or even to take the guns of law-abiding Americans they merit a heartily discouraging welcome from well-armed Americans.]

There really is not much more to say about the Paris attacks except that Western leaders and their acolytes in the media and churches will keep lying to their public about the Islamist issue. When you hear those lies and the asinine comments and questions mentioned in the first paragraph, there are five simple facts to keep in mind as a defense against the lethal deceit that dominates the current public debate.

1. An increasing portion of the Islamic world is waging war against the West; most of the Islamists who are fighting are adherents of the Salafi sect of Sunni Islam, which is a small but growing, martially inclined, and admired sect that has declared a defensive jihad against the U.S.-led West. On the basis of these facts, it is suicidal madness to pretend that the West is not engaged in a religious war.
2. The reformation that the West is urging on the Muslim world is already underway, but it is not a reformation that will be to Western liking. The message delivered by Osama bin Laden and his successors that the most basic relationship in Islam is between the individual Muslim and Allah without an intermediary is obviously gaining ground across the Muslim world. Part of this success is due to the example of bin Laden and the victorious mujahideen, but most of it is due to the recognition by Muslims that the religious scholars who work for Arab governments are on the take, and that they will deliver religious decisions in whatever form their tyrant-employer desires so as not to lose the wealth, position, and status and they have won by selling out their faith. In this aspect, the current Islamic Reformation mirrors in content and violence the Protestant Reformation that occurred in the West.
3. Most of those mujahideen who attack inside Western countries will be residents of those countries. Responsibility for facilitating this phenomena lies strictly with Western governments that for forty years have championed the immigration of foreigners who never intend to assimilate, and who in some cases mean to harm the nation to which they have immigrated. This intent to harm clearly increases with each generation that is born in the country of immigration. This sort of society-killing multiculturalism has been worsened and made unmanageable by the open borders specialized in by the U.S. and the European Community governments.
4. The worldwide Islamist insurgency that the West confronts is not susceptible to defeat by a combination of law enforcement methods, Special Forces, and intelligence operations, or by a coalition of Western nations and Arab tyrannies. The first three tools might have been decisive in the late 1990s, but President Clinton refused to use them and let the Islamist problem strengthen and mature. It is now much, much too late to successfully employ these methods as war winners because the enemy is simply too numerous, well-armed, and geographically dispersed; using them today, as I have said before, is like trying to destroy the Wehrmacht one man at a time. The last-mentioned coalition is, on its face, a huge and cynical joke. The West is looking for others to do their war fighting, and the Arab tyrants will not risk internal revolution by seriously injuring the mujahideen, who are fueled by money, volunteers, and prayers from the tyrannies. Indeed, the Saudis and their Gulf partners are experts in the exact opposite of the kind of coalition being called for by the West. In the case of Iraq, the West has on three occasions provided blond, blue-eyed slave soldiers to protect the tyrants by fighting and dying there, while the tyrants have kicked in a few bucks and continued their debauchery while joining the mujahideen in laughing at the fools in Washington, London, Berlin, and Paris.
5. The bipartisan, interventionist foreign policy of the United States is today, as it was when bin Laden declared war on America in 1996, the main motivator — along with the West’s relentless military fecklessness — of the Islamist insurgency. Washington’s steady support for Arab tyrannies and the re-installation of one in Egypt; its unnecessary, corrupt, and dead Americans-causing relationship with Israel; and its willingness to invade Muslim countries at the drop of a hat make Washington — next to Allah — the only indispensable ally of the mujahideen. This reality all but ensures the inevitable demise of Western liberties. Western leaders are too cowardly to kill the Islamists and their supporters in the extraordinary numbers that now will be necessary to achieve victory, and yet they will continue to intervene militarily and culturally in the Muslim world and so motivate ever greater number of mujahideen to join the fight. Given this combination, Western leaders, in the name of defense, will crackdown on the liberties of their own citizens while the Islamist grow ever stronger.

When reviewing the five facts above, and knowing that each of them is fully substantiated in public, not secret sources, one can only conclude that Western leaders are pursuing their own political agendas, following the dictates of ruinous theories like multiculturalism, diversity, and uncontrolled borders and immigration, and hold in contempt the clear national interests of the nations they were chosen to govern. “Which is more blameworthy,” George Washington asked a correspondent in 1790, “those who see and steadily pursue their interest, or those who cannot see, or seeing will not act wisely?” The West today, sadly, is dangerously afflicted with both men and women in governing positions who — unless they are stupid — can easily see their nation’s interests but “will not act wisely.”

I had not intended to follow up on my last piece about MARC GRAYSON and his knowing conduct of a fraudulent LINKEDIN site, but the message that LINKEDIN sent to GRAYSON in an effort to try to help him continue perpetrating his fraud, pasted in below, is really priceless. I wonder how many such frauds are being conducted and assisted — hopefully unknowingly — by those who administer this service?