Refugees, Illegal Immigration, Sneak Attack, Capitulation and Community Organizing

Think about this, the government may soon cause what no other nation is or was capable of accomplishing, the defeat and occupation of the United States of America. Prior to the atomic age there was no nation on earth that could deal a death-blow to the U.S.A. Even when the atomic age was ushered in only the superpowers had nuclear weapons, none used them because of what was known as MAD, mutually assured destruction.

The Japanese attack on Hawaii was not intended to defeat America or to crush the American military. The attack was intended take the U.S. Navy out of the equation of war. There was at that time no way for Japan to reach America directly and the same goes in reverse. A strong navy was required to go to war if the warring nations were separated by an ocean, especially an ocean as vast as the Pacific. The goal I feel was for America to seek peace with Japan. Japan lacked the power and resources to defeat America and simply sought to eliminate the possibility of America using the Navy to take the war to Japan.

Japan did not follow-up the sneak attack on Hawaii with an invasion of mainland America for two reasons.
The first was it would have been logistically impossible to resupply an invading force that was an ocean away. An invading force has two options resupply yourself or forage for supplies. It is not only supplies that would be needed, the invaders would still need replacement soldiers. The replacements would still need to cross an ocean. Without resupply and replacements the invasion would fail.
The second was the American people themselves. The American citizens have at their disposal something that few other citizens of other countries enjoy, and that is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Japanese knew that even if they did mount and invasion and gain a foothold they would still have to face an armed population. The price for invasion was not one that the Japanese were willing to pay. Even if the sneak attack in Hawaii had been successful and the U.S. Navy was destroyed or reduced to a level that would prevent its use in war, Japan would still not have invaded America.

Two things have kept America relatively safe against aggression through the years.
The First is geographic isolation. Mainland America has only three neighboring countries, Canada to the north. Mexico to the south of Texas. Cuba to the south of Florida. Of the three only two are directly connected Canada and Mexico. Mainland America has no neighboring countries to the East or West only large bodies of water, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The 49th state Alaska is bordered with Canada and has Russia to the west separated by the Bering Straight. The 50th state Hawaii is an island with no immediate neighbors.
The second is an armed civilian population. A nation where the people enjoy the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Geographic isolation disappeared with the advent of the Advent of the atomic age. Rouge nations now have at their disposal nuclear weapons to attack far way and distant lands. Other rogue nations will soon have at their disposal nuclear weapons. The rogue nations do not give a damn about mutually assured destruction, for them there is no price to high to pay to attack America or an ally of America. Technology, trade and travel have eliminated geographic isolation.

The citizens in some countries have voluntarily given up their personal firearms. The citizens in those countries not only gave up their personal firearms, they also gave up the ability to defend themselves against invasion or a tyrannical government or against criminals. Which may or may not be the same. They have voluntarily given their safety and protection to the government, military and law enforcement in total and complete. The citizens in some countries have never enjoyed the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and therefore have never had the ability to defend themselves or to protect their countries against invasion. Many if not most of these countries never enjoyed the benefits of geographical isolation, when it was possible.

There is now and has been for sometime an effort to disarm the American citizens. The politicians and activist groups know full well that the American population will never disarm voluntarily. They know it must be done by force(more on this in a later post). This is particularly disturbing given the fact that one of the reasons for Japan not to invade America was an armed population.

This is why I say that the federal government is freely giving those who hate America what geography had denied them in the past. They are and have been given free and unhindered access. To be fair it did not just start with the current administration. But, under the current administration it certainly is gaining momentum. There is no border control thus, there is no immigration control. Not only is there a constant flow of illegals arriving from and through Mexico there is now a new wave of people coming to America. We now are experiencing a wave of refugees from the Middle-East. I might also add that none are being vetted, they are just coming in. They bring nothing and offer nothing. There is no assimilation in to American society. There is no way of telling if they come for a better life, to live off of government handouts or if they come as terrorists. I suspect that the largest portion of those arriving come for the latter two.

As to the matter of the refugees fleeing the Middle-East, why now? The Syrian civil war has been going on for near four years. Now the Syrian refugees are fleeing and arriving in Europe by what ever means available. They bring nothing, they offer nothing and they demand everything. It is worth mentioning that the outflow of refugees begins now given the fact that the Syrian civil war is in its fourth year. It is also worth mentioning that many of the refugees are men, men that appear to be relatively healthy. This leaves me to wonder why these same capable and able-bodied men are not remaining in their country to fight Islamic extremists. I can only see two possibilities as to why the men are fleeing their country. The first is that they could not decide which side to fight for, the government forces or the Islamic extremists, so they just run away leaving everything including family. The second is that they are fighters, Islamic extremist fighters, who have mixed with the refugees to gain a foothold in Europe and will soon arrive in America. Only time will reveal the answer, but I suspect the latter.

Suppose that it was America that was undergoing some sort of “spring” and another nation, an “outside force”, decided that the government of America was oppressive and denying rights to the population. Suppose that same “outside force” decided that the long-established system of government caused strife among the population and it would be best for all if the established form of government should be abandoned. Now suppose that the established and elected government of America stood fast and did not give in to the demands of the outside forces and influences. This would really agitate the outside force and they would have to take action against the established government to see that their visions for how life in America should be. Not only life but government, a government of their choosing not the people’s. But how to accomplish the goal of regime change in America? Direct military action is an option, it is always an option, but it would be the last option. Direct military action against America would be a fool-hardy move, the only outside forces that would consider that move would be one that only sought the destruction of America no matter the cost. There are several that fit that category and more loom on the horizon. At this point America does have some allies who could possibility assist in time of need against an Overt military action. Then again, the outside forces could possibly use the same tactics against America that the BHO administration is using against Assad in Syria. They could use Covert operations, even though these Covert operations are being conducted Overtly. Some faction in America that wanted change could be armed and trained to fight against the established government. This same faction could be identified as a “moderate” group. This faction would not be a military in the truest sense of the word. They would not be soldiers and thus they would not be expected to conduct themselves as soldiers, not on the field of battle and certainly not against the civilian population, no accountability for actions. There would be no Geneva Convention, the rules of how warfare is conducted, and no law, the law would be made as they went along, basically no law. They would only be a “well-trained and armed civilian force, one that is just as well-trained and equipped as military”.(Someone in high political office did say at one time something to the effect of “We need a civilian force just as well-trained and armed as our military”, I wonder if he meant Law-enforcement).

If America found itself in the state Syria is in, what would you do?
Would you pick a side and join? Would join with the government, one that the “world” says you despise? Would you join with the “moderates” to fight against the government, the one the “world” claims you despise, even while knowing that what is coming is even worse?
Would you flee, becoming a refugee? Where would you go? As mentioned above America has only two countries with land borders. Going south from Texas to Mexico is out. The people from Mexico and points south are illegally coming to America to escape their countries. Would you go north to Canada? How many could Canada accept? Would you make your way to Alaska and try to walk or swim to Russia, depending on the season? Would you make your way to Florida down to Key West and try to swim the 90 miles to Cuba? I have not heard of many Americans migrating legally or illegally to other countries of the world, especially Mexico, Cuba or Russia. Canada, Mexico, Russia and Cuba are the closest, the rest of the world is an ocean or two away. Would you be willing to leave everything, family included? If you did become a refugee, and if you were welcomed in a foreign country would you assimilate or would you demand that the country you arrived in give-in to you demands according to the life you had? Good luck with that if you end up in a Muslim country especially if you are not a Muslim or if you are a homosexual.

What is going on a present in Syria is akin to Community Organizing. Community organizers are basically Radical Activists. The radical activists seek change and stir-up the community to achieve their goal. Remember that it is the goal of the activists, militant activists, and not necessarily the goal of the people. The goal is to remove Assad from power in Syria. The activists are the moderates and there partners in radical activism are ISIL/ISIS/IS and any other Radical Islamic Extremist group available. The organizers care only about the goal they do not ever consider what happens because there goal was achieved. If you do not believe that look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. There are many other fine examples of community organizing throughout the Middle-East and northern Africa. The goals were achieved and the after effects speak for themselves. The pot was stirred and look what came to the top.

There is a new organizer at work in Syria. Syria has a friend, Russia. Russia has friends and their friends have friends. Russia is going in on the side of Assad, while the U.S.A. supports the one that are called “moderates”. China will pick a side sooner or later if they have not already. And do not forget Iran, and there will be other players in this for sure. Syria may well turn into the new Viet Nam. Assad could be the new Ho Chi Minh. The countries of the Middle-East that are at present enjoying a relative peace better buckle up and hold on, they may find themselves caught-up in this the same as Laos, Cambodia and Thailand were. Regional conflicts tend to grow. NATO and the Warsaw Pact may at last get their long sought after showdown.

As stated above no country in its right mind would use or attempt to use military might to destroy America. America does enjoy a tremendous supply of tools to deter an attack or to retaliate against any attack conventional or unconventional attack, nuclear, chemical or biological. America has Allies, friends and trading partners, right. America has few allies thanks to years of failed foreign policy of this administration and the previous and even before that. The only friends we have are the ones we feel we have to buy. The bought friends will be friends only as long as the money lasts. Friends you have to buy are not worth having.
America even pays its enemies, and gives financial support to those that chant death to America and have vowed to destroy some American allies, Israel.

There is more than one way to bring a country to its knees. Could America be attacked financially? Time will tell. If America is attacked financially the outcome will not be pretty.

Wrong Title

The president of the U.S.A. has long been looked to as, and referred to as the Leader of the Free World. That statement is not only false, it is down right dangerous, and becoming more dangerous. The President of the United States of America is just that the President of the United States of America, he is not the Leader of the free word, he is however president of the greatest nation in the free world. The label of Leader of the Free World can give one an over-inflated opinion of ones self. This over-inflated opinion did not begin with BHO but it has surely become more noticeable with BHO.

Think how the world has been affected by the action of a person proudly wearing and accepting the label of the Leader of the Free World. The supposed Leader of the Free World actually thinks he knows what is right for the free world. He does this when he does not even know what is best for America, the United States of America. Reaction by Reason and Logic is replaced by Reaction by and from emotion. Giving no thought to what comes next.

Let me use this example. The Colonials living in what would become the United States of America, did not need another country or government to tell them how bad it was to live under tyranny and oppression. They new first hand what living under tyranny and oppression was like. No other country came forward to offer to help defeat Britain if we would try their form of government, it would have been rejected because the Colonials had a better idea. It was the Colonials who fought off the yoke of tyranny and oppression not the government they would form. They sought to build a country like no other and establish a government like no other. A government of, by and for the people. No longer a people of, by and for the government. The people wanted to be free, the word “wanted” is key here.

Some examples of what happens when a person that is the President of the United States of America starts to believe that he or she is the Leader of the Free World.

Iraq. Had the people reached a point where they said “no more” and rise up? That is what the citizens of Colonial America did. Did some outside influence think that they had the right answer, regime change. A people who have lived under a dictator can not be made to be free they must want it. Some people can not handle freedom and liberty, others do not want it. Freedom and Liberty come with a cost, until people are ready to pay the cost they will not seek it. When Freedom and Liberty are gained they must be safeguarded and if necessary fought for to keep. GWB did not understand that simple concept. No matter the pretext for regime change, there is a life after for the people. Removing Saddam Hussein removed one problem and created another, religious sectarian violence and near civil war. BHO did not consider what would happen when he abandoned Iraq, more religious sectarian violence and the rise of ISIL, that became ISIS and now simply IS.

Libya. Again was it the people, citizens of Libya that rose up and said “No More”? Or was it some outside influences come in to stir the “pudding”. The statement from above apply in this case also.

Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, Yemen and The Ukraine. Again was it the people, the citizens of these countries who rose up and said “No More”, or is some outside influence or influences?

Reacting out of emotion rather than reacting from reason and logic. Being a person born in a Free nation and enjoying the Liberties that go along with that make it hard to observe or hear about the atrocities suffered by the people of a nation ruled by a dictator. The instant reaction is to free them, that is emotion. Reason and logic should take hold and stop you before you can act, but sadly there are politicians and those who see themselves as the Leader of the Free world that do not. The Leader of the Free World acts before he thinks.

Meddling is not a good foreign policy and division is not a good domestic policy.

There was never a need for and no country has the right to force their will on another country. But, I guess you thought the right when you took on the title Leader of the Free World.

The next person elected President of the United States of America needs to be reminded of that fact, President of the United States of America is your title, you are not the Leader of the Free World you were not elected to that post.

The United States of America has enjoyed a head start on the rest of the world. The key reason for this is written in history. History is loaded with examples of what has failed and what has merely existed. America was not born to fail. America has not merely existed. America has thrived and grown. One part of growing is making mistakes, another part of growing is not repeating mistakes. America does not live in the past, if one stays in the past they only stagnate and are reduced from thriving and growing to merely existing and eventually going to a footnote in history.
A side note on the founding of America. This is for those who do not believe God had a hand in the founding of America and the well-being since. Was it by chance or design that so many would be at the same place at the same time wanting freedom and liberty and then enough at one place at one time willing to make the sacrifices to make it happen?

Is it Time?

Is it time for a new breed of public servant? Yes it is. What America is in need of is elected leaders who understand that they hold Constitutional offices and not political offices, at all levels. America needs elected leaders that will operate within the limits and confines of the Constitution and perform the duties of the branch they serve in as stated in the Constitution.

Is it time for a new political party? One that honestly represents conservatism? The GOP says no, absolutely not. The Dem’s do not care if one springs up and puts forth a serious challenge. Why is it that the Dem’s do not care and the GOP starts foaming at the mouth when the three party system idea surfaces? If there was a third national political party the Dem’s would see little migration to the new party. The GOP on the other hand would see mass migration to the new party. But, why is that? The biggest reason is principles. Principles that are run on and the same principles are demonstrated in the execution of the office. The Democrats are Progressive Liberals and they run on progressive principles as progressive liberals and they act as progressive liberals when elected. The Republicans are conservatives and run on conservative principles, but sadly many do not demonstrate conservative principles in the execution of their office when elected, they act as progressives. The Conservative voters will vote for a conservative, even if it means voting for a third-party. Liberal progressive voters will vote for a liberal progressive, and that means a democrat. The GOP loses. Why? The candidate representing the GOP is not a conservative. The GOP has lost its way, both parties have lost their way, but it only costs the GOP.

There is one glaring thing that I have noticed about all of the scandals caused by and surrounding BHO and his administration and it speaks volumes about America. There are no more Americans demanding answers and accountability than there were at the beginning of the scandals, none. This alone makes no sense. The sheer numbers of scandals and failures should swell the numbers demanding answers and accountability, sadly this has not happened. Worse, I fear the numbers will not swell, no more will demand answers and accountability tomorrow than today. On the other hand the numbers of those who either will not or refuse to demand answers or hold anyone accountable will swell. This is best demonstrated by two groups of people. The first group is the young adults. Most do not even know where Benghazi is on a map, never heard of the BLM standoff at Bunkerville. The list goes on and on, most are not even aware of current events and have little recollection of yesterday much less yesteryear. The problem with the young adults is that they are a “me” generation, if it does not affect me it is not my problem. The second group is the “New Americans” the ones who will be granted “executive amnesty” and the ones arriving here from the Middle East as refugees. The “new Americans” called dreamers broke the law by coming here illegally and will be allowed to remain here, illegally. The refugees will most certainly be granted privileges they do not deserve. The second group illegals and refugees will most definitely not demand answers or accountability. They most certainly will join with the progressives, by doing so they will be rewarded.
True enough the scandals are far removed from the lives of everyday America and have little effect on the individual, that is until it finally does effect you. But they do effect you whether you see it or not.

Progressives, at least to me, seem to be confused about Rights and Choices. Progressives are a complete contradiction. Progressives espouse that we as Americans must be tolerant of others, at times to the point of denying our identity. Yet progressives are the most intolerant of all, to the point of attaching labels to anyone with a different view. Progressives claim to be pro-choice yet, progressives attempt to limit or eliminate choice, and do in fact deny rights and choice to others. Progressives even believe it is their right to limit or eliminate rights and choices. This may come from the progressives tendency to voluntarily give their rights even if it means giving up free choice, sacrificing Liberty for Security. No only are they happy do this they actually expect, no demand, that all Americans do the same. Progressives believe that all rights are bestowed upon them by government, if that were true government could deny rights on a whim.
Progressives have a “herd mentality”, simply following the leader no matter where they are led, even if it means going over a cliff. Free thinking is not part of their “scheme”, they just plod along, all on the same path to the same destination. Adopted for no other purpose than garnering votes. Progressives give no thought to what dangers await them on the path much less what lies at the end. Progressives live and exist on the principle of hope. Progressives hope that the utopia they so desperately seek is at the end of the path. Progressives hope that total destruction is not what waits for them at the end of their path. Masses moving together just like the Lemmings during mass migration with no idea what lies ahead and with little care, just playing follow the leader. Hoping for the best.
Progressives have no hard and fast set of principles, they are constantly evolving, constantly broadening. I find it hard to believe that anyone that has no hard and fast set of principles could ever be trusted. I find it especially hard to believe that this type of person could be elected or appointed to any position in government. The un-trustworthy being trusted to govern.
Groups that feel that they are discriminated against or have been disenfranchised only have to keep voting for progressives, because it has been proven time and time again a progressive will evolve and perhaps adopt that group into its fold.
You will notice in the above paragraph the only term used was Progressive, this was intentional. The why is simple, there are many progressives that call themselves republicans. Actually progressive is liberal and liberal is associated with the left, meaning democrats. If you wish to attach labels, start with yourself and label yourself correctly. Identity politics. Pandering politicians.

This part of this post is not to start an argument over which is or was better the Articles of Confederation or the U.S. Constitution, if it does so be it, though I do like the phrase Free and Independent States mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The Articles of Confederation was replaced by the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is where the phrase Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are found, not in the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is so short as in the numbers of pages for a reason. The Constitution spells out the duties of the three branches of government and is a limit on government power. The Constitution was not designed to limit the power of the people, as a matter of fact it starts with these words “We the People”. The Constitution even guarantees a republican form of government. It even guarantees the powers not granted to the government or prohibited to the states would remain with the states and the people respectively.
Our rights do not come from government, they instead come from the Creator of the universe. The U.S. Constitution with the Bill of Rights goes hand in hand with the Declaration of Independence. The Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Arms should also be considered as a part of the founding documents. Yes even the Federalist Papers. Several key words and phrases from the Declaration of Independence. The first is Self-Evident meaning without need of proof or explanation. The second is Unalienable Rights, Un means Not, Alienable means Capable of being alienated or transferred to a new owner, meaning they “Your Rights” can not be transferred to a new owner. Certain when used in the context of the structured sentence in the Declaration of Independence does not limit the Rights to a list it means Fixed or Indisputable.
The Declaration of Independence is about the people not the government, it expressly states the conditions that the people would not and could not live or exist under. The Constitution is an agreement by the people concerning the type government under which they were willing to be governed.

The Constitution, the first three articles deal with the three branches, independent branches, of government. No where in the Constitution does it allow for a fourth branch of government. Each of the three has specific duties and responsibilities. Each was designed to keep the others in check, under control.
The one that I wish to discuss is the first listed, and it is listed first for a reason. The first is the most important. The Legislative Branch is responsible to introduce or propose legislation that is wholesome and good. The Constitution states that ALL legislation begins with the legislative branch. No other branch was granted legislative powers.
Yet, we in America find ourselves ruled and governed by the fourth branch of government which was not addressed in the Constitution, government agencies. The government agencies have no legislative authority. The government agencies rule over us, not govern us, by rules and decrees. The government agencies are headed by hacks who see he agenda of the president and the political party as their marching orders. As mentioned in a previous post, these vile government bureaucrats are the worst as they switch sides with each successive administration.
The legislative branch has abdicated their duties and responsibilities to the Executive branch and the government agencies and their bureaucratic heads.
There is even perhaps a fifth branch of government. That would be the special interest groups, along with lobbyists and political donors. All three branches, no all four branches, of government seem to pander to the fifth branch with special appointments and privileges. This issue was directly addressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Back to the question of is it time for a third national political party. The answer is both yes and no. The reason America is in such a mess now is that there was at one time a third political party. Ironically it was started by a liberal progressive masquerading as a republican. None other than Theodore Roosevelt, with his “bull moose party”. Though it only lasted a short time the damage was done. The bull moose party succeeded in dividing the republicans. The republicans never reunited.
No, we do not need a third political party. It will only divide the republicans, when I say republicans I mean conservatives, further. As a matter of fact America does not need either of the other political parties, rather than representing the agenda of the political party the ones elected to govern should be representing the values and principles of either a republican or a democrat. That would be difficult for a democrat or a republican who is also a progressive, as progressives have no firm or fixed set of principles and thus is not likely to have any values.

The people elect men and women to Constitutional office to govern the country. Notice the usage of the word govern, I did not say rule. I also did not say fly around the country giving political speeches. If you are flying around the country you are campaigning not doing the job you were entrusted with. Do what you were entrusted to do. You were not elected to campaign, do that on your time and dime not the country’s time or dime.

The results of the election of last November were no accident. The republicans were swept into office for no other reason than the conservatives came out to vote. Why? They turned out in force because the republicans, some of them anyway, started sounding like conservatives and would at last represent conservative values and principles. Again sadly, time has proven that most not all have proven themselves to be progressives and some of those have proven themselves to be progressive liberals masquerading as conservatives. This will be remembered and many conservatives will stay home next election.
As for me, I will not stay home on election day and never will as long as I can move and get around. What I will do is look at the ballot and vote for the one who represents conservative values and principles. If none are listed and there is a space for a write-in I will use that space to cast a vote for one who represents conservative value and principles. If there is not one it gets skipped and move to the next section, no voting for the lesser of the evils, evil is evil. There are those who will say, not voting for a republican is the same as voting for a democrat. To those I say a better candidate should have been put forth. After all the only difference between a progressive republican and a progressive democrat is the R or D behind the name. Neither can be trusted.

As for the current field of GOP hopefuls, give me a break. Some are so progressive they could switch political parties and no one would even notice. Others will get through the political party, they would be too hard to control. For those is it the candidate or the political party? Guess. The progressives should label themselves as such and be honest for a change.

The strategy of having no strategy

The result of moving or attempting to move “forward” with no strategy is a guarantee of total and absolute failure, that is of course, unless failure was the strategy. A strategy is no more than a plan. In business no one plans to fail, as a matter of fact no lending institution will give a business loan unless there is a good and sound business plan. A strategy for success.In politics the exact opposite is true. Individuals and groups donate huge sums of money to politicians and causes hoping for success to further a political or personal agenda. A strategy of hope. The campaign slogan of “forward” with the absence of a strategy is in essence “backward”.

“Forward” is to “Advance”. BHO used the word “Forward” as the campaign slogan in 2012, yet BHO has done nothing to advance America.
“Backward” is to “Retreat” or “Decline”. Since his election BHO has only “Advanced” the “Decline” of America, retreating from greatness and many times apologizing for it or denying it.

The world of radical Islam has no intention of going “Forward”, advancing the Muslim world in particular and the world in general. The radical groups like ISIS, Boko Haram and the myriad of others only have the intention of advancing forward to decline, by going backwards. However, they do use modern tools, weapons and equipment to advance the decline of humanity, and will continue to do so. The establishment of a Caliphate takes their world from the 21st century and lands them square in the 4th century and no farther forward than the 14th century and make no mistake, they want that for the entire world. Radical Islam has a strategy and has announced it to the world.

BHO on the other hand has no strategy to counter ISIS and has announced it to America and the world. But, BHO does have a strategy, his strategy is to tell the enemy or potential enemy what he will or will not do, what events will drive him to possible action and even discloses the timeline of events. This is a very dangerous practice to say the least.

Strategy in Iraq. Announce to America and the world when combat operations would cease, troop strength reductions would begin and the date of total withdrawal. Upon total withdrawal inform America and the world that “we” left behind a stable and self-sufficient Iraqi government, knowing full well the exact opposite was true. Every aspiring terror group knew the exact date they could begin operations to further destabilize a less than stable government and country. Unlike the U.S. government which is divided along party lines, the Iraqi government was divided along religious lines. Sectarian violence began anew.

Strategy in Afghanistan. Announce to America and the world when combat operations would cease, troop strength reductions would begin and again the date of full withdrawal. This again tells the terror groups when they can resume operations. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are still very much alive in Afghanistan and will be heard from again.

Strategy in Libya. Destabilization. Announce to America and the world that airstrikes will be used to further weaken the Libyan government and its fighting forces attempting to hold off an insurgency. Announce the arming and training of rebel forces in Libya without any thought of how the training or arms would be used afterward. While announcing what would happen BHO also announced what would not happen, BHO announced that there would be no “boots on the ground”, no U.S. ground combat forces would be used. Establish diplomatic relations with a country in turmoil and on the brink of civil war. We all saw how that worked out. The only strategy BHO had, was to topple Qaddafi, or at least help, at the present and not for what would happen after, much less what kind of government would exist or even if there would be one.

Strategy in Syria. Again, Destabilization. Announce to America and the world that the use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces would bring U.S. military action, a red line was drawn by BHO. Low and behold chemical weapons were deployed against a town being contested and there were civilian casualties. Allegations were circulated around the world that the Syrian military had used chemical weapons. My question was, was BHO warning the Syrian government or was he encouraging the rebel forces to use chemical weapons in order to bring the U.S. into action? I still think the latter. The red-line was erased or at least blurred by the intervention of Russia. The chemical weapons were being destroyed, but were they all destroyed. That news left the front pages and has never arisen since. How much was destroyed? How much is left? If any is left who has control of it?

The blunders by BHO and his administration in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria has shown to the world how ineffective the foreign policy of the U.S. is. Middle East foreign policy has suffered since President Carter and has not recovered. The policy of appeasement did not work for British PM Chamberlain and will never work for any leader.

The policy of destabilization of Libya and Syria has created the biggest and most lethal threat America has faced in many years. ISIS or as it is known now the Islamic State could have been destroyed when they were Known as ISIL only a short few months ago. They thrive and flourish now because BHO and his administration and some members of Congress were more concerned with toppling dictators than what the future may hold. The same is true of the previous administration with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan.

ISIS has made many gains while suffering a few loses. But is ISIS the only threat? In the beginning the intent was to establish The Levant, now the intent is to establish the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and have declared the establishment of a Caliphate. Why the change? The Levant is certainly larger than the Islamic State. Have they joined forces with other terror groups with each carving out their own domain in the world? Are they combining resources? When the news broke that ISIS fighters had captured a Syrian Air Base, I wondered why. Building and maintaining a civilian airport is expensive enough, but the costs of a Military Air Base are even more, much more. ISIS has no need of an Air Base, they have no aircraft. If the intent was to deny Syrian forces the use of the Airfield why not just render it useless and abandon it. It can not be disguised or moved, it is fixed. If it is captured the rightful owner will want it back, if it is still useable they will use it. Discussing this event with a friend, I made the following statements first they either have Aircraft other than stolen helicopters or they are expecting to get aircraft and second they may have stripped the Syrians down to their underwear and marched them out to the desert for execution, but all were not executed, the valuable were taken back. I say this for two reasons, first they intend on having aircraft and will need pilots and aviation support personnel and second Military Air Bases have what civilian airports lack, defense systems and they need to learn them as well. And once again the strategy of nothingness is revealed, ISIS was told by way of the announcement from BHO that he was authorizing surveillance flights over Syria to monitor the situation. If something is revealed what action will be taken. The ISIS fighters were even informed by social media how many more American service members we going to Iraq, where they would be sent and their intended mission, emphasizing a non-combat role. Think of the money ISIS saves daily by getting their intelligence straight from the administration and avoiding the expense of satellites or a spy network.

Now the chatter of missing civilian airliners from Libya, eleven of them. The rebels took control of the Tripoli airport and the airliners are now missing and ISIS has a Military Airbase in Syria. There was most certainly fuel at the airport in Tripoli and certainly fuel is at the Syrian Base now held by ISIS. What targets are in easy reach of an airliner from Syria or Libya used as a weapon?

Now to explain my previous statement that the terrorists have joined forces. It is perfectly acceptable for a Muslim to lie to a non-Muslim, known as an Infidel. When al Qaeda said they had kicked ISIS out of their group was it a member of al Qaeda that made that statement or was it an Infidel? When the rebels in Libya and Syria identified themselves as moderates was it a member of their group or was it an Infidel. I will even go one step further and simply state that all of the terror groups and their supporters are the same force with the same goal, no matter how they dress. There are no moderates.

Not only should one not make the mistake of confusing friends with enemies and then treating them as such, or trusting the enemy of ones enemy and thinking them to be your friend, one should also never make an enemy of a friend or potential friend based on political differences.

The anniversary of September the Eleventh is approaching.

Once, Twice, Three Times

Will the third time be a charm? The U.S. Military will be headed to the lovely country of Iraq for a third time. BHO made it clear in his own way that they will only be advisors and not engaging in combat roles, and we all know that we can trust every thing he says. He never lies to the people, right. We already did the advisors only once and that cost us over ten years and over 50,000 killed in action and nearly destroyed America will internal strife, rioting and protests. Our Military won all of the battles but the politicians managed to lose the war. Ten years of blood and sacrifice was for what, nothing was gained and every thing was lost. Returning soldiers were spat on and called baby killers. Who was to blame? Politicians and the news media. From the beginning of that there was no clear plan to win. LBJ came up with the policy of Vietnamization of the war, letting them defend their own country, and the drawdown began, we saw how that came out in May of 1975, this country left behind many friends who had to live through, the few that did, the onslaught of the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. The U.S. involvement in Vietnam began as far back as WW 1 by political and foreign policies and were set in concrete at the conclusion of WW 2. But the matter of Vietnam is for another post and another time. This post is About Iraq and our involvement there and the failure of politicians and failed foreign policies, and most importantly the political expediency that has our Military facing a foe for the third time.

The first military action against Iraq, in recent history, was brought about by the attack on, defeat of the Kuwaiti military and the occupation of Kuwait in August of 1990, by Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi military. The U.S. military was deployed to Saudi Arabia to defend that country from invasion by Iraq. The U.S. Military sat in Saudi Arabia training and preparing for war while waiting on the politicians and the U.N. to form a coalition of the willing to fight Saddam Hussein’s military. We were perfectly capable of defeating Iraq without any help, and it would have been better for the world if we had gone it alone. The coalition was formed, the U.N. set the rules and terms for disengagement and an attack was launched against Iraq. It all began with an air attack aimed at weakening and destroying Iraqi air defenses and ground equipment, then the ground war began. The Iraqi military was soundly defeated on the battlefield in pretty short order, we thought we were in it to win it and we set our sights on Baghdad. An early morning briefing was set for another day to face the enemy and objectives. A crisp and shiny officer came to the briefing an said that it was over, we thought Iraq had surrendered. We learned a short time later that Iraq had not surrendered that had only in fact met the requirements set by the U.N. and were leaving Kuwait. The army of Iraq was only to leave Kuwait and return to their own borders and remain in their own country. To make it short and simple Saddam Hussein got a sweetheart deal after leaving Kuwait. Not only did Saddam Hussein get to remain in power he was able to maintain what was left of his Military including aircraft. A senior commander was also dismayed by the terms set by the U.N. and simply said, we would be back in ten years, he was wrong about that it took, 12 years. Once again the American military won all the battles and the politicians ended up losing the war. The fact that Saddam Hussein remained in power and still had fighting assets, led to airstrikes on Iraq once again when he deployed his assets against The Kurds in repayment for their being disloyal to him. More airstrikes and still no complete victory and still he remained in power. The coalition of the willing was to satisfy or pacify the Arab world not to win a war. Failed policies, political correctness, politicians and political expedience will doom the civilized world.

The next military action against Iraq in 2003 was over alleged weapons of mass destruction and Congress approved the use of force resolution. Once the bombs starting falling and the U.S. military crossed the border the existence or absence of WMD’s no longer mattered the U.S. had invaded another country. The intention of this invasion was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and destroy his weapons. If the U.N. had kept their nose out of the first military action in Iraq and if the administration at the time had been less concerned about the feelings of the Arab world Iraq would have been totally beaten and forced to surrender and Hussein would have no longer been a problem to Iraq or the world, problem solved. The war with Iraq from 1990-1991 was for what purpose, it settled nothing and failing to finish that one led, to but did not cause the next one in 2003. The 2003 war with Iraq came to a close in 2011, fulfilling a campaign promise. The American military had once again won all of the battles, and again the politicians with their own agendas and promises once again failed to win the war. America had faced and beaten the same enemy twice and still nothing was finished.

Military Leaders and Kings of long ago had a saying, it went something like, One should not make war with the same people too many times, they will learn your tactics and use them against you.

As to Iraq the failures of 1991 led to the failures of 2011 and are leading us to repeat it all in 2014 all in the name of what, political correctness, political expedience and political agendas. The administrations abandoned the Kurds in 1991 and 2011, yet they still trust us. They suffered under Saddam Hussein and are now threatened by ISIS.

The failures of 1991 were not the direct cause of 2003, but the failures of 2011 are the direct cause of events in Iraq in 2014

As to the matter of the Iraqi Kurds, maybe the time has come to recognize who would be a friend and ally, and treat them as such. The Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites, will one day be a friend and ally once they overcome their religious differences and not until, and should be treated as such.

Now The U.S. prepares to send troops to Iraq for a third time, even if they are only advisors they are still American Military sent back to a country that had already been beaten twice. If you ask why, the answer is because of politicians, political correctness, political expedience and failed political policies just like all the other times in history. Politicians, political policies, political correctness and political expedience will doom the civilized world.

Kings and military commanders of times long ago recognized the dangers of fighting an enemy too often, they would adopt and use your tactics against you. In today’s world the presidents or prime ministers are the military commanders, or they are labeled as such though most if not all have no military experience. Our present administration may have committed the biggest possible military “sin”, not only is our military fighting the same enemy too often they are training them with our tactics and equipping them with our equipment.

If the U.S. is forced into another ground war in Iraq against the ISIS fighters the military will be facing an enemy using the same tactics and weapons, a little hard to win. Our military may be forced into finding out just how good our training and equipment is. With both sides using the same equipment and maneuvering in the same manner, many lives may be lost to “friendly fire” incidents.

BHO like LBJ previously, is sending out an aircraft with a pilot on board to bomb a truck. Many jets and pilots were lost looking to bomb ox carts in Vietnam. ISIS will acquire surface-to-air missiles and deploy them, again history may repeat itself, men and equipment lost looking to bomb trucks, not an army or a legitimate military target. BHO like LBJ previously, set about of forming a policy of Iraqization of the war. The war was started by the U.S. and should have been finished by the U.S.

The reason Kings and Military Commanders of long ago avoided fighting the same enemy too many times is that they went with their men into battle, and sooner or later they too would be killed by an enemy using the same tactics that were used to defeat him. The victor taught his enemy to be the victor, and soon the victor became the vanquished. It is real hard to beat yourself at anything.

Todays world is quite different Kings, Presidents, Presidents who see themselves as Kings and Military Commanders sit in a war room far removed from the battle make the rules and some even pick the targets for military action. They lead from the rear and never experience the dangers they order others to face. Few of the Leaders of the world have had any military experience and their children are too privileged to go into combat.

In my unit in Iraq in 1991 there were several Vietnam veterans, Warrant Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers, I looked up to those men. I came to a realization they had twice in one lifetime and in one military career, they had won all the battles but were denied victory, a victory they had fought for and seen many of their friends dying trying to achieve.

Some of the advisors now going to Iraq may have never seen combat, but some of them that will be going may have been there in 1991 and many times from 2003-2011 and like all previous they too have won all the battles and never achieved total victory.

It is time for the politicians to either pony up and go or give the Generals the order and then get the hell out-of-the-way and shut-up.

Saddam Hussein remained in power with what remained of his military in tact just by meeting the U.N. resolution and withdrawing and returning to his country. Imagine a world if the U.N. was in existence in WW 2 and only demanded Germany, Japan and Italy to go home and stop fighting and the war would end. While in their own country with the leaders still in power still developing weapons and then breaking out and being set loose on the world once again. What is your favorite foreign language? It doesn’t matter because it would be English as one of the three aforementioned would be your primary language. Wars must be fought to a conclusion, there must be a victor and a vanquished or you will meet again in battle. If this non-sense of a draw or a truce continues the shoe may be on the other foot, as they say.

Dangers ahead and all around

Each passing day only exposes America to more dangers. We are seeing the effects of a failed administration and a narcissistic president that is determined to destroy America with one manufactured crisis after another, each one designed to provide cover for the last one and the next one. The ultimate goal of BHO and his corrupt administration I fear will soon be revealed and it does not look good for the home team.

What I read and analyze keeps leading back to two things BHO said. The first was on the campaign trail and it was about wealth redistribution. I must point out that money is not the only source of wealth. The second was the statement that we needed a civilian force just as well equipped and just as well-trained as our military. He never did say what that civilian force would or should be or where they would come from.

First I will address the civilian force. There has been millions upon millions of dollars spent training and equipping the moderate terrorist groups in the Middle-East and Africa under the guise of overthrowing rogue regimes. The terror groups have been provided with military equipment and arms and there have also been stockpiles of equipment, arms and ammunition left conveniently for them to steal. By definition the terror groups are a civilian force as they represent no established country or government and they are indeed well-trained and equipped now. As the terror group ISIS was overrunning cities in Iraq they were not only capturing arms, ammunition and equipment and robbing banks acquiring wealth they were also freeing the criminals from prison and growing their ranks. They have also captured oil fields and refineries, that were reported as being retaken by government forces. I have no confidence in the news media and believe the terrorists still hold what they have overrun. I also believe based on past actions and statements by BHO and his administration if ISIS takes Baghdad and indeed all of Iraq, the administration will recognize them as the legitimate government of Iraq, based on their recognition of the MB as the rightful and legitimate government of Egypt.

Now I must back up a bit and point out things that have happened right here in America in the past few years. It was not all that long ago that the country was abuzz with the law enforcement agencies being given and acquiring surplus military equipment and arms I for one was wondering why local and state law enforcement agencies were needing such equipment for, after all America is not a “banana republic” with a “tin pot” dictator in charge. There was no need to equip law enforcement in such a manner, after all the average citizen is no threat to government. Then there was the ammunition shortage that was created by the federal government placing orders for millions upon millions of rounds of ammunition.

Now I move forward to the latest crisis, the massive illegal border crossings that are being reported as unaccompanied children. We all know that is a lie. But regardless, even if the children are unaccompanied they must be reunited with their families. Will BHO and his administration simply deport them or will they bring the parents here to retrieve their rug-rats? The Border Patrol is so busy gathering up and caring for these rug-rats that they are unable to fulfill the primary duties of protecting the border. But given the reports lately the Border Patrol has been castrated and must run from anyone who throws a rock their way. There is no way of knowing who or what is crossing the southern border. None of the illegals are being screened for disease they are just being flown or bused to different locals. The federal government may be spreading disease and sickness across America by transporting illegals. There have been reports of U.N. vehicles on American soil, at first I dismissed that as not unusual all member countries donate equipment to the U.N. and it would not be unusual to repaint them and remark them prior to shipment and they would be moved by trucks that may or may not be covered. Then all the sudden the illegal immigration is being refered to as a humanitarian crisis and humanitarian crisis’ are the U.N.’s specialty even though every crisis has been worsened by their presence. Now I am not so ready to dismiss the U.N. vehicles as a normal course of support for equipment.

Now go back for a minute to the militarization of law enforcement. The average citizen here in America is no threat to government. That only leaves two possibilities the federal government completely distrusts the citizens and know that eventually they will push too far or they were preparing for a huge crime wave or even a third possibility is a combination of distrust and a huge crime wave. Either way the federal government and law enforcement agencies are arming up for something.

Now back to the border, we citizens have no idea of who or what is pouring across the border. Small arms and ammunition could certainly be moving across the border especially now that the Border Patrol is distracted. Didn’t BHO and the DOJ move weapons across the border the other way, during Fast and Furious, no one yet has said who they were intended for or for what purpose much less what types of arms or how many. There is not much talk about Fast and Furious of late, maybe because BHO keeps giving us new things and crisis’ to talk about. Even some crew served weapons could be moving across the border. Large equipment would be a different matter someone would notice a flow of equipment and sound the alarm. No one seems to scream too loud over a few thousand rug-rats even though no one knows where they are really from or what they may be carrying or leaving along the way for others to find and use. Since we have so few friends and allies to our south we have no idea much less control over what is arriving on cargo vessels from all over the world. Our friends directly to the south have vast amounts of real estate not under their control, it is controlled by gangs and drug lords, most that is under control outside of the large cities and tourist resorts is ripe with corruption and coercion.

Now go back farther in time and you will arrive at a place and time where America was at war with a people who moved their entire war making effort on their backs, bicycles and carts even using submerged bridges and trails, and were not above going through other countries to accomplish their goal which was to push America out and remove American influence from that part of the world. And they were not above using children if it would get the job done.

Now move forward in time and arrive in Libya where the rebel forces were given war making equipment to overthrow their dictator, they could not get it done so BHO intervened. The weapons and equipment they were given and gained in Libya are being used in Iraq and Syria with great success and enabled them to capture much more, now they are a force to be reckoned with. Some of the arms and equipment they acquired in Libya was strategically located for them to find and apparently steal.

Now return to America and the militarization of law enforcement. Since it would be difficult and a logistical challenge to say the least to move war making equipment through Mexico, a much easier way to do it would be to have them walk here carrying what would be needed immediately and just place the heavy equipment where they can find it, on our own land. Our government is no more ready to fight off a large-scale terrorist attack now than in 2001. Who is crossing the border and why? Why shrink the military?

The true wealth of America is Freedom and Liberty without them we could not enjoy the side effects which are money and possessions. What wealth was BHO talking about redistributing? To redistribute anything it must first be taken from the rightful owner and then given to another. Maybe I was wrong about that “banana republic” and “tin-pot” dictator thing.

How did we get to this point?

We now are witness to the collapse and impending fall of Iraq and BHO takes time to give a speech on “climate change” fundraise, golf and vacation in California. The decision on what military action to take in Iraq will take days, and then only if the Iraqis can work out their political differences. Once again he has “telegraphed” his strategy to the insurgents when he said no “combat troops” will be involved. The Iraqis can not work out their political differences until they can work out their religious differences, and BHO knows this. In fact this latest outbreak of violence in Iraq is their way of working out their political differences based on religion. In the coming days the news media will call the increased violence and fighting in Iraq a “civil war” but it is actually a “religious war”. The Iraqi politicians are not labeled with a (D), (I) or an (R) behind their name, the are either Sunni, Shia or Kurd, therefore the religious beliefs of the elected officials dictate and are dictated in any legislation passed. They do not represent the political party and certainly not the people or the country only the religious beliefs of their sect.

There has even been talk around about breaking Iraq into three separate countries giving each of the three groups in Iraq their own country to curb and possibly prevent further violence and for political expediency. The Sunni, The Shia and the Kurds would have their own countries separate of the others. This insane idea has already been tried and has before almost brought the world to the brink of war. At the conclusion of World War 2 both Korea and Vietnam were divided, the city of Berlin was divided into four parts, Germany itself was divided, even Europe was divided, all for the cause of political expediency. These divisions that were for political expediency created a policy of containment. What was being contained Communism or Capitalism or simply just the people? The division of Iraq will not lead to peace, never has never will, and will not contain the religion or the violence.

The divisions of the nations of the world in the name of political expediency caused a stagnation in some parts of the world, some countries of the world have remained at their stage of development at the conclusion of World War 2. This is demonstrated by their lack of advancement in science and technology, they must rely upon advanced nations of the world for their mere existence with most unable to feed themselves. With few exceptions most notably Israel, South Korea, Japan and China, the only nations of the world to advance past the 1940’s are the victors of World War 2 as demonstrated by the rest of the world calling on them.

Still other nations of the world are stagnated by religious differences and remain in the same stage of development they were in at the outbreak of their religious wars. Culturally they have not advanced beyond killing one another in the name of religion, they have stagnated themselves in the name of religious expediency.

There have been many foreign policy attempts made by many leaders of the world. The policy of appeasement gave us World War 2. The policy of containment gave us the Korean War, The Vietnam War, the First war with Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the second war with Iraq and numerous other hostile actions. But of late we see a new and dangerous foreign policy of destabilization and abandonment. The best example of destabilization is the unprovoked attack on Libya. The best example of abandonment is Iraq. With the foreign policy of destabilization and abandonment if you add in the providing of arms and equipment to insurgents you get the new policy of confusing enemies with allies. Add in the idle threats made with no intent to act you get Syria. Add in the “there will be consequences” you get the Crimea and the Ukraine. The best examples of providing arms, equipment and training to insurgents would be Libya and Syria. The best example of confusing enemies with allies would be the muslim brotherhood in Egypt. Now add in the policy of not wanting to offend you get boko haram.

The foreign policy of destabilization, abandonment, providing arms, equipment and training to insurgents, confusing enemies with allies, making idle threats, there will be consequences and not wanting to offend has changed the landscape of the world. The destabilization of Libya by supporting the insurgents with arms and equipment and U.S. airstrikes led to the death of the Libyan dictator, the convenient leaving of more arms and equipment for the rebels to steal and all that combined led to the murder of four Americans at Benghazi. The very same weapons and equipment from Libya were used in the latest insurgency victories in Iraq, where more weapons and equipment were seized including helicopters, surface to air missiles, air to air missiles, anti-tank ammunition, wheeled vehicles and who knows what else. While the insurgents were overrunning town after town they stopped long enough to rob the banks of millions of dollars and gold, raise their flag and invoke sharia law. Abandonment of Iraq has led to destabilization and was an open invitation for al-Qaeda and their splinter groups to take over. Even if the government forces regain their composure and take the fight to the insurgents, which is unlikely, the insurgents still have all the weapons and equipment they already seized not to mention the millions in dollars and gold. If the insurgents take Baghdad they will get more arms and equipment and will have more banks to rob. What will be the next target for the al-Qaeda splinter groups? The U.S. will abandon Afghanistan in two years. Syria still has chemical weapons that have not yet been destroyed and quite possibly biological weapons left over from the first war with Iraq, that would be a great prize for any terrorist group. Iraq is a large country and offers many places to hide chemical and biological weapons left over from the old regime and some of those men from the old regime still live and might just know where to find them.

If America has to engage the al-Qaeda splinter groups in battle it will be a much different engagement, our country will be fighting men armed with our equipment and with the same level of training as our own military. Airpower would be used but at what cost, two forces fighting and using with the same equipment would be disastrous, wrong targets could be taken out, and correct targets could be missed. Friendly fire, mistaking allies for enemies and enemies for allies.

Two quick questions.
1. Did the latest insurgent victories in Iraq come before or after the five Taliban commanders were swapped for one deserter?
2. Has the missing airliner been found?

The best example of non-stagnation is America, there was a time when America even tried to divide itself for political expediency, the north would not let the south out of the union. The American “Civil War” more aptly called the “War of Northern Aggression” was not about slavery as much as it was about the preservation of the Union. The south wanted out for political reasons the north attacked the south for economic and self-preservation reasons. The south did not seek to rejoin their previous rulers, as was the case with the Crimea rejoining mother Russia, the yoke of tyranny had already been forcibly removed and would not be voluntarily worn again. The south viewed the life under the north as tyrannical and oppressive as life before under the rule of the British Crown. Our nation is relatively young but since the civil war we have made many advances in science and technology, we have not remained in the nineteenth century. America have moved on because America was not a victim of the same political expediency that the victors of World War 2 inflicted on the rest of the world.