Inviting Disaster

My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families in the wake of the horrendous terrorist attack in Paris on 11/13/15, a terrorist attack carried out by radical Islamic extremists.

Given what happened in Paris on 11/13/15 I have to wonder why the refugees are still being allowed entrance into the countries of Europe and especially wonder why in God’s name are the refugees from Syria and Iraq being allowed admittance into the U.S. This is especially troubling since some in our own government have openly stated that terrorist are most likely blending in with the refugees.

Is the U.S. government taking, not just taking but accepting the risk that a few radical Islamic extremists may infiltrate the ranks of the refugees? As we saw in Paris on 11/13/15 the actual attack was conducted by just a few radical Islamic extremists. The same as America witnessed on 09/11/01 with the radical Islamist attack, the actual attack was carried out by fewer than twenty. The Paris attack was carried out by fewer that ten. The attack at Ft. Hood was carried out by one. The attack in Chattanooga was carried out by one. How many were involved in the Charlie Hebdo attack, Two? The large-scale and coordinated attacks require planning and logistics with many people operating in the background, the so-called lone wolf attacks do not. The only thing the two have in common is picking the right target. It does not take a lot of radical Islamic extremists to cause great amounts of death and destruction sometimes as few as one is all is that is needed.

My question for the government is what is the acceptable level of risk for your refugee resettlement program? Is the government inviting disaster? Is government willing to risk and accept that 1 out of 100 is a radical Islamic extremist? 1 out of 1000? 1 out of 10,000? Remember what one at Ft. Hood and one in Chattanooga were able to accomplish. When I hear that you will have a “robust vetting process” in place it does little to bolster my confidence. My guess is that you are gambling, playing the odds, with the lives of Americans, hoping for the best. Even one radical Islamic extremist is one too many.

BHO had claimed that ISIL(as he prefers to call them)are contained. Then Paris happened. BHO said that was a minor set-back. BHO may have been correct when he said that ISIL was contained. The policy of “containment” has been a success. ISIL(as BHO prefers to call them), their affiliates and their sympathizers are contained on six out of the seven continents, unless they have an affiliate branch in Antarctica.

For arguments sake, let’s say that by some major miracle the government gets this one right and no radical Islamic extremists arrive with the refugees, the government is still flirting with disaster. The disaster facing America in this case would be a financial disaster. Resettling refugees costs money a lot of money. At present the plan for resettlement is to accept and resettle 10,000, I suspect that many more than 10,000 will be arriving. Since they will be arriving without much in the way of finances or belongings they will be provided with the necessities of life and in many cases the luxuries of life. They will need housing, food and clothing at a minimum. All of that costs money as said a lot of money. The money to pay for the refugee resettlement must come from somewhere. The somewhere is actually somebody, and that somebody is the American taxpayer.

I have to wonder where and when the “robust vetting process” will take place. I suspect that the vetting will be conducted upon arrival in America. My question at this point is this. What would be done when a known radical Islamic extremist is found amongst the refugees? Would he or she be sent back to their home country? Would he or she be tried and imprisoned or simply held in the prison system?

It seems that the terrorists operating outside of the Middle-East and North Africa seem to have a tendency to pick “Soft Targets”. The best definition of a “Soft Target” is one in which the terrorist will face the least resistance, meaning an unarmed civilian population. An area where the only protection comes in the form of government forces, whether it be Law-Enforcement of the Military. France itself is not a “soft target”, but the people are as is most of the civilian population of Europe as well as the places they frequent. Most any place the people of Europe frequent is a “soft target”.

Getting to the question of would or could America face the same kind of attack experienced by Paris for a moment, and the answer of it is not a matter of if but when. This is my feeling on that issue. The same thing that was credited with keeping the Japanese from invading may be the same thing keeping the radical Islamic extremists at bay. And that is a citizenry with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Whether or not the right is exercised it does place a feeling of doubt in the mind of criminals as well as terrorists. Make no mistake the radical Islamic extremists are here, waiting, and more may be arriving with each batch of refugees and they too may wait. But waiting for what. Could they be waiting for sufficient numbers to wage a large-scale operation? I already pointed out that very few or even one can cause large-scale death and/or destruction. Could they be waiting until the gun control groups finally achieve their goal of a totally disarmed civilian population? I think the latter, just waiting for a “soft target”. At this point America itself is not a “soft target” and neither is the population. Just imagine, if the gun control groups and the politicians got their way and somehow managed to disarm the civilian population, what would happen. First off America is a large land mass, if the population was disarmed either voluntarily or by force there is no way that the federal, state and local law-enforcement agencies could patrol the entire country and provide safety for the population. Even if the military was included it would not be enough. Government, Law-enforcement and the Military would be occupied just protecting large cities and critical infrastructure and would barely be able to do that, those of us in the rural areas would be on our own and at the mercy of the terrorists. The rural areas would be given up as most would migrate to the large cities just for some protection. The cities would not be capable of supporting the entire population of this country. America would be a “soft target” from coast to coast.

If the situation were reversed and America found itself in the same position as the middle-east where could the Americans flee too? It is highly unlikely that the countries of the middle-east would accept American refugees. There would be no refugee activists waiting with open arms to welcome anybody. It would be best and even considered wise to close the borders. America must consider America first and stop taking un-necessary risks. There is nothing wrong with helping others but you must take care of yourself. No one has ever been helped by the helpless.

The possibility of even on radical Islamic extremist making it to America is not worth the risk of taking in refugees. The government must stop inviting disaster. As I mentioned America and the American people are not soft targets but there are many soft targets in America.

A Little Common Sense Would be In Order Part 3 The United Nations and World Opinion

Perhaps it would help if the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians) were to stop by the Library of Congress and do a little reading. Some suggestions would be The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, The Declaration of Arms, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, The Writings and Opinions of the Founding Fathers, the Articles of Confederation, also I might suggest Common Sense and The American Crisis by Thomas Paine. The previous list is only a partial list, but it would be a good start. One would think with all of the great literature available in the Library of Congress some of the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians)would spend some time there, apparently that is not the case.

Common Sense is a term thrown about by the politicians, but politicians demonstrate at every opportunity that they truly lack any idea as to what Common Sense means or how to use it. They go against the very notion of using “common sense” in their statements and actions.
This post applies to our “distinguished” elected representatives(past and present), their merry band of minions(past and present), the liberals, the progressives, those masquerading as conservatives(past and present)and the MSM.

First and foremost America, itself, is not responsible for, nor can America itself be blamed for the drama, chaos and crises around the globe. The problems, turmoil and crises around the world are caused by world leaders, more correctly national leaders who view themselves as world leaders. The United Nations shares in the responsibility and blame for world problems, turmoil and crises, as does it’s predecessor The League of Nations. Why, you ask? The answer is really quite simple with the advent of these two world bodies the nations, sovereign nations, began to adjust policy, domestic as well as foreign. Some nations, America in particular, began a policy of caving into or adjusting to meet world opinion. Suddenly it became necessary for the world to view America in a “favorable light”. Conforming to world opinion became more important to the politicians than doing what was and is right for America and the legal lawful citizens.

The League of Nations came into existence after WWI and went “dormant” at the outbreak of WWII. The United Nations came into existence after WWII and lasts to this day. One thing both of these “world bodies’ have in common is that they were both dreams of the Liberals. Was it world opinion that caused America to enter WWII? No, it was brought about by an attack on Pearl Harbor. During WWII, America built alliances with nations to defeat the Axis Powers world opinion did not matter defeating the enemy is what mattered. If world opinion had mattered America would probably have never sided with or given aid to Stalin or Russia. Could this be the reason The U.S. and Russia who have a common enemy ISIL/ISIS/IS do not join together to fight the terrorists as a team? Both countries have a common enemy, but world opinion gets in the way. Russia is assisting one whom the world looks at unfavorably, Assad in Syria, while America wants a favorable world opinion. It seems that keeping a favorable world opinion is more important than defeating ISIL/ISIS/IS. America no longer builds alliances, instead America forms “coalitions”. It seems that only a “coalition” will satisfy the need to have a favorable “world opinion”. There was a time when America cared more about doing what was right and less about world opinion. There was a time when and where America went off to war to right a wrong, or help a nation that was under attack, now America goes off to war based on world opinion and takes sides based on the same world opinion. I ask you this which is better, a coalition acting on world opinion, or allies joining forces to do what is right?

“Common Sense” and logic would say that it is far past the time to disband the United Nations, and let it go down as yet another failed liberal attempt at what ever it was they envisioned. The money being wasted on that “distinguished” world body could be better used here in America. The giving of money to foreign entities such as the Palestinian Authority is based on what? Is it the right thing to do? Or is it to influence world opinion? The same goes for the billions upon billions of dollars to foreign nations. Here are some fitting questions. How much of the over 18 trillion dollars of the debt of the United States of America is because of the monies given to foreign governments? Does The American government borrow money to give away? Why is it that The government of the United States of America gives to money to governments who only wish to do America harm and seek to destroy America? Is this an attempt to buy a favorable world opinion? How much of the annual budget of the United Nations comes straight from The U.S.A.? Tomorrow is United Nations Day, there will most likely be some sort of gala or event to commemorate this “notable” event, how much will that cost?

Think on this, The U.S.A. as well as many other “advanced” nations around the world pour countless billions into the money pit that is the U.N. each and every year, this is done for what reason? Is it for the U.N. to promote “peace, well-being, harmony and equality” around the world? If this is the reason and the case, then I have some bad news for them, the U.N. has failed in all four areas. Equality could quite possibly be achieved one day, but it will not be the equality they envisioned.

Is it really all that important to conform to “world opinion” and become a part of the “world community” if in the process of conforming to the world that a sovereign nation looses its national identity to the point that the nation no longer places itself and its citizens first? To truly help another you must first take care of yourself. It really is time for the United Nations to go the way of The League of Nations and just cease to exist, go away quietly without even a whimper.

With that being said, there is nothing wrong with helping those who are in need, really in need. But it should be up to the nations of the world to choose who or what they will or will not help. It should be based on what is right and not based on world opinion. There was a time when American national leaders knew what was right, regardless of world opinion. For example is it right to support those who are determined to destroy another? Through the U.N., America supports those who would destroy our friends and also those who would destroy the U.S.A., that makes no sense common or otherwise.

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.

Feeding the Monsters

There are certainly many Monsters roaming America and the planet, and feeding them will certainly keep them alive and well. Throughout history Monsters have been associated with Evil, and Evil has been associated with Monsters.

One prime example of a Monster historically documented was Hitler, and no one can deny that Hitler was Evil. Hitler was even called Monstrously Evil. Hitler was ultimately destroyed along with Nazism. The Monster and the Evil he created were defeated and destroyed. There have been many other men and women throughout history who were Monsters and certainly Evil. Without fail each and every one of them were associated with fear, oppression and broken promises. Most rose to power feeding on fear, oppression and promising to make things better for the middle class, while others were born into power. Monsters create other Monsters and Evil creates more Evil, each feeding off of the other.

The problem with Monsters is that all of them do not always appear in life as they appear in fairy tales and in the movies, if they did they would be easy to recognize. Monsters are one of life’s great deceptions. Monsters may not look or appear as Monsters but they are incapable of hiding their inner Monstrous tendencies eventually they are exposed for what they are. The problem with Evil is that Evil does not always appear as Evil. Evil can and most often appears as good or necessary. Evil is another of life’s great deceptions. There is the notion that evil can be used for good, as far-fetched as that seems.

Monsters and the Evils that they create can only exist in darkness and secrecy. To be rid of them they must be exposed to the light and truth.

The question one should be asking, at least the one I was asking myself, is why would someone intentionally continue to feed the Monster and allow the Evil it creates to continue. The Monster and the Evil that I am referring to is ISIL/ISIS/The Islamic State. Given the military might of this nation, why does the Islamic State, as they now refer to themselves, continue to exist? The Monster and the Evil it does survives and thrives.

Last week Delta Force was successful in eliminating one of the Islamic State’s top thugs. In the same week the Islamic State was able to successfully attack two towns, Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria. Our military under the brilliant leadership of BHO focuses on taking out one man while IS focuses on taking and occupying two towns in two different countries. IS is able to recruit from nearly every country in the world the dead man will soon be replaced. The two towns will cost more than one man to retake.

Multi-million dollar aircraft and priceless pilots are being sent out to bomb trucks in the desert. This same tactic was used in Viet Nam with disastrous results.

This why I say the Monster is still being fed. IS is still being resupplied with world-class military equipment. The defenders of Ramadi dropped their weapons and abandoned their equipment to include tanks in the face of IS fighters. That plus what they picked in the Palmyra offensive should give U.S. airpower more and new targets. As long as the Iraqi forces cut-and-run IS should have a never-ending supply of equipment and airpower should have a never-ending supply of targets. How many times have American combat aircraft and bombers flown missions only to destroy American equipment?

The spokesmouth for BHO said the Iraqi forces that dropped their weapons and abandoned their equipment in the face of an IS attack were not trained by the U.S. This brings up two questions.
First, who trained them? The ones who were trained should be training. The U.S. should have trained the trainers.
Second, if they were not trained by the U.S. then why the hell were the using American equipment?

The U.S. Military Academies are still open, aren’t they? Why have not great military commanders leaders like Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Nimitz, Halsey, Puller and the rest come out of West Point, VMI, Annapolis and the rest. Or have they and they have been side-lined or fired? Is someone afraid one of them might go full Patton on IS?

Keeping IS alive and well could be just as intended, never actually intending to defeat them gives one and enemy and war, even if limited, for life.

If BHO is un-willing to use the massive military might against IS, who is he planning to un-leash it on? Is there another Monster and great Evils in some ones future? Training for something. Ukraine? JADE HELM?

What will be the next excuse?

The justification of terrorism by Radical Islamic terrorists by the liberal progressives is a new bench mark in stupidity. The Islamic terrorists have no plan or intent to find work or start a business, they already have a job and are in business, and that job is terrorism, and are in the business of jihad, Islamic holy war. As for opportunity, the Islamic Terrorists engage is terrorism at every opportunity. BHO and his minions are so intent on being politically correct and avoiding offending the Muslim world that they will not call the Islamic Terrorists for what they are, Islamic Terrorists. BHO upped the ante when he said the Muslims have grievances. When a group or a person expresses grievances they are in essence trying to prove legitimacy. Is BHO suggesting that the Islamic terrorists are legitimate? The Radical Islamic Terrorists have no desire to improve their lives or the lives of anyone taken hostage or for that matter improving life in their occupied territories. Their only intention is to rob, rape, murder and pillage. The Islamic State has but one goal to re-establish the Caliphate with Baghdad as the capital just as it was before, sort of taking up where they left off.

The policies of BHO are quite similar to those of LBJ and that is frightening. Like LBJ, BHO is running the war from the White House, BHO may even selecting and approving targets personally, just as LBJ did. LBJ as president caused the loss of the Viet Nam war. By the time Nixon became president the anti-war protests were destroying this country. Nixon had to find a way out of that war, Kissinger and the Paris Peace Accords. The U.S. abandoned South Viet Nam and it fell to the Communist North.

BHO has no intention of defeating the Islamic State. The U.S. government is still seeking to arm and train the “moderate Muslims” in Syria that are fighting the Assad government forces. The moderate Muslims, if they can be called that, are at times likely to join with ISIS if they share the same ends. If ISIS is attacking Assad’s forces what will the “moderate rebels” do? Will they just observe? Or will they join with ISIS? I submit they will join ISIS, another instance of the enemy of my enemy. If BHO wanted to defeat ISIS he would be arming the Kurds directly instead of going through the Iraqi government and form an alliance with Assad. But no, he is instead arming the moderates in Syria, who may be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or apt to switch sides at the drop of a hat. It seems a bit asinine to arm and train a likely and potential enemy. As I have written before it is extremely difficult to engage and defeat an opposing army that are using the same weapons and training, not to mention the enormous cost in life. It would be like shadow boxing, fighting ones own self.

If the intention is not to defeat ISIS, what is the intention? BHO may well be going back to a cold-war tactic, Containment. What would containment do? If ISIS were to be driven back and contained in Syria, ISIS would be the problem of Assad and his ally Russia. To drive ISIS back into Syria and contain them there they must first be driven from Iraq and where ever else they have set up operations. This can not be accomplished by pin-prick airstrikes. To accomplish this there will need to be a relentless air campaign not seen since WW 2, and then that will not be enough. Men and women in ground combat units will need to engage ISIS. Short of this action the Islamic State must be contained where they are at present.

There is one more glaring similarity between LBJ and BHO, BHO is now attempting the same thing in the war with the Islamic State aka Radical Islamic Terrorists, that LBJ did in Viet Nam, dis-ownership of the war. LBJ wanted to give ownership of the to South Viet Nam, he called it the “Viet Namization of the war”. BHO seems to want to hand the war off to the Arab nations, it will probably get some catchy name.

Not only does BHO not call Islamic extremists for what they are he also refuses to give the proper identity to the victims. The Jews murdered in Paris at the Jewish deli were not “just some folks” They were Jews and they were singled out for murder based on Religion. Just what “folks” does BHO think that would be shopping at a Jewish deli, they sure would not be Moslems. The Coptic Christians that were beheaded in Libya were not jus Egyptian citizens, they were Christians and that is why they were beheaded. These crimes against Jews and Christians were not because they had an unfortunate encounter with Radical Islam, they were singled out and killed because of their religion and for no other reason.

Since BHO felt the need to address the events in Ferguson, MO telling the world that America has its share of racial and ethnic problems, let me interject this about moderates. The protests in Ferguson and in other parts of America were at the onset to address grievances or supposed grievances. How many of the protesters percentage wise were there to address their grievances and how many of the protesters percentage wise were there to cause chaos, mayhem and destruction. The ones who were there to address grievances could be labeled as moderates. When the violence and destruction erupted how many of the “moderates” disengaged? Did they all become “radicals” and participate in the chaos, mayhem and destruction? The moderates joined the radicals and became as one, pack mentality. There were no protests to express grievances about the destruction. There was only more protests that erupted into chaos, mayhem and destruction, the cycle repeated itself and the moderates joined with the radicals. There was no news footage of the moderates disengaging. I ask the same questions about “moderate Muslims”, at what point will they become united as one?

If the lack of jobs and opportunity are the root cause of radical extremism, I ask why are not the unemployed and those denied opportunity here in America not acting as the Radical Islamists? The answer is that they are placated by government in the form of social welfare programs. Sort of bought off to prevent bad behavior. Which brings this up. Will the government placate terrorists with social welfare programs known as tribute payments. The same as the Muslim nations along the African coast did at the beginnings of America. Surely America has not regressed to the point of entertaining the notion of paying tribute to avoid attacks.

Excuses are used to justify an act, such as it was done because _________ (fill in the blank). So I ask, what excuse will be offered by BHO and his administration for the next Islamic attack on another because of religion? Do these people have a gold fish bowl full of excuses, reach in and grab one and make it fit the narrative or position? It is true that America is not at war with Islam, but it sure seems hat Islam is at war with the non-Islamic rest of the world.

At the National Prayer Breakfast BHO slammed Christianity for the Crusades. BHO did not state the truth, that the Crusades were the result of Muslim aggression and domination and the Crusades were the Christians addressing legitimate grievances. He instead blamed Christianity for the Crusades.

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.

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.