It took me 1.25 seconds to see through the smoke and mirrors of the news headline of the day: Iran has been tied to a broken plot to launch a terror attack against the United States. The report states that Iran was linked with an attempt to detonate bombs to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the US, and attack the Israeli embassy in D.C.
The United States has a history of using false flags as a psychological tool to coax the general population into a war frenzy... remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction argument for war with Iraq, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident? The US has been looking for a reason to take offensive action against Iran. News stories like this, the "would have/could have" busted terror plots, etc... they are merely adding to the public mind-set that "We are at war with Iran. We have always been at war with Iran."
The purpose behind this report? Here are my theories:
1. A slumping president heading into an election. A fresh war sends the "don't change horses mid-stream" message. Very effective for presidential elections.
2. Eric Holder is under fire for the Fast and Furious situation. Diversion, diversion, diversion.
3. Justification for continued government infractions into Civil Liberties... afterall, if we can't show success the people will grow restless and start taking away some of our Patriot Act powers.
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Militarize the US Borders NOW!
The United States is fighting in two shooting wars, actively deployed in countless hot zones, and on stand-by alert in greater regions around the world... in EACH AND EVERY CASE around the world, the United States is actively ensuring control of population movement across borders of these many countries... be they between the Koreas, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq and Iran (and Jordan and Syria)... You name it, and I bet you will find that the United States is actively involved in border security of a number of foreign countries. However, the United States Government refuses to provide the same enforcement along our OWN borders, though specifically I am referring to our Mexican/US border.
FOXNews is reporting that 3500 acres of national Wildlife refuge in Arizona, along the Mexican Border, is now being officially closed to US Civilians due to extreme paramilitary violence from Mexican drug traffickers. Obama's White house is silent. There is US territory that is under siege by foreign nationals and the US Government's response is to close down the area to avoid conflict with the violators... Here Lies the United States!
If the US Government will not call to action, Arizona should call in requests for an all volunteer militia to work as members of the state national guard (not for foreign deployment by the Feds, but for ACTUAL homeland defense)... This group should move into and secure the territory at all costs.
Arizona is under attack. The battle has begun... and the Obama administration ignores... The US Government is no longer willing or capable of protecting the people of this nation. Time to file for divorce... this relationship is plagued with irreconcilable differences!
FOXNews is reporting that 3500 acres of national Wildlife refuge in Arizona, along the Mexican Border, is now being officially closed to US Civilians due to extreme paramilitary violence from Mexican drug traffickers. Obama's White house is silent. There is US territory that is under siege by foreign nationals and the US Government's response is to close down the area to avoid conflict with the violators... Here Lies the United States!
If the US Government will not call to action, Arizona should call in requests for an all volunteer militia to work as members of the state national guard (not for foreign deployment by the Feds, but for ACTUAL homeland defense)... This group should move into and secure the territory at all costs.
Arizona is under attack. The battle has begun... and the Obama administration ignores... The US Government is no longer willing or capable of protecting the people of this nation. Time to file for divorce... this relationship is plagued with irreconcilable differences!
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Leading Cause of Conflict over the Next 20 Years: Climate Change?
In a not so veiled attempt to push through another nanny state piece of legislation, the Democrats are bulking up their efforts to build the case for Carbon Taxing and other sweeping environmental controls. In doing so, CA Sen. Boxer (D) stated that the biggest threat to world security over the next twenty years is going to be climate change. Let's investigate this claim.
A look at recent conflicts will support the claim that conflicts arise for two main reasons: revolution and/or resources. In the post WWII era the world has been witness to countless armed conflicts on nearly every continent. Within the last twenty years, to provide scope of argument, the following conflicts existed:
Furthermore, I would conclude that the greatest struggle in the next twenty years is NOT going to be caused by climate change, rather by revolution due to failed world economic and police state ventures. Economic power shifts will shun failing economic giants and favor those industrial giants rising to power. The power shift will weaken influences over certain regions and lead to shifting borders and alliances. As the Untied States loses the ability to defend allies, new alliances will have to be formed around the world in order for other countries and regions to best defend their interests and resources. The climate plays no role in these most likely scenarios.
Resources will continue to be scarce in regions with little to begin with - North Africa and regions within the middle east. Wars in these regions, however, are likely to be religious and race based rather than resource based. Such revolutionary class wars/conflicts, I predict, will lend to one of two conclusions: a strong Middle East with greater world influence under a United banner (The Islamic Union), or a perpetually war torn region of political conflict and eventual nuclear war.
In all cases, climate change is of least concern over the next twenty years as the leading cause of international conflict. Be not fooled by the death throws of the Nanny State liberals desperately attempting to ram propaganda and their unconstitutional agenda down the throat of America (and the world). Simple observation and trend analysis, as well as a little logic and reason are useful in annihilating their fanciful theories and leftist agenda.
A look at recent conflicts will support the claim that conflicts arise for two main reasons: revolution and/or resources. In the post WWII era the world has been witness to countless armed conflicts on nearly every continent. Within the last twenty years, to provide scope of argument, the following conflicts existed:
1. Gulf War - Iraq invades Kuwait for fuel resources. Significant US resource impact - US leads war to retake Kuwait.There are many other conflicts not listed for reasons of brevity, but the consistent cause of conflict remains true: resource or revolution. If the Senator from California is attempting to conclude that Global Warming/Climate Change is going to cause a shortage of resources, thus be the cause of violence, I would argue that constant variation in weather patterns has been cause for population movement and/or adaptation to meet the living needs, and is no new concept. To make the claim that climate, not overpopulation in limited resource regions, is a leading factor is simply propaganda.
2. Congo Wars - US pulls support for Zaire dictator (put in place to combat communism in Africa) and revolution commenced. US not involved in conflict.
3. Chechen Wars - After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the break up of satellite states in Eastern Europe, traditional Russian territories declared independence and revolution commenced. Russia fought for resources against a revolutionary population, claiming Chechens had no legitimate claim to the territory independent from Russia.
4. Kargil War - India and Pakistan fight for land resources for strategic advantages in the Kashmir region. No US involvement.
5. Kosovo and Yugoslov Wars - a series of conflicts of revolution in a post Soviet bloc country. US NATO involvement.
6. Civil wars in Rwanda, Algeria, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, East Timor, Czechoslovakia, Chad, Nepal, Liberia
7. Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan for resources/political reason by the US
8. Israel-Palestinian conflicts - including Lebanon attacks, Intifada, Gaza conflicts, etc for Land resources and revolution by the Palestinians
9. Russian invasion of Georgia - civil conflict turned international for land resource reasons by Russia
10. Genocide in Sudan - race war between Black Africans and Arabs for land resources
Furthermore, I would conclude that the greatest struggle in the next twenty years is NOT going to be caused by climate change, rather by revolution due to failed world economic and police state ventures. Economic power shifts will shun failing economic giants and favor those industrial giants rising to power. The power shift will weaken influences over certain regions and lead to shifting borders and alliances. As the Untied States loses the ability to defend allies, new alliances will have to be formed around the world in order for other countries and regions to best defend their interests and resources. The climate plays no role in these most likely scenarios.
Resources will continue to be scarce in regions with little to begin with - North Africa and regions within the middle east. Wars in these regions, however, are likely to be religious and race based rather than resource based. Such revolutionary class wars/conflicts, I predict, will lend to one of two conclusions: a strong Middle East with greater world influence under a United banner (The Islamic Union), or a perpetually war torn region of political conflict and eventual nuclear war.
In all cases, climate change is of least concern over the next twenty years as the leading cause of international conflict. Be not fooled by the death throws of the Nanny State liberals desperately attempting to ram propaganda and their unconstitutional agenda down the throat of America (and the world). Simple observation and trend analysis, as well as a little logic and reason are useful in annihilating their fanciful theories and leftist agenda.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Making the Case for War with Iran?
From the early days of the Iraq (war?) I had seen t-shirts that jokingly stated that the US should get out of Iraq, and into Iran – a play on the peace activist’s request to abandon the military actions of the region. For many years during the Bush administration, and now as we well into Obama’s second year, the US Government seems to be building a case that would appease the witty t-shirt designers.From nuclear development to supporting insurgents in Iraq, Iran has been in the crosshairs of the United States for some time. I recall the Strait of Hormuz incident in which Iranian speed boats were ‘harassing’ the US war ships, an incident which incited saber rattling by the pro-war groups while equally evoking memories of the ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ from the anti-war league. It seems that ne’er a day goes by in which I, as a citizen of the US, am not being pressed by my government to believe that ‘I want to go to war with Iran’.
This week's leading story, just under the BP oil FUBAR in the Gulf of Mexico, has been that Osama Bin Laden is living the high life just north of Tehran – enjoying falconeering, high lifestyle, and surrounded by his wives and children. Even the President of Iran was asked the question, to which he responded ‘I don’t know – hey, he could be in D.C., too’.
If I am following the carrot stick correctly, the entire purpose for Obama to surge in Afghanistan, bring a drone war to Pakistan, and leave Iraq was to bring the fight to Osama Bin Laden and destroy his Al Qaeda network of terror from the top down.
If it is found that Bin Laden is not in Pakistan, rather, in Iran, doesn’t that give Obama the same authority to enter THAT country in the name of justice, the same way that he entered into Pakistan? And doesn’t this provide a convincing final piece to the puzzle for building a case for war against Iran?
I am finding myself compelled to join forces with the anti-war crowd, calling for an end to this perpetual Orweillian war in which the war remains the same, but our enemies and allies mysteriously change on any given day. I must ask the question regarding our role as the 'world police' and if there is any correlation to us being THE world target... increasing the likelihood that our soldiers become targets within the countries that we currently occupy (which STILL include Germany and Japan from WWII). I am at a point where I have to stop the propaganda, and raise some serious questions about when and how these continuous wars will ever end.
Sadly enough a brief look at the history of the United States shows a country continuously at war since before its inception. From fighting the native tribes for conquest of their lands and resources, to the invasion of foreign countries in an imperial effort, the United States has known no time of peace – and it is most certain that the United States has no intention of ending nearly 250 years of aggression – even against her own people. (Has anyone seen the stories on the Pennsylvania ‘we will find you’ television tax ads?)
In closing, when one citizen unplugs from the propaganda bombardment long enough to piece the true history of this nation together and recognizes the habitual pattern, it is little wonder why there is a rising disdain for our nation both from outside sources and from within. With this in mind, I have to raise the red flag on the perpetual war drums from DC, the continued case for war against Iran, and the lengths that the US is going to convince me that ‘war is peace’, and that my ‘ignorance’ is the US’ ‘strength’…
Thursday, April 16, 2009
CNN Declares War on FoxNews - Sign of Agenda Based Left v. Middle of the Road Right
Over the past several weeks I have had the opportunity to watch CNN in any number of airport terminals - and having watched CNN in the past as a balance to Fox coverage of events, I noticed something new - ALL anchors openly attacked Fox News as a "Right Wing" mouthpiece.
Not to address any one anchor or reporter by name, there was an overwhelmingly blatant disrespect for FoxNews, viewers of FoxNews, and several references to "Right Wingers", being those who still hold onto Conservative Values in the "Era of Obamanation".
Fox News, not hitting back, rather, reporting on the increased lack of journalistic professionalism, invited the Founder and the President of the Media Research Center to address, from a Media Watchdog POV, the position CNN is taking in instigating these journalistic attacks.
Just as the report above indicates, CNN is becoming less and less "reporters reporting news" and more "activists pushing an agenda". They are increasingly insulting and demeaning of those who dissent with their political views, and as such have become nothing more than a political mouthpiece lacking true journalistic qualities.
I have said this on several occasions, and I will echo my point once again. What has developed in America is a battle of ideology - Liberty, Personal Responsibility, and Small Government versus Big Government, Social Programs, and Intrusive Government Control. The two cannot co-exist... so we find ourselves in a battle where for one to survive, the other must be entirely destroyed.
If we fail in our struggle Libertarianism and Conservativism will be destroyed... replaced with ultimate Socialism and Collectivism.
News Media has now entered the battle in a most direct and blunt way. Where there was suspected bias before, the battle has begun.
For CNN to openly criticize "Right Wingers" and specifically "Conservatism", and to broadcast a vested hatred for their political ideology is little more than propaganda for opposition political ideals.
If ever there was a conspiracy, it is now. The White House and Congress, led by ultra Liberal Democrats, are pulling their collective power to eliminate opposition - that is using the "free press" (BWAHAHAHA!!!), the police agencies under the DHS, and their "Citizen Army" to ridicule, openly attack, and most likely when the time is right, to physically strike the end blow to dissenting views.
CNN was lambasted as the "Clinton News Network" during the 90's, failing to cover stories with an ounce of journalistic integrity... What we see now is worse... it has gone from choice coverage to open attacks of political dissidents.
They have gone from useless to dangerous.
To counter any attacks from readers who will say that Talk Radio is equally as dangerous, I give you this: CNN claims to be a journalistic entity which is held to standards of neutrality in their reporting. Talk Radio is opinion based radio directed at open dialogue on issues related to politics. Though there is a level of journalistic integrity required for Talk Radio, it is largely opinion based. News Media is a different medium, and is to be held to different standards... unless CNN intends to become an opinion based talk show - like Oprah...who is nothing more than the TV version of Limbaugh. One is journalistic, the other is entertainment.
When opinion is mistaken for "news", especially when it is politically motivated, you run the risk of intentional political censorship. When news becomes filtered and censored for political purposes, such as in Iran and North Korea, you have moved into a very dangerous territory.
Not to address any one anchor or reporter by name, there was an overwhelmingly blatant disrespect for FoxNews, viewers of FoxNews, and several references to "Right Wingers", being those who still hold onto Conservative Values in the "Era of Obamanation".
Fox News, not hitting back, rather, reporting on the increased lack of journalistic professionalism, invited the Founder and the President of the Media Research Center to address, from a Media Watchdog POV, the position CNN is taking in instigating these journalistic attacks.
Just as the report above indicates, CNN is becoming less and less "reporters reporting news" and more "activists pushing an agenda". They are increasingly insulting and demeaning of those who dissent with their political views, and as such have become nothing more than a political mouthpiece lacking true journalistic qualities.
I have said this on several occasions, and I will echo my point once again. What has developed in America is a battle of ideology - Liberty, Personal Responsibility, and Small Government versus Big Government, Social Programs, and Intrusive Government Control. The two cannot co-exist... so we find ourselves in a battle where for one to survive, the other must be entirely destroyed.
If we fail in our struggle Libertarianism and Conservativism will be destroyed... replaced with ultimate Socialism and Collectivism.
News Media has now entered the battle in a most direct and blunt way. Where there was suspected bias before, the battle has begun.
For CNN to openly criticize "Right Wingers" and specifically "Conservatism", and to broadcast a vested hatred for their political ideology is little more than propaganda for opposition political ideals.
If ever there was a conspiracy, it is now. The White House and Congress, led by ultra Liberal Democrats, are pulling their collective power to eliminate opposition - that is using the "free press" (BWAHAHAHA!!!), the police agencies under the DHS, and their "Citizen Army" to ridicule, openly attack, and most likely when the time is right, to physically strike the end blow to dissenting views.
CNN was lambasted as the "Clinton News Network" during the 90's, failing to cover stories with an ounce of journalistic integrity... What we see now is worse... it has gone from choice coverage to open attacks of political dissidents.
They have gone from useless to dangerous.
To counter any attacks from readers who will say that Talk Radio is equally as dangerous, I give you this: CNN claims to be a journalistic entity which is held to standards of neutrality in their reporting. Talk Radio is opinion based radio directed at open dialogue on issues related to politics. Though there is a level of journalistic integrity required for Talk Radio, it is largely opinion based. News Media is a different medium, and is to be held to different standards... unless CNN intends to become an opinion based talk show - like Oprah...who is nothing more than the TV version of Limbaugh. One is journalistic, the other is entertainment.
When opinion is mistaken for "news", especially when it is politically motivated, you run the risk of intentional political censorship. When news becomes filtered and censored for political purposes, such as in Iran and North Korea, you have moved into a very dangerous territory.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
ISRAEL STRIKES IRAN?
In June of 2008, IAEA Director, General Mohamed ElBaradei, said that Iran would have a Nuclear Weapon in as little as six months. The six month window has now come and gone, placing any invasion of Iran in a "midnight scenario" - the potential for Iranian Nuclear Retaliation.
Iran is pressuring Arab and other Muslim nations to confront Israel over the full scale invasion of poverty stricken terrorist stronghold, Gaza.
Now, with President Bush set to leave office within the week, Informed sources in Washington tell Newsmax that Israel indeed will launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities soon – possibly in just days.
An Israeli strike against Iran will cause retaliatory strikes against US troops by Iranian sympathizers in Iraq, drawing out a mission that is very near total completion. Such a strike will cause Hezbollah to launch attacks from Lebanon along Israel's northern border. Syria may join in the defense of her ally, and invade the Golan region - or at least begin military bombardment in that region. And finally, any attack on the enrichment facilities is likely to trigger a launch of an Iranian long range missile tipped with nuclear warheads, aimed at Israel - who will likely retaliate with their own nuclear strike.
The first shots of the first major nuclear war may be days away. If Newsmax is accurate, troubling days are ahead.
Iran is pressuring Arab and other Muslim nations to confront Israel over the full scale invasion of poverty stricken terrorist stronghold, Gaza.
Now, with President Bush set to leave office within the week, Informed sources in Washington tell Newsmax that Israel indeed will launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities soon – possibly in just days.
An Israeli strike against Iran will cause retaliatory strikes against US troops by Iranian sympathizers in Iraq, drawing out a mission that is very near total completion. Such a strike will cause Hezbollah to launch attacks from Lebanon along Israel's northern border. Syria may join in the defense of her ally, and invade the Golan region - or at least begin military bombardment in that region. And finally, any attack on the enrichment facilities is likely to trigger a launch of an Iranian long range missile tipped with nuclear warheads, aimed at Israel - who will likely retaliate with their own nuclear strike.
The first shots of the first major nuclear war may be days away. If Newsmax is accurate, troubling days are ahead.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Who throws a shoe?... Honestly...
Forget being boo-ed... President Bush got Shoe-ed!
Iraqi TV reporter Muntazer al-Zaidi threw two shoes at President G.W. Bush's head while giving a farewell press conference in Baghdad, leading to his detainment and a question as to how to punish the man - though current reports indicate that he will merely be tried for "insulting the Iraqi state".
This is not the first time that Bush has been targeted by thrown objects - the most deadly was a grenade thrown in the Former Soviet state of Georgia a few years back.
This marks the end of Bush's Iraq war... a war in which he has gone from liberator to tyrant in the minds of the people of that country... media bias getting all the praise.
The Shoe Incident is getting much press all over Iraq, and protests have sprung up all over Baghdad in support of the "Iraqi Hero", calling for his release. al-Zaidi is being praised as a national hero by the people, who are angry over the civilian casualties associated with the war in Iraq.
Bush was obviously shaken by the incident, but attempted to shrug it off as a sign of progress in the war-torn country - indicating the freedom that the people feel to protest their government... a freedom not celebrated under Saddam.
I see it as humiliating to the United States... a literal footnote to the last eight years... Let us hope that the history books are kinder to Bush than al-Zaidi, and Iraqi public opinion.
Iraqi TV reporter Muntazer al-Zaidi threw two shoes at President G.W. Bush's head while giving a farewell press conference in Baghdad, leading to his detainment and a question as to how to punish the man - though current reports indicate that he will merely be tried for "insulting the Iraqi state".
This is not the first time that Bush has been targeted by thrown objects - the most deadly was a grenade thrown in the Former Soviet state of Georgia a few years back.
This marks the end of Bush's Iraq war... a war in which he has gone from liberator to tyrant in the minds of the people of that country... media bias getting all the praise.
The Shoe Incident is getting much press all over Iraq, and protests have sprung up all over Baghdad in support of the "Iraqi Hero", calling for his release. al-Zaidi is being praised as a national hero by the people, who are angry over the civilian casualties associated with the war in Iraq.
Bush was obviously shaken by the incident, but attempted to shrug it off as a sign of progress in the war-torn country - indicating the freedom that the people feel to protest their government... a freedom not celebrated under Saddam.
I see it as humiliating to the United States... a literal footnote to the last eight years... Let us hope that the history books are kinder to Bush than al-Zaidi, and Iraqi public opinion.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Democrats Can't Turn it Off! Propose ANOTHER $150 Billion "Economic Bail-out"
In January I posted a blog ripping the United States for the "entitlement" bail-out, and the Fed's answer of simply "printing more money" to stimulate the economy.
The $500 Billion was distributed. The gas prices continued to rise and the economy continued to teeter. The debt incurred did nothing to save the economy, just buy off the Plebs.
In March, I complained about Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson's, plan to "streamline" the economy by turning over the US treasury to the Federal Reserve. I stated:
In June I warned about Socialists in the Democratic Party, and their intentions to nationalize the oil industry - following in the footsteps of Hugo Chavez. I suppose I should have also warned of the Socialists in the Republican Party, and their overall intention of seizing absolute power over the United States, and ultimately the world through markets, then politics.
In July I angrily declared my wavering allegiance to a socialist tending government, led by the most liberal Big Government President in the History of the United States, GW Bush.
And NOW, the Democrats are proposing ANOTHER $150 Billion in bail-out moneys to be paid to the states in order to continue funding failed social programs within those states. Luckily, House Republicans are fighting this additional bail-out - but we have seen how easily these clowns buckle if tax breaks are offered to archery shops and bicycle commuters.
Look, readers - I am going to be blunt. This crap has GOT to stop!
The federal budget last year was $2.6 Trillion - and next year's budget is over $3 Trillion. This DOES NOT include the $1.5 Trillion in bail-outs that the Federal Government has raped from the "treasury" in the name of "fairness" or "stabilization". This maneuvering has nothing to do with security or stability... it has everything to do with circumventing the Constitution, creating an expedient government, and granting that new government unlimited power - see Paulson's new role.
Our government has failed, and we are losing our liberties. The government is mired with corruption, greed, and incompetence - and they are using their skills to imprison us in debt - ensuring continued subjugation under this government take-over.
What power do we have to stop these actions?
We have a vote in November, but I fail to see an end with a new Congress. Many incumbents will come back to hen house, foxes all. And the new Congressmen in races across the United States show no drive and no ability to stop this monster.
We have the ability to petition our government for redress of grievances. Alas, no court would uphold a fight against what the government is doing.
And we have the right to take powers from the federal government, granting them to the states in special elections and state constitutional changes - challenging the federal government on their authority over state's sovereignty.
There is a dangerous trend. There seems to be no stop in sight.
So I ask, what are YOU willing to do to secure freedom?
Martin Luther King Jr, while detained in the Birmingham Jail:
Is there no-one willing to do something?
The $500 Billion was distributed. The gas prices continued to rise and the economy continued to teeter. The debt incurred did nothing to save the economy, just buy off the Plebs.
In March, I complained about Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson's, plan to "streamline" the economy by turning over the US treasury to the Federal Reserve. I stated:
"What Paulson has done here is set a dangerous precedent, in that the failure of private industry is no longer going to be allowed to happen. What is going to happen instead is that the government will subsidize failing businesses to keep them open, and keep their employees working... on an indirect government salary.The government was intended to be inneficient, so as to protect the people from spontaneous and bad legislature, which would lead to heavy burdens of Tyranny. Streamlining the government is an overt attempt to sidestep the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE COLLAPSE OF THE FREE MARKET."
In June I warned about Socialists in the Democratic Party, and their intentions to nationalize the oil industry - following in the footsteps of Hugo Chavez. I suppose I should have also warned of the Socialists in the Republican Party, and their overall intention of seizing absolute power over the United States, and ultimately the world through markets, then politics.
In July I angrily declared my wavering allegiance to a socialist tending government, led by the most liberal Big Government President in the History of the United States, GW Bush.
"The treasury is being plundered to the thunderous applause of the masses. The burden to bail-out the vain and covetous leeches of our society is being placed on our own pocketbooks... We are being given marching orders by a government that won the vote, but represents no more than 1/4 of the population respectively - that marching order is "On to the Gallows!" - for in this day we are seeing the death of the last best hope in the world."In September, I warned of the dangerous parallel between the recent actions of the United States and the death of the Roman Republic in favor of the Roman Empire. It should also be noted that the same process was followed, legally, in Germany, leading to the rise of the Nationalist Socialist party. Extreme Debt, National Pride, Government Hand-outs and Bail-outs buying allegiance - then the rise of Socialist Hitler to cap it all off.
This month, I have discussed the increased occurrence of violation of the Federal Government's contract with America, the Constitution. The people's liberties are being cast aside in favor of consumerism. Consumerism, of course, is the rally cry for a one-world government supporting perpetual production, consumption, and taxes for political power."The value of the US dollar has decreased by 96% since the inception of the
Federal Reserve, the Federal Debt has gone from $0 to nearly $10 Trillion in the
same amount of time (and has continued to increase an average of $2.32 billion per day since September 28, 2007!) , and the Federal Government is making no plans to stop spending (especially under Obama). The taxpayers of the United States seems not too concerned about this debt, as we have been cultured into a "credit" state of mind, and distracted by commercialism and reality TV constantly demanding that we "watch and vote" - as if it made some sort of a difference in the world! The burden of the debt is over $30,000 per US citizen - more than a years pay for most Americans. Such a burden forces the citizenry into a state of "constant work" in order to survive - thus removing the mind of the masses."
And NOW, the Democrats are proposing ANOTHER $150 Billion in bail-out moneys to be paid to the states in order to continue funding failed social programs within those states. Luckily, House Republicans are fighting this additional bail-out - but we have seen how easily these clowns buckle if tax breaks are offered to archery shops and bicycle commuters.
Look, readers - I am going to be blunt. This crap has GOT to stop!
The federal budget last year was $2.6 Trillion - and next year's budget is over $3 Trillion. This DOES NOT include the $1.5 Trillion in bail-outs that the Federal Government has raped from the "treasury" in the name of "fairness" or "stabilization". This maneuvering has nothing to do with security or stability... it has everything to do with circumventing the Constitution, creating an expedient government, and granting that new government unlimited power - see Paulson's new role.
Our government has failed, and we are losing our liberties. The government is mired with corruption, greed, and incompetence - and they are using their skills to imprison us in debt - ensuring continued subjugation under this government take-over.
What power do we have to stop these actions?
We have a vote in November, but I fail to see an end with a new Congress. Many incumbents will come back to hen house, foxes all. And the new Congressmen in races across the United States show no drive and no ability to stop this monster.
We have the ability to petition our government for redress of grievances. Alas, no court would uphold a fight against what the government is doing.
And we have the right to take powers from the federal government, granting them to the states in special elections and state constitutional changes - challenging the federal government on their authority over state's sovereignty.
There is a dangerous trend. There seems to be no stop in sight.
So I ask, what are YOU willing to do to secure freedom?
Martin Luther King Jr, while detained in the Birmingham Jail:
"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws."I would draw on the spirit of this rebellious attitude. I would use this quote to declare:
We are living in a New Socialist Society, where certain principles dear to freedom loving individuals, such as our civil liberties, are being suppressed - and I am openly advocating disobeying this countries coming anti-freedom laws! There will come a time when we all must chose - do what is right, or do what is easy. The Declaration of Independence reads: all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Are you willing to stand up for this country, or live by the new "laws"? Is the loss of freedom so sufferable that you will openly applaud the actions of this federal government in your silence?
Are there no true patriots left in this nation?Is there no-one willing to do something?
Monday, August 11, 2008
Cold War Bias Towards Russia?
After writing my previous blog, I began reading more about the conflict in Georgia. I refreshed my history of the region, the Soviet rule of the area, the wars in the region after the Soviet collapse, and the rise of the current government.
Armed with this knowledge of the area, I forced myself to look at the cold hard facts surrounding the conflict, applying the same logic I have for other conflicts or struggles for independence, and take into account my hesitation towards anything Russian due to growing up in the Cold-War / anti-Soviet 80's. In the spirit of fair journalism, I am going to address some questions regarding the situation.
1. Is Russia's response adequate?
2. Is Georgia the actual aggressor?
3. What claim to autonomy do these geographical regions actually have?
Let me start by answering the the questions in reverse order.
3. The country of Georgia houses a couple of autonomous regions, existing in de facto independence from the Georgian government since the civil war of 1992-1993. During this war, the worst fighting took place in the Abkhazia region (in the Northwest region of the country). During this conflict, upwards of 200,000 ethnic Georgians were victims of genocide at the hands of the Abkhaz peoples and the Russian military forces remaining in the area. The Ossetian peoples of Central Georgia also declared de facto independence from the central government, intending to join with North Ossetia (which is part of Russia proper). The territories have acted autonomously, with numerous attempts by Georgian officials to extend autonomy under Georgian unity (such as statehood / confederation). The autonomous regions have refused, demanding their own independence.
By natural law, one would conclude that the cessation of violence after the civil war indicated a region of territorial delineation. That is, the de facto autonomy was recognized by both sides - both of which should be party to continued peaceful existence as sovereign territories as decided by the civil war. This is the very basis for the Declaration of Independence - casting off one form of government to create one better suited to the people, as they so desire. The territory lines of Georgia are little more than old Soviet map lines, but did nothing regarding the actual make-up of the region. Therefore, both regions have a legitimate claim to call for independence from Georgia - just as do the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to autonomy, as do the Kosovians, as do the Sioux. What is expected is fair and legal recognition of their claim.
Is it dangerous to draw map lines based on ethnicity? Indeed. But if it is necessary to establish areas of greater autonomy with a loose confederation in order to maintain peace throughout the world, then by all means, so be it.
2. The current conflict is a case of he-said / she-said. Who fired the first shot? Who started the war? If separatist forces in the autonomous regions had been committing acts of aggression towards civilians or government forces of Georgia, then Georgian forces are well within their means to bring peace and order to a region recognized as their own territory. However, reports would indicate a widely unreported series of events in which Georgian forces pushed their forces towards the South Ossetian capitol of Tskhinvali where they then began a bombardment of the civilian population. If this is, in fact, the case, I firmly believe that the Georgian government was out of line. It is one thing to send troops into the city and maintain martial law under constitutional powers, ensuring peace and rule of law. However, attacking civilian populations of another ethnicity is a crime.
3. If Georgia is, in fact, the aggressor against the Ossetian people, then Russia is absolved of my previous harsh criticism. Russia is performing the task of ensuring freedom, and ensuring that genocide is no longer a tool of war.
It is the policy of the US to ensure that the enemy is incapacitated when we enter a conflict. We ensure a swift victory and unconditional cessation of attacks against our forces and civilians. This is the tactic the Russians are employing, saving the US the trouble of having to intervene.
However, it was not long ago that Soviet forces used this same tactic to erect the iron curtain around these very same people... so it is with a cautious hand that I endorse such actions by the Russians.
Is there a cold war bias? Indeed. I feel it, as does the rest of the world. It comes in a time when Russia is still defiant, and interested in asserting their strength on Europe in the form of Energy, and the West in the form of alliances (with Iran, Syria, etc). As much as the United States is the sleeping giant, theUSSR Russians are the the sleeping bear. Intervention in these conflicts could, as I hinted in the last post, lead to another conflict between the two world super powers.
It is this fact that is causing the world community to call for Russia to act with reserve.
Depending on the outcome of Russia's actions, we may see a Russia with greater influence in the region as a partner with the US in peacekeeping throughout the world... or we may see a new foe to the United States in a struggle to maintain superiority in influence around the globe.
So I ask now, what is the role of the US in defending an ally? What is the role of any super power in defending against genocide? And is there room for two super powers doing good on the world stage?
Armed with this knowledge of the area, I forced myself to look at the cold hard facts surrounding the conflict, applying the same logic I have for other conflicts or struggles for independence, and take into account my hesitation towards anything Russian due to growing up in the Cold-War / anti-Soviet 80's. In the spirit of fair journalism, I am going to address some questions regarding the situation.
1. Is Russia's response adequate?
2. Is Georgia the actual aggressor?
3. What claim to autonomy do these geographical regions actually have?
Let me start by answering the the questions in reverse order.
3. The country of Georgia houses a couple of autonomous regions, existing in de facto independence from the Georgian government since the civil war of 1992-1993. During this war, the worst fighting took place in the Abkhazia region (in the Northwest region of the country). During this conflict, upwards of 200,000 ethnic Georgians were victims of genocide at the hands of the Abkhaz peoples and the Russian military forces remaining in the area. The Ossetian peoples of Central Georgia also declared de facto independence from the central government, intending to join with North Ossetia (which is part of Russia proper). The territories have acted autonomously, with numerous attempts by Georgian officials to extend autonomy under Georgian unity (such as statehood / confederation). The autonomous regions have refused, demanding their own independence.
By natural law, one would conclude that the cessation of violence after the civil war indicated a region of territorial delineation. That is, the de facto autonomy was recognized by both sides - both of which should be party to continued peaceful existence as sovereign territories as decided by the civil war. This is the very basis for the Declaration of Independence - casting off one form of government to create one better suited to the people, as they so desire. The territory lines of Georgia are little more than old Soviet map lines, but did nothing regarding the actual make-up of the region. Therefore, both regions have a legitimate claim to call for independence from Georgia - just as do the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to autonomy, as do the Kosovians, as do the Sioux. What is expected is fair and legal recognition of their claim.
Is it dangerous to draw map lines based on ethnicity? Indeed. But if it is necessary to establish areas of greater autonomy with a loose confederation in order to maintain peace throughout the world, then by all means, so be it.
2. The current conflict is a case of he-said / she-said. Who fired the first shot? Who started the war? If separatist forces in the autonomous regions had been committing acts of aggression towards civilians or government forces of Georgia, then Georgian forces are well within their means to bring peace and order to a region recognized as their own territory. However, reports would indicate a widely unreported series of events in which Georgian forces pushed their forces towards the South Ossetian capitol of Tskhinvali where they then began a bombardment of the civilian population. If this is, in fact, the case, I firmly believe that the Georgian government was out of line. It is one thing to send troops into the city and maintain martial law under constitutional powers, ensuring peace and rule of law. However, attacking civilian populations of another ethnicity is a crime.
3. If Georgia is, in fact, the aggressor against the Ossetian people, then Russia is absolved of my previous harsh criticism. Russia is performing the task of ensuring freedom, and ensuring that genocide is no longer a tool of war.
It is the policy of the US to ensure that the enemy is incapacitated when we enter a conflict. We ensure a swift victory and unconditional cessation of attacks against our forces and civilians. This is the tactic the Russians are employing, saving the US the trouble of having to intervene.
However, it was not long ago that Soviet forces used this same tactic to erect the iron curtain around these very same people... so it is with a cautious hand that I endorse such actions by the Russians.
Is there a cold war bias? Indeed. I feel it, as does the rest of the world. It comes in a time when Russia is still defiant, and interested in asserting their strength on Europe in the form of Energy, and the West in the form of alliances (with Iran, Syria, etc). As much as the United States is the sleeping giant, the
It is this fact that is causing the world community to call for Russia to act with reserve.
Depending on the outcome of Russia's actions, we may see a Russia with greater influence in the region as a partner with the US in peacekeeping throughout the world... or we may see a new foe to the United States in a struggle to maintain superiority in influence around the globe.
So I ask now, what is the role of the US in defending an ally? What is the role of any super power in defending against genocide? And is there room for two super powers doing good on the world stage?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Mourning Israel
Though my heart goes out to the families of Regev and Goldwasser, I am truly in mourning for the state of Israel.The policies in place for the Jewish country have led to a tactic of kidnapping in order to force lopsided prisoner exchanges, such as the one we have just been witness to. However, as we have seen during the Pomp and Circumstance for the returned Lebanese murderers, such policies are merely propaganda for the emboldened enemy.
Israel is a country that desires peace. It is a country that has been under siege since the British pulled out, leaving the fledgling country in charge of it's own fate. And her people... her people are resolved to live in a country of their ancestors, under rule of law, in peace with their neighbors.
The hate filled policies of muslims within and from beyond the borders of Israel make peace a distant dream. Where Israeli citizenship, voting rights, and even equal opportunity for success has been granted to Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike, they have been met with hatred, terror and murder. Call it racism, call it religionism, call it what you will... The muslims in the middle east have no moral ground for their struggle. They have been invited to live in a society offering opportunity for all under a largely secular government. Instead they choose violence.
What is worse is that Israel has seemingly lost her resolve, as a country, and the enemy smells blood. The muslims celebrate the continued murder of innocent Israelis, dancing on the graves of their fellow man. It may be that the battle for resolve is being lost, though I hope and pray otherwise.
In the mean time, I mourn the loss of the Israeli soldiers, the loss of Israeli resolve, and the loss of progress in the middle east.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Success in Iraq - Mission Accomplished?
How does one go about measuring success in Iraq? The benchmarks set forth for the fledgling Iraqi government are nearly met (15 of 18 successfully met), violence and casualties are at a nearly all time low, and the government is able to act independently from the US forces.In fact, countries that had been opposed to the war have begun bidding for free market contracts in helping rebuild the economy of the country - China, France. The economy is being stimulated by debt relief and re-establishment of foreign relations with it's neighbors - the UAE just forgave $7 Billion in debt accrued under Saddam.
Today, the Iraqi government made it clear that they intend the US to hand over control and security of the country shortly after the UN mandate for security of the country expires at the end of 2008. The government has made it clear that they are ready to assist the US with a phased withdrawal, proposing a timetable that would be conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. Iraqi police are battle hardened, after being dug in with their American counterparts; the tiny air force may be ready to take control of the airspace of Iraq, defending it from foreign invaders (Iran); and the people of Iraq have taken personal roles in ensuring safety and security in their own communities, often aiding in the routing of local thugs.
Could this mean that regardless of the Presidential race, the US will begin a withdrawal supported by the Iraqi government in early 2009? And is this the elusive "Mission Accomplished" that Bush has been looking for in Iraq?
I would say that this success, and the ability of Iraq to secure itself, is a victory for the United States. This is a war that is ready to be ended, but not for political reasons... because the country is ready for the war to be over.
The US should maintain a presence in the region for stability, as in Germany and Japan post WWII (and Korea, post TKW)... of course, at the request (or agreement) of the US backed Iraqi government.
If this is a successful end to the war, perhaps that is why Obama has flip-flopped on the issue and is now "considering the input from the generals on the ground"... I guess it feels good to be on a winning team after all!
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Iran - US: Battle in Hormuz
As the war of words heats up surrounding Iran's defiant nuclear program, both countries are beginning to unveil what a war between the two countries would look like.Israel will clearly make the first blow, striking the nuclear sites of Iran in hopes that they can curb their nuclear weapons development. This is going to happen sooner rather than later, and is going to be a massive country wide attack, necessary to destroy all of the nuclear development. As well, Iran's nuclear sites have been built in reinforced bunkers to avoid an Iraq-style destruction (the Israeli's destroyed Iraq's above ground nuclear sites in the early 80's), so these bombs would have to be of some substance.
Iran has declared that if they are attacked by Israel, they will retaliate by destruction of Israel. One would assume that they would push the button and activate their army of suicide bombers to cause civil unrest in the Hebrew nation. Israel's response would be nothing short of total destruction of the Palestinian territories as a reminder that they exist at the pleasure of Israel.
Meanwhile, Iran has declared that any attack on their facilities would cause a closure of the Strait of Hormuz - a 21 mile waterway connecting the Persian Gulf and all her oil resources to the Indian Ocean. The Strait lies pinched between Iran and Oman. Iran closing the shipping lanes in the Strait would prohibit the shipment of 40% of the world's oil supply - a move that is not going to be taken lightly by the world community.As well, Iran (who is counting on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as their main
defense against attack), has been studying US military ship operations in the waterways in an attempt to face the foe off their own shores. Iran has developed a "stealthy" sea plane (see picture) that is intended to deliver torpedoes and other anti-ship weapons.
(The plane is not stealthy, as the top-mounted rotor would light up any radar detector)The Untied States reminds Iran that the Naval 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, just on the Persian Gulf side of the Strait, and that any attempt to engage the Navy militarily would be met with "Captains who are ready to defend their ships".
Let's analyze this situation for a minute. The most dangerous foe is one who has nothing to lose. George W Bush is out of office in less than 6 months, with no concerns of re-election. After the November election, regardless of the outcome, Bush has absolutely nothing to lose. November 5th is a day that Iran should circle on their calendars. With the elections behind him, George Bush has a blank check of power that he could use to unleash hell on Iran, especially if Obama becomes president... a legacy ended with an exclamation point!
Should Israel attack prior to US election day, there would be some politicking, but the Iranian Navy would see instant and utter destruction at the hands of the US forces before one missile was fired from their Naval Missile Boats. 
The Iranians are outgunned, outclassed, and outnumbered in their own waters. Any threat to the US vessels would be seen as an act of war and would be cause for annihilation. The Iranian Navy would last less than 24 hours as we hit them with everything we have got.On the ground, a campaign of bombing training camps for military and terrorists, as well as military and nuclear bases, would ensue. The US would not need to put boots on the ground. Our goal would merely be to take away Iran's ability to make war. Their infrastructure would not be able to stop the cruise missiles, and other bombs.
The Iranian Air Force would be eliminated while their planes were still on the ground. Bases would be struck overnight. Any plane that did manage to scramble would have no friendly territory to land... and without an enemy actually in the air to dogfight, they would be forced to land at their own peril.
The POTUS has the ability to take military action without the approval of congress for a period not to exceed 90 days. This would make an attack on Iran legal and legit by American Law.
The Iranians talk as if they have a big stick... but what a whiffle bat has in size, it lacks substance. The Iranians are being permitted to exist at the pleasure of the United States... If we decide that they have crossed the line, and actually pose any sort of a threat, there would be hell to pay.
disclaimer: "Iranians" refers to the government of Iran, the military infrastructure, and the other than friendly citizens of that country... all others are exempt.
Friday, June 27, 2008
58 Years, Nearly to the Day - Korean War Ending
June 25th, 1950 marked the beginning of one of the first of many Cold War conflicts, in which the United States and her allies would fight against the spread of Socialism and Communism.The major combat ended in a 1953 cease fire, but the conflict has never been resolved. There is still an active declaration of war between the two halves of the Peninsula, as well as a continuation of sanctions against the North Koreans for their unwillingness to cooperate and end the war.
The sanctions have destroyed any chance at economic growth in the tyrannical regime, and their people have little been able to enjoy the fruits of the 20th and 21st centuries.June 27th, 2008, 58 years later, the day is being marked as the beginning of the end of the Korean War. The Nuclear Cooling Tower at Yongbyon has been destroyed, and the United States is officially ending economic sanctions. The country is stopping short on disclosing information regarding the proliferation of the nuclear technology, but this is a momentous first step, and clearly the most visible step.
This does not mean that the Peninsula is going to be reunited overnight, or that relations between the US and the North Koreans are repaired... but it does represent a mend in relations that could lead to peace and prosperity in the Northern Country.
This move represents the continued strength and influence of the United States, in a time where even the US media would have us seen as weak and losing influence. This is a great step towards freedom and liberty throughout the world.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
The most dangerous and lasting tool of war is that of the Nuclear variety. Not only are nuclear weapons the most destructive, intended for nothing more than mass casualty, but their blast results in radiation fallout leaving areas unlivable for years, and spreading sickness across the globe.
So why would any country in the world tolerate the current proliferation of this technology?
The simple answer is that no country should tolerate nuclear technology development.
The Cold war saw bomb tests that pushed the limits of what the world could survive, and eventually, with the detonation of the Soviet Union's Tsar Bomb (50 MT detonation Thermonuclear Blast) the world put it's breaks on for "bigger" and began thinking "quantity". This nuclear stockpile was enough for each of the super-powers to destroy the world many times over. But what lesson did we learn from this nuclear contest?
One would assume that the lessons learned were those of awe of the raw power, humility in that power, and to be humble in our reaches to destroy our enemy... as there comes a point where the consequences of your technology will ultimately also destroy you (and everyone else). This ultimate destruction led the USSR and the US into the "mutually ensured destruction" mentality, which saved our two nations from moving forward with nuclear war...
But what about states that have no ill will towards their own destruction, or the death of their own people? What about states that choose to use these weapons as tools of offense against their neighbors?
The answer by any sane individual should be that this technology should be thwarted at all costs!
This is the very reality that we, as a group of logical and rational individuals, are facing in Syria and Iran... countries with an agenda of murder based on religion, in search of a technology that kills indiscriminately, en masse.
Israel, the target of Iran's nuclear weapon's program, is preparing to defend itself against the imminent threat of an Iranian Nuclear Program... and I completely support Israel's right to strike Iranian Nuclear Compounds.
In the lead-up to World War Two, Adolf Hitler made his intentions very clear... the annihilation of the Jewish population from the face of the earth. He stated this every time he spoke, and eventually had the power to begin his war of murder against innocent civilians. Similarly, Iranian leaders are daily calling for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel, and the destruction of Judaism in the world... while subsequently developing nuclear technologies. They have stated their purpose, we all know their tool of choice... and it is our responsibility to never have to ask the question: "Why didn't someone do something?"
Iran is a state undeserving of political courtship. They are dangerous... to Israel, to the US, to their neighbors, and to the innocent citizens of that country who have no power over their insane leaders. The structure of that state needs to be re-thought, and the power needs to be put back into the hands of the educated and rational... not the militaristic religious leaders in power now.
But what consequences are there to Israel attacking Iran?
The leader of the AIEA claimed that he would step down because the Middle East would turn into a fireball. He claims that there is no clear and present danger, yet, and therefore no attack is necessary.
Israel attacked Iraq in the early 80's for the same reasons - destroying their nuclear weapons facilities. Iran has learned from the attack on Iraq, building their facilities further underground and spread throughout their country, so a more coordinated effort would need to take place to ensure the destruction of their program... Israel would have to strike many locations throughout Iran, giving resemblance to a full scale invasion... a move that would unite the Iranian people behind moving into emergency measures and retaliating against Iraq and Israel (Iraq because the US is there). Their attacks would come in the form of hundreds of suicide attacks, civil unrest, and general mayhem...
Suppose, however, that the attack included one on the leaders of Iran as well? The destruction of the leadership would isolate the chaos to Iran, with the occasional attack of US and Israeli interests (no more than usual, I would think)... and the country of Iran may be one step closer to returning to a peaceful country led by logic and wisdom.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of every human to ensure that nuclear technology is no longer allowed to be developed by countries around the world. Instead, I propose using the money to fund alternative sources of energy, such as solar or wind... A country could more easily stimulate their own economy by ensuring technical jobs, cleaner energy, and a more peaceful existence.
Of course... unless that is not their goal?
So why would any country in the world tolerate the current proliferation of this technology?
The simple answer is that no country should tolerate nuclear technology development.
The Cold war saw bomb tests that pushed the limits of what the world could survive, and eventually, with the detonation of the Soviet Union's Tsar Bomb (50 MT detonation Thermonuclear Blast) the world put it's breaks on for "bigger" and began thinking "quantity". This nuclear stockpile was enough for each of the super-powers to destroy the world many times over. But what lesson did we learn from this nuclear contest?
One would assume that the lessons learned were those of awe of the raw power, humility in that power, and to be humble in our reaches to destroy our enemy... as there comes a point where the consequences of your technology will ultimately also destroy you (and everyone else). This ultimate destruction led the USSR and the US into the "mutually ensured destruction" mentality, which saved our two nations from moving forward with nuclear war...
But what about states that have no ill will towards their own destruction, or the death of their own people? What about states that choose to use these weapons as tools of offense against their neighbors?The answer by any sane individual should be that this technology should be thwarted at all costs!
This is the very reality that we, as a group of logical and rational individuals, are facing in Syria and Iran... countries with an agenda of murder based on religion, in search of a technology that kills indiscriminately, en masse.
Israel, the target of Iran's nuclear weapon's program, is preparing to defend itself against the imminent threat of an Iranian Nuclear Program... and I completely support Israel's right to strike Iranian Nuclear Compounds.
In the lead-up to World War Two, Adolf Hitler made his intentions very clear... the annihilation of the Jewish population from the face of the earth. He stated this every time he spoke, and eventually had the power to begin his war of murder against innocent civilians. Similarly, Iranian leaders are daily calling for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel, and the destruction of Judaism in the world... while subsequently developing nuclear technologies. They have stated their purpose, we all know their tool of choice... and it is our responsibility to never have to ask the question: "Why didn't someone do something?"
Iran is a state undeserving of political courtship. They are dangerous... to Israel, to the US, to their neighbors, and to the innocent citizens of that country who have no power over their insane leaders. The structure of that state needs to be re-thought, and the power needs to be put back into the hands of the educated and rational... not the militaristic religious leaders in power now.
But what consequences are there to Israel attacking Iran?
The leader of the AIEA claimed that he would step down because the Middle East would turn into a fireball. He claims that there is no clear and present danger, yet, and therefore no attack is necessary.
Israel attacked Iraq in the early 80's for the same reasons - destroying their nuclear weapons facilities. Iran has learned from the attack on Iraq, building their facilities further underground and spread throughout their country, so a more coordinated effort would need to take place to ensure the destruction of their program... Israel would have to strike many locations throughout Iran, giving resemblance to a full scale invasion... a move that would unite the Iranian people behind moving into emergency measures and retaliating against Iraq and Israel (Iraq because the US is there). Their attacks would come in the form of hundreds of suicide attacks, civil unrest, and general mayhem...
Suppose, however, that the attack included one on the leaders of Iran as well? The destruction of the leadership would isolate the chaos to Iran, with the occasional attack of US and Israeli interests (no more than usual, I would think)... and the country of Iran may be one step closer to returning to a peaceful country led by logic and wisdom.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of every human to ensure that nuclear technology is no longer allowed to be developed by countries around the world. Instead, I propose using the money to fund alternative sources of energy, such as solar or wind... A country could more easily stimulate their own economy by ensuring technical jobs, cleaner energy, and a more peaceful existence.
Of course... unless that is not their goal?
Monday, May 19, 2008
The Defeat of America: Proof Positive - GET US OUT OF IRAQ
My Official Stance on the War in Iraq: GET THE US OUT NOW.
I am talking drop everything and head for the exits... no phased withdrawal, no permanent bases... Get out.
Have I become a Liberal Democratic Defeatist?
Quite the contrary. I simply refuse to stand by and support military action when our government does not have the resolve to conduct a war the way it needs to be conducted.
The Iraqi Islamic Party is calling for "the severest punishment" of a soldier who used the Koran as a target in Iraq. The punishment, they say, will serve as a warning to US soldiers to "consider the feelings of Muslims". And of course, the severest penalty, in their minds, is death. So the politicians of a defeated country are calling for the death of a US soldier in a country in which we are currently conducting a war. All the while, we are bending to their will by at least issuing an apology and sending the soldier back to the states.
Major General Jeff Hammond - a fearless leader in the US armed forces, humbly asking forgiveness from THE ENEMY.
That brings me to the point of this article:
HOW CAN WE FIGHT A WAR WITHOUT KNOWING THE ENEMY?
The "war" in Iraq is a fake war. It is not a war at all. In war, an enemy is defined and subsequently beaten into submission... You define the enemy, and take away the will or ability for the enemy to fight.
The "War On Terror" is an ambiguous war against a tactic of fighting, not an actual enemy. So who is the enemy? And how do we know when the "job is done" in Iraq? If we keep "fighting terror", the job will never be done.
The enemy is Islamic Totalitarianism, or Islamic Fundamentalism.
Saddam Hussein was actually a stabilizing force AGAINST Islamic Totalitarianism... making him the enemy of our enemy, and thus a friend. Not the best bedfellow, but a friend in this struggle.
We entered Iraq without adequately identifying the enemy of the Global War On Terror. Had we done so, we would not have allowed the SCIRI party of Iraq to take charge of the country... SCIRI, by the way, stands for: Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
SCIRI is a political party based in Islamic Totalitarianism...
That is right. We have invaded a country on the premise of fighting global terror, only to hand the country over to Islamic Totalitarian Forces.
This is equivalent to invading France prior to WWII and allowing the NAZI party to take the reigns.
We have done the work of the enemy, and are continuing to engage in a struggle to support a government that NOW represents the ideals that we should be attempting to eradicate!
HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE?
The two top fundraisers for Islamic Totalitarianism comes from the countries of Iran and Saudi Arabia. If we intend on ever actually winning the war against I.T. we need to take away the funding, and decimate the enemies will and ability to fight. THAT is a war!
War is not dropping food instead of bombs, keeping the population happy.
War is not apologizing to the enemy for insulting them.
War is not having your armed forces building the infrastructure of a country.
War IS removing the capability for the enemy to fight. Take away the will to fight. Annihilate the resources and eradicate the ability to make war.
This means destroying the Islamic leaders of Iran, and the Princes of Saudi Arabia... both groups are funding the expansion of Islamic Totalitarianism... Both groups are hell-bent on destroying the US... and both groups are responsible for ALL acts of terror around the world... Follow the money.
This is a Casus Belli - an act threatening our country, justifying war.
As long as we continue "humbly apologizing" to the enemy, instead of fighting the source of their ability to make war, The United States has NO BUSINESS putting our military in harm's way.
If we do not have the resolve to fight the war that needs to be fought, then we need to come home and hope that the next time we are attacked, the resolve will be strong enough to do what needs to be done.
We MUST engage Iran and Saudi Arabia with EXTREME PREJUDICE... secure the oil fields, destroy their economy, execute their leaders, and destroy the will of the people to revolt against our forces. Once this is accomplished, we will rebuild. No More Eggshells for me.
Name the True Enemy, Fight the battle that needs to be fought, and WIN THIS WAR!
I am talking drop everything and head for the exits... no phased withdrawal, no permanent bases... Get out.
Have I become a Liberal Democratic Defeatist?
Quite the contrary. I simply refuse to stand by and support military action when our government does not have the resolve to conduct a war the way it needs to be conducted.
The Iraqi Islamic Party is calling for "the severest punishment" of a soldier who used the Koran as a target in Iraq. The punishment, they say, will serve as a warning to US soldiers to "consider the feelings of Muslims". And of course, the severest penalty, in their minds, is death. So the politicians of a defeated country are calling for the death of a US soldier in a country in which we are currently conducting a war. All the while, we are bending to their will by at least issuing an apology and sending the soldier back to the states.
"I come before you here seeking your forgiveness," Hammond said to tribal
leaders and others gathered. "In the most humble manner, I look in your eyes
today, and I say please forgive me and my soldiers."
Major General Jeff Hammond - a fearless leader in the US armed forces, humbly asking forgiveness from THE ENEMY.That brings me to the point of this article:
HOW CAN WE FIGHT A WAR WITHOUT KNOWING THE ENEMY?
The "war" in Iraq is a fake war. It is not a war at all. In war, an enemy is defined and subsequently beaten into submission... You define the enemy, and take away the will or ability for the enemy to fight.
The "War On Terror" is an ambiguous war against a tactic of fighting, not an actual enemy. So who is the enemy? And how do we know when the "job is done" in Iraq? If we keep "fighting terror", the job will never be done.
The enemy is Islamic Totalitarianism, or Islamic Fundamentalism.
Saddam Hussein was actually a stabilizing force AGAINST Islamic Totalitarianism... making him the enemy of our enemy, and thus a friend. Not the best bedfellow, but a friend in this struggle.
We entered Iraq without adequately identifying the enemy of the Global War On Terror. Had we done so, we would not have allowed the SCIRI party of Iraq to take charge of the country... SCIRI, by the way, stands for: Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
SCIRI is a political party based in Islamic Totalitarianism...
That is right. We have invaded a country on the premise of fighting global terror, only to hand the country over to Islamic Totalitarian Forces.
This is equivalent to invading France prior to WWII and allowing the NAZI party to take the reigns.
We have done the work of the enemy, and are continuing to engage in a struggle to support a government that NOW represents the ideals that we should be attempting to eradicate!
HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE?
The two top fundraisers for Islamic Totalitarianism comes from the countries of Iran and Saudi Arabia. If we intend on ever actually winning the war against I.T. we need to take away the funding, and decimate the enemies will and ability to fight. THAT is a war!
War is not dropping food instead of bombs, keeping the population happy.
War is not apologizing to the enemy for insulting them.
War is not having your armed forces building the infrastructure of a country.
War IS removing the capability for the enemy to fight. Take away the will to fight. Annihilate the resources and eradicate the ability to make war.
This means destroying the Islamic leaders of Iran, and the Princes of Saudi Arabia... both groups are funding the expansion of Islamic Totalitarianism... Both groups are hell-bent on destroying the US... and both groups are responsible for ALL acts of terror around the world... Follow the money.
This is a Casus Belli - an act threatening our country, justifying war.
As long as we continue "humbly apologizing" to the enemy, instead of fighting the source of their ability to make war, The United States has NO BUSINESS putting our military in harm's way.
If we do not have the resolve to fight the war that needs to be fought, then we need to come home and hope that the next time we are attacked, the resolve will be strong enough to do what needs to be done.
We MUST engage Iran and Saudi Arabia with EXTREME PREJUDICE... secure the oil fields, destroy their economy, execute their leaders, and destroy the will of the people to revolt against our forces. Once this is accomplished, we will rebuild. No More Eggshells for me.
Name the True Enemy, Fight the battle that needs to be fought, and WIN THIS WAR!
Thursday, April 24, 2008
It happened in the USSR...
When the USSR collapsed in the late 80's, the Cold War ended. The United States was filled with joy of the end of the CW, but new threats began to arise.
Those threats were rogue states, unstable nations, and civil wars throughout the old soviet republics.
What would it look like if the US government, and it's complacent voters, continues the gap between the people and the leaders... What would it look like if the gas prices reached $4.00 a gallon and drove the nation into an economic panic, as the lower and middle class could no longer afford the basic necessities. What would it look like if the lower and middle class was systematically uprooted from their homes because of government mingling in the private housing market?
What would it look like if the US ceased to be a union of peaceful states, and instead became a series of independent states fighting for resources enough to survive?
It is not crazy... we have done it before... and as the people are less and less able to thrive, let alone survive, we march forward along the same path that destroyed the Soviet Union.
We are truly at a pivotal point in our nation's history... and our nation's existence.
Here is an interesting timeline starting in 2008... it is from a video game, but is hardly unlikely.
Those threats were rogue states, unstable nations, and civil wars throughout the old soviet republics.
What would it look like if the US government, and it's complacent voters, continues the gap between the people and the leaders... What would it look like if the gas prices reached $4.00 a gallon and drove the nation into an economic panic, as the lower and middle class could no longer afford the basic necessities. What would it look like if the lower and middle class was systematically uprooted from their homes because of government mingling in the private housing market?
What would it look like if the US ceased to be a union of peaceful states, and instead became a series of independent states fighting for resources enough to survive?
It is not crazy... we have done it before... and as the people are less and less able to thrive, let alone survive, we march forward along the same path that destroyed the Soviet Union.
We are truly at a pivotal point in our nation's history... and our nation's existence.
Here is an interesting timeline starting in 2008... it is from a video game, but is hardly unlikely.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Iran's Goal: A Nuclear Apocalypse
Iran's quest to bring about the End-Times is as clear as listening to a speech by any one of her leaders. The self-fullfilling prophecy of bringing about the savior of man, or the next prophet, is done so by tragic warfare, with total destruction of humanity in it's current form... It would appear, to anyone actually listening, that Iran's hopes for world peace come only from making haste on bringing about global nuclear war.This is the problem with religious fanaticism in leadership positions... such as the Iranian panel of religious leaders and the Ayatollah, in charge of overseeing all that the governemnt and people do. Their hope is to please their god by aiding the end times.
Don't believe me? Iran has been trying to obtain the technology to build nuclear wepons since before the revolution, and since 2003 has redoubled their efforts to create not just enriched Uranium for fuel, but Plutonium for bombs. All the while speaking of peaceful energy use, but ending the speeches and policy with "and by the by, we also are going to blow Israel off the map"... let me guess, blow them off the map with peaceful energy?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regularly mentions the Mahdi, the Muslim Messiah, in his speeches regarding the future of Iran and Iran's energy program.
If we analyse the events and the rhetoric, we can better understand what is unfolding.
The use of religion, or the invocation of the name of a god on behalf of one's cause has been the oldest and strongest form of coorsion in the history of man. Fighting in "god's army" has been a battle cry of both sides of countless wars throughout the ages. Most famous was the Crusades, in which the Holy Land was being reclaimed in the name of Christ. What better way to get atonement than to glorify your god in battle?
With this in mind, there is no question that the leaders of Iran look to influence their subjects, as well as Muslims around the world, who see the tasks they are undertaking as the work of the muslim god. As a muslim, or a citizen of Iran, how can you question the actions of your divinely inspired leaders? To do so would be blasphemy... and to blaspheme would mean death. So it goes, that the leaders of Iran have taken the most widely used page out of the history book, and are once again invoking religion over reason, and their loyal subjects are powerless to stop god.
Next, let's evaluate the "code words" being used by Iranian leadership. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often talks about the use of Uranium for "peaceful purposes" while in the same breath talking about the destruction of Israel and the West. Let me explain: in the eyes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad they are not mutually exclusive... they are, in fact, one in the same. According to the story of the Mahdi, there will be peace on earth when the restores righteousness and changes the world into a perfect and just Islamic society alongside Jesus (who, of course, was Muslim and not Jewish... right?). So the peace comes when the world is controlled by Islam, and we are all subject to Islamic law. That is the ultimate "peaceful purpose"... death to the infadels, and survival and submittal of all loyal islamic subjects to the islamic leadership... I mean allah, of course!
Iran is in a dangerous bind... and that bind is tying knots in the stomach of the rest of the world.
Should Iran obtain nuclear weapons, or the capability to manufacture them, we will be within a decade of nuclear war.
I ask, if we can see the future and know what tragedies are going to come, is it our obligation to stop them?Of course I am not suggesting all out war with Iran... but destroying the ability for Iran to enrich nuclear material... for energy or for weapons.
The alternative could be much worse.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Violence in Iraq Spikes Under Al Sadr, What’s our Role?
"Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's followers say security forces are abusing a
cease-fire by his Mahdi Army militia to unfairly target them in raids.
The government says it is acting against criminal gangs. "
The answer to Iraq’s security issue has to be regional security with allegiance to the central government of Iraq. This is the same system that the US uses, where cities and counties take care of local issues, followed by state government, who all pledge allegiance to the federal government.
The mistake in Iraq has been too much focus on the central government, and the central government’s subsequent fighting with the regional security forces.
As much as I hate the devil child, Muqtada al Sadr, he and his followers may be more in the right than we think. Now, of course, al-Sadr has not been elected councilman of anything… he is a self proclaimed leader and head of an illigitimate gang… so IMHO he needs to run for a post, or petition his government for the creation of regional posts, like city council or county commissioner. That will legitimize he and his followers, and bring people in to the political process.
Notice that I use “illegitimiate” instead of “illegal”. It is for a purpose. We in the United States have set rules and regulations, the breaking of which is against the legal system as voted on by the people or their representatives… thus illegal. In Iraq, there are not the same set of rules, elected representatives, or an effective democratic structure. It is a land of renegades and regional order (or disorder), with groups fighting with the US troops or the Iraqi government because they have no other way to petition their government – the system doesn’t exist. So they engage in civil war, or widescale gang war…
With the lack of rules of, by, and for the people, and the increased frustration of the people in Iraq, I have to ask myself and our countrymen: what is our role?
I was discussing the war with my best friend, Curtis, during our road trip. Curtis is active military, scheduled to deploy in January of 2009. He said, “It’s our job to stay there until the job is done”. To which I replied, “What is the definition of the ‘job’ and how will we know when it is ‘done’?” He couldn’t answer, so we discussed the irony of being in a war, and supporting a war to which there is no end in sight, or there are no clear objectives.
Should the objectives be set per my guidelines, we could end ground combat within a year, and chose to establish a few permanent bases for regional security should we so chose.
My guidelines for ending the war would be this:
- The establishment of regional states, which would establish rule of law in accordance with the Iraqi Constitution, the election of regional or state Governors and legislature, and the creation of these state’s own constitution, as prescribed in Chapter 5 of the Iraqi constitution. Each region would have one year to complete a draft regional constitution and submit it to the voters.
- Complete the training of the Iraqi Military for basic infantry combat. Our continued presence with bases can continue training higher tech military personnel and officers.
If we continue our combat in Iraq as part of a “stop all violence” effort, we will have zero chance of success. What we are now is the Iraqi police, fighting thugs and gangsters.
The role of the US combat troop in Iraq is done. The political process, however difficult, needs to be allowed to work. We should establish a combat ready force at local bases to ensure there are no strings of genocide, and to help qwell a civli war… but our task must be complete.
For those who disagree, I would argue that most combat that is seen now is, in fact, an attack by a gang (you may call them terrorist groups, but they are gangs). This is reminiscent of Los Angeles during the gang war years.So my plea to the US government is to define the job, so we will know what it is that needs to be done. Let’s finish the job you define. Let’s end combat in Iraq and unite this country!
Thursday, February 28, 2008
US no longer Super Power?
According to Iran, the answer is no. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in yet another bizarre twist on reality, has claimed that Iran is the greatest and most powerful country in the world.
Iran, a country in a region of great historical value, is headed by a mad-man. As if his recent comments about peace by wiping Israel off the map weren't enough, or his claims that his nukes will be peacefully used to wipe Israel off the map... ummm, I mean for energy... Then this is clear evidence of delusions of grandeur!
Wikipedia helps us dissect what is going on with the Iranian Leadership:
Little Hitler is clearly mad, and hell bent on starting a war. Should he have it his way, it will be a war of the nuclear type. A war in which Israel cannot recover... and it is true that should Israel (whose total population is 7 Million) get hit with a single nuclear bomb, killing 200,000 (3% of their total population) she could not recover.
"Iran is the number one power in the world," Ahmadinejad said Thursday in aLet me finish by referring to my cartoon: "But as you can see by this chart, it is Iran who is big and the enemy is actually small"
speech to the families of those killed in his country's war with Iraq more than
20 years ago. "Today the name of Iran means a firm punch in the teeth of the
powerful and it puts them in their place..." He continued, "You can see how some people here... try to materialize the plans of the enemies and by showing that Iran is small and the enemy is big,"
Iran, a country in a region of great historical value, is headed by a mad-man. As if his recent comments about peace by wiping Israel off the map weren't enough, or his claims that his nukes will be peacefully used to wipe Israel off the map... ummm, I mean for energy... Then this is clear evidence of delusions of grandeur!
Wikipedia helps us dissect what is going on with the Iranian Leadership:
Megalomania (from the Greek word μεγαλομανία) is an historical term for behavior
characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, genius, or omnipotence - often generally termed as delusions of grandeur. The word is a collaboration of the word "mania" meaning madness and the Greek "megalo" meaning "very large", "great", or "exaggerated", thus combining to denote an obsession with, either in the form of irrational perceived need for or preoccupation with in one's own estimation having and/or obtaining, grandiosity and extravagance (especially in the form of great fame and popularity, material wealth, social influence or political power, or more than one or even all of the aforesaid) and accompanying complete desirous and bombastic abandon; a common symptom if not the key diagnostic feature of megalomania.
It is often symptomatic of manic or paranoid disorders.
Little Hitler is clearly mad, and hell bent on starting a war. Should he have it his way, it will be a war of the nuclear type. A war in which Israel cannot recover... and it is true that should Israel (whose total population is 7 Million) get hit with a single nuclear bomb, killing 200,000 (3% of their total population) she could not recover.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Cry 'HAVOC', and Let Slip the Dogs of War...
This post is equally inspired by three men: William Shakespeare , Winston Churchill, and Steve Emmerson.
Recently, the The Archbishop of Canterbury declared that Sharia Law should be allowed as an alternative to British Common Law. Meanwhile, across Europe, the most common male name for new births is Mohammad. Muslims are rioting in the streets of France, Saudi's are threatening to destroy Britian, and Muslim children in America are signing up for summer camp... but not at Camp Happy Scout... rather at Camp Jihad!
There is a war against peace, a war against freedom, and a war against humanity.
London is burning, metaphorically. And within two decades, Britain will be a Muslim nation. They have done nothing to stop the Muslim population growth, they have an unarmed populace to fight a Muslim British Army, and they have leaders who are thwarted by the threat of violence and instead opt for capitulation and appeasement.
The US is traveling the same road. But it will take much more effort to turn the United States from a freedom loving nation into a Muslim nation. First, the people of the United States must be disarmed. Secondly, the United States children must be re-educated. Thirdly, the Constitution must be amended or destroyed. And finally, the will of the American freedom loving people must be annihilated.
I sit in wonder on many occasions as to what will be the breaking point for America. when will enough be enough when it comes to Radical Muslim appeasement? How late is too late? What fights are we putting off that our children will inherit... and will my soon-to-be-born little girl spend her adult life in Sharia Appropriate garb?
To answer the last question: Not as long as I have air in my lungs.
Is it too late for Britain? If the words of Shakespeare can speak to one drop of English blood in our hearts or our British brothers... if there are British men, women, and children who still love their country as is descirbed in these words... I echo the words of Chruchill: We shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the sea. We shall fight on the beaches and in the streets... We shall never surrender!
And I leave you with these words from Shakespeare's King Henry:
Recently, the The Archbishop of Canterbury declared that Sharia Law should be allowed as an alternative to British Common Law. Meanwhile, across Europe, the most common male name for new births is Mohammad. Muslims are rioting in the streets of France, Saudi's are threatening to destroy Britian, and Muslim children in America are signing up for summer camp... but not at Camp Happy Scout... rather at Camp Jihad!
There is a war against peace, a war against freedom, and a war against humanity.
London is burning, metaphorically. And within two decades, Britain will be a Muslim nation. They have done nothing to stop the Muslim population growth, they have an unarmed populace to fight a Muslim British Army, and they have leaders who are thwarted by the threat of violence and instead opt for capitulation and appeasement.
The US is traveling the same road. But it will take much more effort to turn the United States from a freedom loving nation into a Muslim nation. First, the people of the United States must be disarmed. Secondly, the United States children must be re-educated. Thirdly, the Constitution must be amended or destroyed. And finally, the will of the American freedom loving people must be annihilated.
I sit in wonder on many occasions as to what will be the breaking point for America. when will enough be enough when it comes to Radical Muslim appeasement? How late is too late? What fights are we putting off that our children will inherit... and will my soon-to-be-born little girl spend her adult life in Sharia Appropriate garb?
To answer the last question: Not as long as I have air in my lungs.
Is it too late for Britain? If the words of Shakespeare can speak to one drop of English blood in our hearts or our British brothers... if there are British men, women, and children who still love their country as is descirbed in these words... I echo the words of Chruchill: We shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the sea. We shall fight on the beaches and in the streets... We shall never surrender!
And I leave you with these words from Shakespeare's King Henry:
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even
fought And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I
doubt not; For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)