Why Morning Will Come

By J. Robert -- Bio and Archives 
 March 20, 2015  

Recognition of the inevitability of comprehensive bureaucratization does not solve the problems that arise out of it.—Joseph Schumpter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy

Many of us—including me—worry about the downward arc of liberty, ethics and economic freedom. If you are taking the time to read this short article, in all likelihood, I needn’t detail the myriad challenges we face, even at a high level.  Rather, the question is: is there any hope? Or are we fated to descend into a new Dark Age, aided and abetted, in the famous words of Winston Churchill regarding National Socialism, by “perverted science?”

Notwithstanding those who look forward to the return of Jesus Christ—of which I count myself one—or a spiritual revival, are there any other reasons to hold out hope in the interim? I think there is reason for optimism. It is not a certain hope, but is a hope that—accompanied by courage, elbow grease, intelligence and audacity—should give conservatives, libertarians, Constitutionalists and other allies a reason for positivity. And please note by “audacity,” I do not allude to the book by Barack Obama, who is one of the leading unlights pushing us towards a new Dark Age; rather, I make reference to the words of a true American hero, George Patton, whose motto was “Audacity, audacity, always audacity.”  Patton, of course, led the charge in destroying a similar national socialism we see here today.

What is this hope for a better morning based on? Simply this: the leftist experiment has always and everywhere—by virtue of its complete misapprehension of human nature - eventually reverted to its natural ouroborotic state. It is, as Jacques Mallet du Pan (1749—10 May 1800), wrote about the first leftist reign of terror, in his 1793 essay
that ”...the Revolution always eats its own children” (“A l’exemple de Saturne, la révolution dévore ses enfants”)

Examples of du Pan’s thesis? The prototypical example is Robespierre falling to his own guillotine, of course. But let’s look at more history. Do you recall the Red Chinese attack on fellow communist Vietnam immediately on the heels of the US withdrawal and collapse of South Vietnam? If not, perhaps you recall the Sino-Soviet war on the Ussuri River border area in 1969, amid reports Soviet leadership had inquired of US leadership if there would be any problems if the Russians nuked Mao’s China. Or you may recall Leon Trotsky, one of those who brought into being the Soviet nightmare along with Lenin, becoming persona non grata in the Soviet People’s Workers Paradise, being forced to flee to Mexico and finally being murdered there with an ice pick. The story of former NKVD (predecessor to the KGB) head and Stalin buddy Lavrentiy Beria falling out of favour, is particularly chilling. He was dragged before a special session (“Spetsialnoye Sudebnoye Prisutstvie”) the a day before Christmas 1953 with no defense counsel and no right of appeal, then summarily dragged off to be shot—after they stuffed a rag in his mouth to shut up his whining before they pulled the trigger.  A little more recently, perhaps you recall Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo in the old Rhodesia? Of course. Operation Barbarossa, where the National Socialists of Germany invaded the socialists of the Soviet Union is a classic example. (Please… if you do not understand that the war between Hitler and Stalin was an internecine one, one version of socialism vs. another, simply go read the planks adopted at the very first Nazi convention, Munich, Feb. 1920, and tell me how they differ in any substantive way. Or consider Hitler’s own words, “There is more that binds us to Boshevism than separates us from it… I have always made allowances for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once,” or again, “I am not merely the vanquisher of Marxism, I am its implementer… The whole of National Socialism is contained in Marxism… the industrial cells, the mass demonstrations, the propaganda material.”) Most recently, we see similar dynamics where “Obama’s brain” Valerie Jarrett has made vigorous attempts to derail the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign by purportedly being the agent behind Hillary’s State Department email imbroglio.

But of course, the Fabian socialists in power today deign to use a velvet glove rather than the hammer and sickle to crush the skulls of their opposition—at least much of the time. That is, the new socialists desire to not smash your skull, but rather to get in and reside within it (another mindless “Yes we can!” chanting session, anyone?).  The goal today is generally not the guillotine (though all those banker “suicides,” or the abnormal deaths of Andrew Brietbart, Tom Clancy or Michael Hasting do not leave one with warm and fuzzies), but rather, as Charleton Heston wrote, the usurpation of culture:  “Modern media fills the cultural airwaves with a mist of anesthesia, so that principles and values are slowly desensitized to the coming onslaught. The new culture arrives on the heels of this propaganda. It simply moves in and takes over, like slipping a fine new glove over a numbed hand. The outcome of the war is just as devastating, but without bombs bursting, twisted bodies to bury, or rubble to rebuild. A new class, a different culture, simply takes over.” Andrew Brietbart, before his peculiar death, put it more succinctly: “Politics is downstream from culture.” In fact, the quotes from Heston and Brietbart are merely a shortened version of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Where the velvet hammer fails, there is cultural marginalization, or failing at that, always the hammer of punitive legal measures, such as fining an Oregon baker a quarter million dollars for exercising her freedom of conscience re. homosexual marriages; sending another baker in Colorado to a re-education camp for the same “sin,” or Elaine Huegenin-  the photographer who graciously refused to photograph a gay “wedding” - who was informed by the New Mexico Supreme Court that her very right of citizenship was predicated on her submitting to the radical Brownshirt homosexual agenda.

Homosexuality uber alles… including the 1^st Amendment—is just part of the game.  Al Gore and his merry band of anti-science global warmers also illustrate the naked leftist hammer, where Gore recently stated that those who question global warming should “be punished.” And of course, there are always the ubiquitous campus speech and thought police, who are no more than Red Guards without the Mao suits . For them, it is as famed leftist Herbert Marcuse—who popularized the “repressive tolerance” theory of modern progressives ‚Äìsaid:“Liberating tolerance would mean intolerance against movements from the right and toleration of movements from the left. Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed.”

Famed leftist Mario Savio and his free speech crusade on the steps of the student union at UC Berkeley in the 1960s is now proven to be just part of the “realpolitik” in taking over the levers of control. Free speech be damned when there is control to be had!

But here is the optimistic twist about the leftists/fascists: As there is no God, power is the highest value in their universe. Indeed, it is ultimately all that exists for them. You know this from watching Hillary and Obama.  And from this assumption flows their whole hellish world, where it is as Dostoyevski wrote,“if there is no God… everything is permitted.”  (Без бога всё позволено, всё дозволено (the second clause is a variant of the phrase “everything is permitted.”).  And because power is their “god”—as opposed to the God the Founding Fathers invoke —the left is open to all kinds of distortions, corruptions and self-destructiveness. These self-proclaimed leftist savants have rejected the wisdom of those informed by absolutes (again… think here of America’s Founding Fathers, who were generally informed by Judeo-Christian presuppositions, which - critically - led to the division of powers) and instead have left themselves open to raw, fallen human nature… without having the intellectual grid to even be aware of the full ramifications of this.  Or as one two thousand year old book—not much read today—once stated, “Proclaiming themselves wise, they became fools.”  Or as another writer from that era, Roman satirist Juvenal, asked, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  (Who will guard the guards?) There is no answer to this, because none is possible in the amoral world of the left.

And herein lies the hope: Simply, that the left will, as it always has, destroy itself. The only question is, of course, how many must suffer or die before that implosion? Will it be the 100 million that the Black Book of Communism (Oxford Univ. Press) says were murdered last century by the left? Or will people rise before that to derail the train to darkness?

It has often been observed that the Soviet leftist beast died of its own internal contradictions and misapprehension of human nature (that is the reason why Ludwig von Mises’ best known book was called “Human Action”—downloadable here.) The point is, the leftist gyroscope is, by definition, not “in spec,” and thus can never lead anywhere that is recognizably human.  And of course a million human decisions made locally every second will always and everywhere trump the decisions by some self-appointed “best and brightest (the same “best and brightest” that gave us Vietnam) constructing today’s version of a Soviet 5 year plan while isolated in Moscow or Washington DC.

There is hope in that the left is utterly intellectually dishonest. Think the global warming scam. Science is decided by “consensus” rather than experimentation and hypothesis testing?

Notwithstanding the fact that there has been ZERO global warming since 1998, has anyone told Galileo, Copernicus about this? Has anyone told Ignaz Semmelweis—who insisted his doctors wash their hands between operation and was drummed out of the medical business in the mid-1800s because germs were not in the consensus—about this? Perhaps Mr. Gore could ask Albert Einstein - about whom Hitler had published a book entitled “100 Scientists Against Einstein” (to which Einstein replied “Why one hundred? If their facts are right, only one would be needed)—about that “consensus” scam.

The left thinks it can create a new man, a new reality based on their utterly flawed premises about human nature. But they are wrong—and permanently and forever wrong. No matter how much propaganda the left musters, it is as Horace (65—8 BC) said, “You can drive nature out with a pitchfork, but she will nevertheless come back.” Similarly, Solzhenitsyn predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union many decades ago, by noting simply that Communism could not, by their central presuppositions, see man as he was, and was thus inexorably doomed to fail.

There is more. Once the inevitable economic and ethical implosions occur, exactly how long will they be able to find the foot soldiers required to do leftist bidding? Not only will there be little money with which to hire mercenaries, the intellectual bankruptcy of the matter will be visible to all. In short, the Wicked Witch of the West will have no more flying monkeys at her command. People will not sacrifice their lives for something they know is bankrupt. And once this state is arrived at, the end is only a matter of time.

How do I know? I have lived in the capital of socialist Canada for many, many years, and worked with thousands of government employees. Exactly how many do you think really gave a flying rat’s derriere about anything other than their pensions and getting out the door precisely at 4 PM? Need I go through the litany of stories the US side of the border (my favourite being that distasteful issue where the EPA was having problems with employees defecating in the hallways).  Let me ask you this: this article is being written for free—my only interest is truth and justice. How many on the Big Government side would take even five minutes of their time to do the same? The truth is, that as the leftist Orwellian dystopia continues its descent, more and more will see the intellectual bankruptcy of the naked emperor, or—more narrowly—at least become disenchanted as they see a chronically unemployed brother, an elderly parent living in poverty, or their children with no future. Slowly but surely, with no bell rung at the bottom, people will one by one check out of Hotel Kalifornia.

It is true that there will always be the committed Bolsheviks; and it is true, as Margaret Mead said, that change generally comes through small committed groups (think the vile Saul Alinsky here). But recall, too, that there is no honour among thieves—let along ethics—and the world of the left will—long or short - devolve into a Lord of the Flies scenario. Worse, as the left knows it is creating an ever shrinking pie, there will be mad scrambles for the diminishing number of crumbs. There can only so many Michelle Obama-style vacations available, and that number will become smaller each year.  In fact, the old apocryphal story of Leonid Brezhnev is a perfect example:  In the 1970s, Leonid Brezhnev’s elderly grandmother, who had lived in pre-communist Russia, came to visit him at his communist headquarters. Leonid is beaming with pride as he introduces her to all his aides and servants, shows her his gold plated desk, his 15 Zil limousines waiting, all with engines running, pictures of all his well-appointed dachas in exclusive, VIP areas across the USSR, etc. Finally, at the end of the day, all the assistants, aides and servants leave. The old granny very nervously and very carefully looks around to make sure absolutely no one is anywhere near, then leans over and very, VERY quietly whispers in Leonid’s ear:
 
“This is all very well, Leonid…. BUT WHAT IF THE COMMUNISTS COME!?!?”

The truth is, formerly an army travelled on its stomach. However, today, with MREs, McDonalds and GMOs, food is not as great of an issue. There will be food (as non-nutritious as it may be!). Rather, today’s army travels on its worldview—but just like every other socialist experiment, ranging from Zimbabwe to the USSR, this worldview is neither intellectually tenable, economically sustainable nor morally bearable. Therein lies our hope.

Finally, for the left, their very fallen, imperfect human nature—which is addressed through the division of powers in traditional America, but dominated by czars, elites and autocrats in the totalitarian leftist world (remember: power is the only “god” they worship, and people become increasingly like that which they worship)—will be the final cause of their downfall.

In sum, there is hope. It is, as Dale Dauten wrote in his Greatest Quotations of All-Time “Willpower subverts passion. Bureaucracy subverts willpower. Idiocy subverts bureaucracy. If you need an example of this, just look at Obama’s cabinet.

Canada Free Press

The Left's Base Motive: Vengeance

January 2, 2015
By J.R. Dunn 

 
American leftism has gotten an awful lot of mileage by monopolizing the moral high ground. It is the sole force in American that favors the poor. The sole enemy of racism. The sole comforter of rape victims.  The sole protector of defenseless Muslims. The sole guardian of the environment, and so on ad nauseum.

It all falls apart eventually -- with friends like the left, nobody needs enemies. But often overlooked is that fact that it’s bogus from the start. Any prolonged glance at the left reveals it to be an ideology of power, its major tool violence, its goal revenge.   

Leftism has always been about revenge. The works of Marx are filled with fantasies of retribution and judgment. Their tone reeks of resentment and paranoia, with blame cast for even the most trivial. "The bourgeoisie,” Marx once declared in a letter to Engels, “will remember my carbuncles until their dying day.” That’s leftism in a nutshell.

The Paris communards of 1870, the first instance of an actual leftist government-in-being, immediately began shooting bourgeois on taking power, giving full rein to the European hatred for the middle class that is all but incomprehensible to Americans. That practice has been repeated by every hard left government that has ever taken power -- the USSR, communist China, Castroite Cuba, Pol Pot’s Kampuchea, down to minor examples such as Bela Kun’s Hungarian “Regime of Light” (1919), which reintroduced the Roman practice of decimation.

This unvarying tendency toward atrocity suggests that all these regimes had something in common, and it’s not that they all suffered from boils. It’s the lust for vengeance -- revenge for slights and crimes either real or imaginary,  that can be found in every leftist from Nechaev to Bill Ayers. No less than Barack Obama spilled that when, his back apparently against the wall in 2012, he began ranting about “voting for revenge”.

This was displayed clearly enough this past holiday season.
First in the wave of bogus rape stories, brought up not to assure prosecution or to curtail such crimes, but solely as ideological weapons for use by feminists.

American leftism has always been about magnifying trivial complaints to serve as excuses for revolutionary action. The U.S. has never had a feudal system, nor a proletariat, nor any other conceivable reason for revolution. (German Marxist Werner Sombart pointed out in 1903 that the American masses already possessed what the left was promising them. His comrades badgered him mercilessly for this insight.) Instead we see trivia blown up to apocalyptic proportions -- and nowhere less than in feminism. Betty Friedan hated the suburbs. Gloria Steinem served as a Playboy bunny and never got over the humiliation. They therefore set out to upend Western civilization by inflating these slights while millions of other women fastened on atrocities such as “the male gaze,” having doors opened for them, “manspreading,” and attempted pickups -- or lack of the same.

The one actual atrocity available was rape, which feminists have utilized as heavy artillery -- “all men are rapists”, “all sex is rape”, and the like. The latest barrage came from Tawana Dunham and Rolling Stone’s “Jackie.”  

Dunham, the East Coast sophisticate’s 300-lb. “It” girl, claimed in a memoir that she had been raped by an infamous Republican while at college,  while “Jackie” regaled Rolling Stone with a tale of gang rape at the hands of the always-reliable frat house.

Suffice to say not a single detail of either story help up. A “Barry” did attend Oberlin, and he was a power in local campus conservative politics, but he lacked a handlebar mustache and he’d never met Dunham. The fraternity in “Jackie’s” yarn threw no party the night in question, nor did she show any signs of suffering such an ordeal. One of the grotesque aspects of this scandal is that nobody in the legacy media so much as alluded to the Brawley and Duke hoaxes, which in many ways were identical to these accounts. In the Brawley case a black teenage girl, afraid to return home after a late night out, claimed to have been raped by a gang of whites under degrading circumstances. A gullible media hooted the story to the skies, egged on by the “Rev.” Al Sharpton. In the Duke case, the entire lacrosse team was publicly indicted for the mass rape of a stripper brought in to entertain a stag party.

Both these stories began to collapse almost immediately, but proponents insisted it didn’t matter -- white men had raped black women innumerable times before, so collective guilt demanded that someone be persecuted. As for Duke, lacrosse was an upper-class WASP sport, and the team deserved to be punished for that alone.

Dunham and “Jackie” would do well to contemplate the fates of the accusers in these hoaxes. 

Although Brawley’s champion Al Sharpton used the incident as his next step in clawing his way to the heights (if that’s the word) of MSNBC, Brawley herself today lives pseudonymously in Northern Virginia owing millions in legal fines. The Duke athlete’s accuser, Crystal Mangum, is serving hard time for the murder of a paramour.

Both Dunham and “Jackie” were looking for revenge for something -- all that we know is that it wasn’t rape.

Even more serious -- for the nation as a whole as well as those directly involved -- is current racial unrest triggered by blatant attempts to manipulate racial tensions through the actions and rhetoric of Barack Obama and Eric Holder et al. Long-term efforts to decriminalize the actions of black lawbreakers, beginning with the Trayvon Martin incident and progressing to the Ferguson shooting, have dovetailed with several standard episodes of police incompetence in Cleveland and Staten Island to create as fraught a racial atmosphere as at any time since the late 60s. (So much for the “post-racial” president.) This culminated in the assassination of two police officers in Brooklyn by an unstable career criminal, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who had boasted on his Facebook page that he was out to avenge the Brown shooting by “giving wings to pigs.” (With the customary competence of the urban gangster, Brinsley shot not white officers but Wenjian Liu, an Asian, and Rafeal Ramos, a Hispanic.)

Here is a case where the leftist yearning for vengeance was reified by a maniac -- a not at all uncommon occurrence. Their rhetoric and posturing brought their fantasies and desires for vengeance to life before their eyes -- though certainly not in a way that they would have approved of, seeing as there can be little opportunity to exploit it. Whatever else he was, Brinsley is in no way a revolutionary hero.

The left’s entanglement with vengeance is easily understood -- it has nothing else. Their messiah has failed to lead them into Eden -- his policies, both domestic and foreign, have failed catastrophically one after another, leaving him nothing to show for six years as president and a nightmare gauntlet for the remainder of his term. His response -- and the response of the left as a whole -- amounts to little more than disjointed and incoherent actions. In the past six years, every last hope and dream of the left has been exposed -- there is nothing left.

So what does the left have but vengeance? It got them this far -- it will have to maintain them through the rest of Obama’s tenure, and beyond. 

So it follows that we will see more of it over the coming two years.  It could be argued, in fact, that a number of Obama’s recent actions amount to revenge. His immigration “reform” was punishment for a nation not worthy of him. His “opening” to Cuba acts as a punishment of Hispanics for letting him down in the midterms.

“Revenge is a dish best eaten cold”; “When seeking vengeance, be sure to dig two graves”. All the adages concerning revenge are cautionary. It’s something to be avoided, to be left to fate or karma or the hands of the Almighty. This is not something to be overlooked, if the condition of Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum are any indication.

But the left will overlook it. They despise ancient wisdom and they don’t have an Almighty. That being the case, we should prepare for a parade of Trayvons and “Jackies”, Lenas, and Ismaaiyls.

American Thinker

The Incompetence of Leftist Ideology

By Kevin Wade and Fay Voshell 
August 31, 2014

 
 Competence is the ability to get things done. The word itself has no particular value judgment attached to it.

Many perfectly intelligent people have been labeled “incompetent,” particularly by conservatives, when actually they are or have been quite competent -- at achieving disasters.  We have such a person sitting in the White House -- quite intelligent, but committed to disastrous ideology. Our present administration is not incompetent in the way its officials go about achieving their goals, using as they do the incredible powers of bureaucracy and executive orders to bypass Congress and override the Constitution. They are perfectly competent in promoting and putting their toxically incompetent leftist ideology into effect.

To put it another way, people who are competent at creating disasters are not necessarily dimwitted, though some are. The problem is not their stupidity. The problem is that their core ideas about how the world works are wrong. If their basic ideas are wrong, everything else goes wrong.

History abounds with cases of bright people who have been zealously committed to wrong ideas they were expert in putting into action.

Trofim Lysenko was an intelligent Russian peasant who rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of agricultural Lamarckianism. He manipulated the scientific method in order it fit into Soviet communist ideology. Political ideology dictated his agricultural methods, with disastrous results that lingered for decades. German race theorists were bright people, but they were committed to a “science” of race glorifying Aryans and denigrating the rest of humanity. We all know how those race theorists’ ideas turned out. Today’s global warmists are not stupid people, but they go beyond the limits of scientific method, endorsing instead what is basically deluded apocalyptic prophecy. 

Chairman Mao Zedong’s idea to have citizens smelt iron in their backyards was ineffably stupid, but he himself was a cunning and savvy manipulator who got appalling things done with remarkable efficiency.

It is not hard to find examples of how things have gone wrong because of bad ideas now in ascendency in Washington. A complete list would fill a book, but a random list could include the incompetence of the ObamaCare website and the ACA in general; the incredible expense of trafficking alien children around the U.S. versus the cost of returning them to their own villages; the nonstop printing of trillions and trillions of dollars; the appalling waste and improper payments in Medicare and Medicaid; the corruption of the Food Stamp program and the misuse of the Social Security disabilities program.

The competence to wreak havoc extends to whole nations, which can be completely run into the ground because defective ideology is effectively employed by a bunch of zealous, bright people who are wholeheartedly committed to bad ideas.

As Panos Mourdoukoutas noted in Forbes magazine, recent economic troubles in Greece have been due almost solely to bad ideas put into practice by competent ideologues whose business model very effectively produced economic and societal catastrophe:

“For years, Greece had the wrong business model -- A Semi-Soviet, semi-Latin model that was backwards -- it applied markets and governments in areas of the economy where each institution fails rather than excels. This resulted in a large and corrupt government that lacked the resources to finance its multiple roles in the economy.

With the former Soviet Union as a model, the Greek economy was subject to the excessively intrusive presence of government in the business and professional lives of citizens, directly controlling more than 50% of the economy. Government was active in the pension fund industry, as manager of employer-employee contributions, deciding who would retire, when their retirement would happen, and what pension they would receive.

Government was present in commodity markets, as regulator and gatekeeper, deciding who could be in what kind of business and for how long; and in labor markets, setting labor compensation and employment standards.”

The core incompetency that afflicted Greece and that is now afflicting our own country is leftist ideology, including leftist economic policy.

When disaster producing ideas are the foundation stones of governance, no amount of finagling with business models; no new techniques or innovative means to improve efficiency; no new five-year planning commissions; no new agencies created to examine the problems of government will ever succeed in improving those governments, state and federal, as life-killing ideas have no ability whatever to enable society to flourish.  As long as our leadership is committed to outdated, disproven and ruinous ideologies, the results will be the same as they have been wherever leftist ideals have been promoted and implemented: cataclysmic failure, both economic and societal.

But with the right ideas put into effect, a country’s turnaround can be rapid.  As Mourdoukoutas writes:

“But now, in the aftermath of the most recent crisis, the Greek economic model has begun to change. The country seems to have gotten its economic model right: the size of government has been reduced, state-owned enterprises have been privatized, transparency is improving, and calm is returning to the streets of major cities.

Result? Government deficits are turning into surpluses, exports and tourism are soaring, shipping leads the world, and real GDP is turning the corner. Slowly, Greece is rebuilding its brand image.

Simply put: Greece is headed in the right direction, applying the right institutions in the right sectors, releasing the ingenuity and creativity of its people.”

What is happening in Greece can happen here. It has happened here.  In many respects, it started here.

But the American miracle that is our constitutional republic, along with the gifts it has imparted to the whole world, will not be revived and nursed back to health unless the incompetent ideology of the Left is firmly renounced across the board, both in faith and practice. Leftist ideology is an American political heresy that has no real roots in our history, no consonance with the independence-loving American character, no resonance with American’s highest ideals and therefore no real place in our society.

In the final analysis, one must place a moral judgment on leftist ideology and its deleterious results. 

At every turn, leftist ideology has been proved incompetent in producing a flourishing society. It has always produced disaster. Always. There is not one exception in all the Left’s brutal, inglorious and destructive history.

In the end, the goal of government is to contribute to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of every citizen. Unless government is committed to and driven by ideals that support those goals, it is not just useless. It is not merely incompetent.  It is corrupt and tyrannical.

There is still enough life and enough good in our republic of the United States to return to and to affirm the principles that make us the greatest nation on earth.

The only question is whether or not we will do so.

Kevin Wade is the Delaware’s Republican candidate for the US senate.  He may be reached at klw@wadefordelaware.com Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and other online publications. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

American Thinker 

The Obama Doctrine

June 8, 2014
By Karin McQuillan

President Obama thought trading a deserter for five top terrorists would be a PR coup.  What does this tell us about our president as a person?  At the most basic level, it shows that Obama does not share Americans’ visceral reaction to Bergdahl’s betrayal of his fellow soldiers and country.  Obama, and no doubt Kerry, thought a deserter could be palmed off as a perfectly fine hero.

Before rushing on to the usual chatter about Obama’s incompetence, his wanting to get attention off the VA, and his grandiose belief in his brilliance at negotiating with Islamist regimes, it is important to pause and consider why Obama’s gut reaction is so off.

Obama didn’t have a normal visceral reaction to the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, either.  Any normal person would have rushed to his post in the Situation Room to oversee a rescue attempt.  On that one, Obama skipped the Situation Room entirely, and the rescue attempt, and went to bed to get his beauty sleep for a Vegas fundraiser.  Something is off. 

Obama does not have a normal visceral reaction to Iran’s mullahs armed with nuclear weapons.  Just as the economic sanctions on Iran were beginning to bite, Obama lifted them entirely, restored Iran's frozen assets, left their nuclear weapons program intact, and told Israel there will be “negative consequences” if they take out Iran’s nuclear facilities.  He is obviously comfortable with a nuclear Iran.  That is strange.

Obama does not have normal visceral reactions to jihadi groups.

Our president worked to install terrorists in power in Egypt, where they had been successfully suppressed for sixty years.  He helped depose our ally Mubarak and did his best to hand over Egypt to the Muslim Brothers, a Nazi-jihadi group dedicated to sharia law, the worldwide caliphate, and killing all the Jews on the planet.  Obama is still punishing Egypt for rising up and getting rid of the Brothers, by withholding military aid.  This is not appeasement; it is not even collaboration – it is working for your enemy’s cause.

Barack Obama doesn’t have a normal reaction to the Palestinians, who are busy lobbing 8,000 missiles into Israel from Gaza – murdering, maiming and terrifying men, women, and children.  Our president has once again chosen to flout American law, which bans aid to Hamas, and announced we will be funding Hamas as part of a “unity” government.

Obama does not recoil at Arab villagers sneaking into Jewish homes to bash a baby’s head against the wall.  President Obama understands and sympathizes with the Islamic cause.  He is proud of that.  He thinks the Arabs are the aggrieved party, and that the Israelis should “walk a mile in Palestinians’shoes.”  Obama’s gut check on the Israelis and the Palestinians is off.

Obama wants the terrorists to win.  He mistakes them for a civil rights group.

He is not unique in this, which is why the left-wing media are happy to cover for him and promote his anti-American policies as normal politics.  The left wing of the Democratic Party, including Hillary Clinton, doesn’t believe that Islamists are implacable enemies.  There is no violent, organized, widespread supremacist Islamic movement based on the mainstream teachings of Islam.  The problem is America and Israel.  We are too successful, too powerful, too white, and too Western for the left’s taste.  Frustrated Muslims are justified in wanting to kill Americans and Israelis.  It is we who need to change our ways.

His progressive base applauds Obama as community organizer to the world, fighting for social justice for the poor, angry Muslims who only hate and kill because they are mistreated by colonialists and bullying cowboys.

To leftists like our president, we are the bad guys.  Sharia law is a right.  Israeli’s self-defense and sovereignty are wrongs.  Islam is a beautiful religion; Judaism and Christianity are backward and hateful.  Islamophobia is real.  The jihadi threat is not real.

Steven Emerson, head of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, lists numerous cases of jihad in America, including the mass murders by Army Major Hasan and the Boston Marathon bombing, where he believes Obama’s pro-jihadi homeland security policies hobbled the FBI from successful pre-emptive action.

“Numerous experts on Islamic terrorism like myself - and I had given 143 lectures at the FBI, CIA - were banned from speaking to any U.S. government counterterrorism conferences," Mr. Emerson told The Washington Times.  "Instead, these agencies were ordered to invite Muslim Brotherhood front groups.”

The Obama administration has invited Muslim Brotherhood front groups, CAIR and others, to control FBI counter-terrorism training.  The FBI has been forced to never mention the term Islamic extremist.  The FBI is not allowed to describe the Koran as the teachings of Mohammed – it is the revealed word of God.  The Obama administration won’t allow the FBI to mention young Middle Eastern males.  The FBI is not allowed to link al-Qaeda to the first World Trade Center and Khobar Tower bombings. 

Calling this political correctness is to trivialize it.  If these policies were limited to discussions in the faculty lounge, they could be called political correctness.  When our president hands power over our homeland security to jihadi groups, it is collaboration with the enemy.

Obama has a pattern of promoting terrorist goals.  Obama knows his approach, if honestly reported to the public, would be hugely unpopular.  That is why he does it secretly and relies on his Democrat lapdog Congress and media to back him up.  Until Bergdahl, they covered successfully for him every time.

Perhaps Obama really does think Bergdahl served with honor.  Obama himself has carved out a gray zone with the jihadis, partaking equally of capitulation and treason.  The Obama Doctrine:  enable jihadis to dominate the West.

American Thinker

You Can’t Spell “Progressive” without an “S.S.”

By Tim Dunkin

Sinclair Lewis was wrong—when fascism came to America, it was actually wrapped in a rainbow flag and wearing an ascot.

How else can one describe the ongoing left-wing commitment to the stamping out of free speech, whenever that speech contradicts the gay agenda, as well as other parts of the “progressive” platform? With the resignation of newly minted Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, the “progressive” Left, especially its social wing, has once again shown itself to be the enforcers a political correctness in speech and thought that ought to be chilling to any person who actually cares about individual liberty.

It’s time to come right out and say it—the gay “rights” movement is the biggest threat to American freedom in existence today. Bigger than Islamic terrorism. Bigger than Russian revanchism. Bigger even than ObamaCare and our continuing out-of-control spending.

Yet, this is only one small part of the “progressive” movement in America which is quickly taking on shades of 1933. Under Barack Obama, the radical Left has apparently felt that its time has come, and its movement toward open totalitarianism has accelerated. The recent displays of homofascism are but the tip of the iceberg in the Left’s attempts to create an all encompassing control of your lives, your words, and even your thoughts. There is not a single area in your lives or mine that the Left would not like to domineer so as to force compliance. Indeed, anyone who has been paying any attention knows that the left-wing agenda is characterized by this. There is not a single aspect of their agenda that cannot be accurately described by one of the following terms: coerce, regulate, control, punish, socially engineer, mandate, confiscate, or dominate.

This is doubly ironic because the Left has spent decades trying to convince Americans that “the Religious Right” and other bogeymen are the ones who really want to control your lives. Despite the overwhelming lack of actual evidence for this proposition, the Left has nevertheless managed to convince a sizeable share of mind-numbed drones in this country of it. So, while half a country full of useful idiots is running around worrying that the “Republicans” or “Tea Partiers” are going to take away their condoms or something, the movers and shakers in the leftist movement are busy worming their way into every facet of our lives with a view to forcing us to live by their dictates.

It’s easy to understand the Left once you start understanding them through the lens of fascism. How else do you explain their drive for gun control? It certainly isn’t from any evidence that gun control “cuts crime”—in fact, just the opposite is the case as we see looser and looser regulations on firearms ownership and use leading to less crime. But, see, fascists don’t believe private individuals should have guns, but only the police and the military should, so you and I should have them taken away from us regardless.

How do you explain the left-wing obsession with global warming, despite the fact that every major prediction they have made to date has failed to come to pass, and that we are in fact in the midst of a 17-year-long pause in warming? Yet, you have wacko left-wingers who want to imprison people for being “climate deniers.” Why? Because, when you get to the root of it, “global warming” serves as an excellent cover story for taking control of and destroying the industries, and therefore the high standard of living that has allowed Americans and other Westerners to live lives free from “needing” to be provided for by all-encompassing government.

The left-wing hatred for free speech I’ve covered previously.  What’s funny is that, without a trace of irony, you had people writing in the comments about that article trying to defend the notion that people ought to “pay” for saying things that liberals disagree with, and were apparently doing so with a straight face.

Even the freedom-unfriendly aspects of the so-called “War on Terror” put into place during Bush’s administration, such as TSA harassment at airports, warrantless wiretapping of innocent Americans’ communications, and laws that allow citizens to be “indefinitely detained” for “suspicion of terrorism” have all been continued and expanded under the Obama administration, and are now defended by those on the Left.

In fact, you can go right down the line and compare the radical Left in America today with totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany, the Stalinist Soviet Union, and (just to make it fun) the dystopic nation of Oceania depicted in George Orwell’s 1984:

The American Left	Totalitarian Regimes
Oppose private gun ownership, only police and the military should have guns	Outlawed private gun ownership, only police and the military had guns
Oppose homeschooling and other alternatives to public skoolz	Outlawed any form of alternative education systems not completely controlled by the state
Encourage children to inform on their parents about guns in the home, lack of support for gay and environmentalist agendas	Recruited children to turn their parents in for unapproved opinions or opposition to government policies
Enforce political correctness and other social and political efforts to discourage wrong opinions	Employed propaganda and punishment to discourage “thought crime” that consisted of holding to wrong opinions
Support the breakdown of the nuclear family because it reinforces anti-progressive values	Tried to break down the nuclear family because it was a source of “heterodox” loyalties (i.e. to something other than the state)
Support abortion and do not recognize the right to life of all individuals, especially those with congenital disorders	Employed abortion (and post-birth murder) to “weed out” dysgenic individuals or those who were “unwanted”
Oppose economic freedom for businesses by mandating executive wages, directing production, and denying the right to hire or fire who they will	Business was either state-run or else was forced into “corporatistic” public-private partnerships that mandates executive pay, production, and employment practices
Support welfare and other give-away programs that work to encourage individual dependence on government	Used government to coerce citizens into dependence upon state support for daily necessities

And the list could go on and on.

The problem is that once the Left realizes that there is a limit to how far they can get with their agenda merely by lying to people and using smokescreens, they’re going to have to try to get the rest of the way there through outright violence and open intimidation. That’s when things will get really ugly. That’s when the progressive “S.S.” will go from mere rhetoric to being a reality.

So, what can we do about all of this?

Well, for the time being, we need to do everything within our power to oppose the further advancement of their agenda at a demotic level. This means directly disobeying everything the Left wants to push through. They don’t want us to own guns? Go out and buy as many guns with as much ammunition, as you can reasonably afford, learn how to use them, and have the resolve to use them against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And under no circumstances should we ever register these guns. Ever. The Left tries to shut us up? Just get louder and louder. Vent your opinions on every blog, comments section, and forum you can find. Overwhelm them with free speech. Hound them across the internet until they finally shut the thing down, and then hound them with pamphlets in the streets and soapboxes on the corners if we have to. They want to force us to put our kids in public skools where they can get at them with propa-gay-nda and Common Core nonsense? Pull your kids out of the system and homeschool or put them into private or religious schools. Starve the beast. Start educational coops to help each other out. Long story short—double down on opposing everything they’re trying to do. 

Don’t continue to let them do what they want unhindered while ducking your head down and “minding your own business.” If there ever was a time for conservatives and liberty-lovers to relearn the virtue of public-spiritedness (which is not the same thing as socialism, by the way, reread your Tocqueville), it is now.

May come a time when opposing the Left’s cultural and political coup in America may involve more than just words

But also—and let’s be very serious here—understand that there may come a time when opposing the Left’s cultural and political coup in America may involve more than just words. The Left will not be content until they control us all completely. If they can’t do it by deceit and guile and dependency, they will try it by other means. There may well come a day when the left-wingers actually do try to put “climate deniers” in prison for opposing the party line. When that happens, be prepared to shoot back. If they try to come and take our guns away, be prepared to make them pay a high price for each one. If they come to take our children away, be prepared to show them what being a “Papa Bear” is really all about. And know that if this type of situation ever does come to pass, it is WE, not they, who are in the right. It is WE who have inalienable rights that no government and no social cadre can ever rightly or justly infringe. Shooting back will not be an act of rebellion, but an act of preservation of our constitutional government from terroristic interlopers seeking to overturn it by revolution. THEY are the revolutionaries, the traitors, the terrorists.

I know this all sounds “radical,” but is it really? Our country was born through the fire and blood of men who felt the exact same way as I’ve expressed above, men who were actually engaging in the defense of their rights and liberties as Englishmen, predicated upon the natural law foundation that was as old as our civilization, and even before. They actually went to war for far fewer offences than we have endured—we’ve been remarkably long-suffering in putting up with the antics of the Left for as long as we have. Nobody wants to see our society reach the point where actual shooting is involved—which is why we need to take every step we can to stop those who hate our Constitution and our society NOW, rather than continuing to let the situation grow worse unimpeded. The line in the sand must be drawn now.

Canada Free Press

Morality, Anti-Morality, and Socialism

December 1, 2013
By Deborah C. Tyler

American life gives individuals the chance to make two kinds of personal choices. Structural choices are the big decisions that configure the course of life and involve significant risk and responsibility -- when to marry, how to support oneself and dependents, where to live. They tend to be made after conscious consideration of alternatives. Functional choices are the everyday decisions such as what words to speak, how to behave towards others, what to eat, and wear. Functional choices tend to be made more or less unconsciously, according to tastes and preferences, without deep consideration of alternatives.

Since the founding of America, personal choice has been organized around the teachings of Judeo-Christian morality. But this psychology of personal choice has been upended by a vast reaction against the idea of morality itself. Today in America the psychological process of personal choice is influenced by anti-moral experimentalism, the end stage of which is socialism.

Morality

A consensual moral code is an integrated body of knowledge taught to children and used by adults as a guide to personal choice. The purpose of morality is to curb selfishness in choice. The American moral code is founded upon the common teachings of the Judeo-Christian religions and comprises three sets of teachings: 1) God-given directives that either require or forbid certain behaviors; 2) psychological attributes called vices; and 3) psychological attributes called virtues.

First, morality encompasses religious statutes and commandments. Second, it concerns aspects of selfishness called vice: pride, lust, anger, greed, jealousy, hatred, and envy. It teaches recognizing and suppressing these tendencies in oneself. Morality teaches that even biological reactions necessary for survival, like anger and sexual lust, create moral vulnerabilities that are to be transcended. Third, the moral code includes virtues, or psychological attributes of selflessness, which are taught by all the Judeo-Christian religions. For example, from the Catholic catechism: chastity; temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, humility. (For some reason, vices and virtues are enumerated in sets of seven.) Morality is the expression of these attributes through virtuous choices.

Prior to the mid-twentieth century, American law, literature, social convention, and popular culture tended to inculcate the tripartite moral code. Moral structural choices tended to be made consciously in light of religion, and moral functional choices were influenced by an ingrained awareness of vice and virtue.

A consensual moral code involves penalty and loss for transgression. While punishment has lightened -- scarlet letters and stocks in the public square went out with those funny collars -- in the early 20th century people whose structural choices violated the moral code might still be shunned or socially restricted. On the level of functional choice, people who behaved in an aggressive, lazy, vulgar or lewd manner were liable to be censured by family and society, and lose their chances for a good life.

Because of the multicultural nature of American society, a consensual moral code has been the glue holding America together and has been indispensable for the functioning and defense of the Republic. Without a moral framework, the only force in society which restrains harmfulness is the law. The weakening of the moral code is why people today call the police for everything. The "greatest generation" was really only the last generation of Americans who were taught the same moral code; and as the unifying power of consensual morality diminishes, America declines.

Anti-Morality

The rise of anti-morality has been the most transformational psychological shift in American history, but it is not recognized as such. Anti-morality should not be confused with amorality or immorality. It is the affirmative belief that an enforced moral code diminishes individual potential and power. Anti-morality is a reaction against the belief that selfishness is the primary cause of suffering. According to anti-moral beliefs, suffering arises not from selfish choices, but when a person is blocked from "self-actualization" by restrictive and oppressive social conditions. Anti-morality is the belief that morally based discrimination and penalty are narrow-minded, bigoted, and thwart freedom.

What caused anti-morality to take hold in America? Some call these the "end of days" when cruelty and vice reign. Also, immorality historically increases in wealthy societies as affluence makes moral regulation less necessary for survival. The shift away from personal choice based on morality was also abetted when electronic mass media became the dominant source of cultural conditioning. Morality cannot be enforced through television or computers.

Anti-morality is an unintended consequence of 20th-century humanism. The central tenet of humanism is that personal choice be directed toward the goal of self-actualization. Abraham Maslow and the humanistic psychology movement put forth the ideal of life as a permanent process of finding and becoming oneself. 

Humanism offers no basis for a consensual moral code. Personal choice is made through a process of experimentalism. Structural choices are made by posing questions: What will work for me? What will actualize my identity? What am I ready for? Functional choices are made according to what feels good and asserts the personality.

There is no shame, guilt, or personal responsibility in humanist experimentalism. If a choice appears to work out badly the experimenter says, "I learned a lot," and moves on. Wreckage left behind is part of the journey of self-discovery.

An unintended consequence of anti-moral humanism has been the unleashing of selfishness. Freedom in all its forms is dependent on the moral integrity of a society. The ascendency of anti-morality is why the family, the free market, and the military are all in decline, and opiates are the religion of the masses.

Humanist experimentalism is not threatened by belief in God, but it can't abide morality. Anti-morality can include a belief in a deity who is like a personal coach, helpful in choosing experiments, but not a God of law and judgement. Many experimentalists believe they are very moral, and pride themselves on following a less judgmental morality. This is self-delusion. No matter how much angst one brings to the question, "What will work for me?" humanist experimentalism remains a process of following your own lights, a lantern carried by a blind man.

Progressivism is the fear that someone, somewhere is behaving morally. As anti-morality flourishes, its mouthpieces become more abusive to anyone they believe typifies morality, as it becomes more difficult for them to repress their own sense of shame.

Anti-morality is why the education of children no longer focuses on examples of virtue but emphasizes self-esteem. A strong sense of self is necessary to make self-actualizing personal choices. It doesn't matter if George Washington told the truth when he chopped down the cherry tree. The question is how did he feel about chopping down the tree? Would he chop it down again? It doesn't matter that the tree is dead, as long as he learned something from the experience.

Socialism

Socialism is the endgame of anti-morality. When Abraham Maslow introduced the term "self-actualization" in 1943, he did not foresee the paradox that the ideal of freedom from stifling convention would undermine moral responsibility and pave the way for socialist tyranny in America. Socialism obviates morality in personal choice and replaces it with the pathetic fallacy of virtuous government. Governments cannot be virtuous, only people and dogs can.

Socialism encourages venality and corruption because it operates on the level of law, not morality. American socialism encourages people to contribute as little as possible while taking everything they can get -- inevitably less than what virtuous effort can earn in a free-market economy. In Soviet socialism everybody had to work, but American socialism rewards people for the structural choices not to work, not to marry, not to raise and educate their own children.

During the ObamaCare enslavement, Speaker Pelosi made a statement of utmost dopiness, which captures the essence of humanist anti-morality. She said to the effect that if young people had government healthcare they would be freed to be artists and musicians. It expresses the delusion that self-actualization means being an artist, and implicitly denigrates most work and the virtue of diligence. If everyone is to be a government-supported artist, who is left to make things, to raise children, to pay the bills? In other words, socialism works until you run out of other people's morality.

American Thinker

Dangerous Times: Obama The Crisis-Monger

October 5, 2013
By James Lewis

 Obama thrives on crises, not solutions.

That's the key to this whole administration.

The budget crisis today is the direct result of five years of over-the-top deficit spending, all demanded by Obama, who doesn't really care if the economy gets better or not.  Either way, he will blame the Republicans, with the unanimous support of our Soviet-style media.  He believes that politically he can't lose with a completely obedient media spinning everything his way.

As long as Americans are suckered by our monopoly media, we will never solve any real problems.  Instead, we will be drawn into phony crises instigated by Obama and the Democrats.  Any real dangers, like nuclear proliferation and the Jihad War, will be ignored as long as Democrats are in power.

The only permanent solution is to fire the mendacious media, and that is completely up to you.

Republicans are treated worse in this administration than mass-murdering Mullah Rouhani, who led Iran's truck-bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1984, killing 299 young Marines and French peacekeepers.  That truck-bombing led to Hezb'allah, Iran's terrorist arm, taking over the nation of Lebanon.

Mullah Rouhani is now treated as a reasonable peacemaker by this endlessly mendacious administration.

Obama operates the same way domestically, where white and black unemployment is peaking, and he doesn't even bother to express concern.  The nation's crisis is his opportunity.

From tip to toe, Obama is a crisis-maker, not a healer.  He stirs up trouble every chance he gets.  Ask yourself how any U.S. president could willfully try to worsen race relations in the United States by flipping the judicial verdict in the Zimmerman trial, and you will begin to see the real Obama.  He doesn't care whether justice was done.  He only whips up more racial rage.

The chaotic launch of O'Care was done without adequate planning and testing.  Nobody knows if this thing could ever work, because it was passed, as Nancy Pelosi famously said, without anyone even reading the bill -- using unrelenting demagoguery in the media.  Nobody in the Democratic Party understood the bill, because no human being can understand 10,500 pages of technical jargon.  Like the 37,000 pages of the federal tax code, this law is not meant to be understood.  It is meant to give essentially unlimited powers to a bureaucracy that does not understand it, either, but which will use pieces of the giant law to implement what it wants.

Ordinary Americans don't even understand the United States Constitution, which can be printed on twenty pages, and O'Care is a hulking monstrosity by comparison.  It is intended to drive the best health care system in the world out of business.  That is perverse and malignant.

Every computer programmer knows that even "simple" programs can grow so complex that nobody can figure them out.  They become bloatware, with endless bells and whistles and a lifetime of bugs.  They can't be fixed, because their design is fundamentally flawed.  But nobody has ever planned for anything as complicated as one seventh of the U.S. economy.  This is a moon launch without any knowledge of basic physics or engineering.  It has all the arrogant presumption and ignorance of Soviet central planning.  Stay out of it if you can.

Obama doesn't care.  O'Care must go through, no matter what.

This is Obama's standard operating procedure: make a rigid demand; drive it through Congress, come hell or high water; and blame Republicans for the crash.  Or, in foreign affairs, undermine the Arab nations, blame Israel for all the trouble in the ever-violent Middle East, and praise the murderous mullahs for their peaceful intentions.

All American values are turned upside-down in this administration, which is why it has to tell an endless stream of lies.  Nobody can trust a single word.

In the Middle East, Obama insisted on the resignation of Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, the pillar of peace for four decades.  That was done without regard for the suffering it would bring to the people of Egypt and its neighbors -- not just Israel, but also Saudi Arabia, which relies on Egypt for its defense.  The Muslim Brotherhood was slated as the likely winner of the next election, and now it turns out that for years, the MBs have been feeding uncounted millions of dollars directly to Obama, to the looming Hillary campaign, and to weirdos like Anthony Weiner in New York City.  New York's Democratic candidate for mayor, Bill de Blasio, is an old unrepentant Communist.  Chances are that he won the money race with a mix of leftist and Islamist dollars.  Naturally, de Blasio has the support of hopelessly corrupt media like the New York Times.

In Egypt, modernist Egyptians rebelled against Obama's Muslim Brotherhood pals, who were trying to impose sharia law.  But it took an Egyptian and Saudi rebellion against the MBs to counter Obama's penchant for supporting the worst characters in sight.  Obama favors instability because he can get his way only through crises.  That is his ideology.  That is also why he sneers at the U.S. Constitution, the great stabilizing foundation of America for two whole centuries.  

As long as this president controls the U.S. media, it doesn't matter how much disaster he creates.  His corrupt media servants will tell their Lo-Fos that he is not responsible.  The news media may be going out of business, but last week Al Jazeera advertised 800 openings for job-hungry American journalists.  Guess where their loyalties now lie.  Not to this country.  Only to the tiny oil sheikhdom of Qatar and its war theology.

In Syria we are giving arms to the Qaedist rebels, who have been torturing and decapitating women and children in Christian villages like Ma'aloula, the way they have done since Mohammed raided the Jewish Qureisha tribe in the 6^th century.  In Kenya we are seeing the same mass murders of civilians at a modern mall, the pride of Nairobi.  Ordinary people taking cell phone pictures and videos are showing us the reality of America's bestial "allies" under Obama.

Yes, we are running arms to the worst murder gangs in the world, no matter how demonic they are.  That was the big secret of Benghazi: the United States was sending shiploads of Libyan arms to al-Qaeda in Syria.  Why?  Nobody in the media has even dared to ask that question.  If Obama does it, it has to be good.  But the media knew enough to bury the facts during the election.

In Syria, Sunni rebels are now an estimated 60,000 fighters, coming from the peace-loving Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and Salafists.  Iran has poured in 20,000 fighters on Assad's side, from Hezb'allah and Iran itself.  Assad has his own army, supported by Russia, while the CIA has trained some thousands of "moderate rebels."  Guess who will win.  Not the outnumbered moderates, for sure.

The Center for Policy Studies has now exposed secret money streams from the Muslim Brotherhood to the Democrats.  That hidden flow of cash explains everything that made no sense before, going back to 9/11/01.  The MBs run layers of shell corporations to hide money for the Democrats from the IRS -- which isn't looking very hard.  The Clinton Center is one major conduit.  The Obama campaign is another.  The Democrats have a long history of corruption, going back to Boss Tweed; Joseph Kennedy, Sr.; and the Daley Machine in Chicago.  Today's "transnationalist" (socialist) Democrats are copying the European Union, which dances to the tune of Gulf oil money.  That is the seductive side of jihad, the propaganda war, which has rendered the American media deaf, dumb, and blind to the danger of Iran's suicide cult, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudis, and al-Qaeda.

This week, we also found out about Malik Obama, yet another half-brother of the president's, who turns out to be a big muckety-muck in -- you guessed it -- the radical Muslim Brotherhood.  Their slogan is "Our ambition is to die in the way of Allah!"  And naturally to commit murder and torture in the way of Allah, too.  This is an ancient evil come alive, with the active aid of the radical left in Europe and America.  Without the Western left, there would be no huge Muslim immigration flow into Europe and the U.S.  That is why famous "feminist" Naomi Wolf has signed on with Al Jazeera, the voice of the ancient desert patriarchy itself.

So here we see Malik Obama, with a big smile on his face and a dozen "wives" tucked away in his harem.
Want to see a real war against women?  Wherever sharia takes over, women are systematically intimidated, brainwashed, beaten, raped, murdered, jailed in their homes, and treated with contempt.  American feminists are so utterly deluded that they can't see crimes against women all over Dar al Harb, the House of War, right in front of their unseeing eyes.  And Obama's "alter ego," Valerie Jarrett, born and raised in Iran, can't be in any doubt about the facts.  She knows the facts, Obama knows the facts, and the only explanation is purposeful crisis-mongering: things have to get worse before they can get better.

That perverse logic failed for seven decades in the Soviet Union.  Under the glorious reign of Obama, it isn't working, either.  Leninism is nothing but personal animosity turned into government policy.

In civilized Iran, the mullahs just passed a pedophile-enabling law, allowing men to "adopt" young girls and then to officially "marry" them.  This is all fine according to the barbaric laws of the formerly great land of Persia, where child sex slavery, drugs, and pervasive tyranny are par for the course.

From the New York Post:

Iranian news reports (in 1992) said (Rouhani's) son shot himself with his father's pistol in 1992. But now Iranian dissident Ali Reza Nuri reports that the son wrote a suicide note. Writing in the London-based, Saudi-owned pan-Arab newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat, he says the note read: "I hate your government, your lies, your corruption, your religion, your double standard and your hypocrisy."  

This is the man Obama is so eager to "negotiate" with.

In five critical years, Obama has done nothing to stop Iranian nukes, while telling Israel and the Saudis he would never let it happen.  Obama's goal was to trap Israel into a no-win do-or-die dilemma.  The Saudis are even more scared of the Iranians, who tried to overthrow the Saudi royal family when Khomeini was alive.  Saudi Arabia has a tiny population and a huge desert to protect, along with Mecca and Medina.  They are much more vulnerable than Israel, which packs a big retaliatory punch.

Obama has consistently lied to our allies.  None of them trust us today, under a man who was called "aliéné" by France's Nicholas Sarkozy -- meaning "alienated from reality."  Like all intelligence agencies, the French Sûreté has psychiatrists on its staff, and you can even look up Obama's personality on Wikipedia.

More than any nation on Earth, America has made war, when there were no good alternatives, with a clear sense of moral purpose.  Historians always argue about wartime decisions after the fact.  The Declaration of Independence makes the case for the American revolution in moral and legal terms.  The Civil War was fought as a last resort against the spread of slavery and to keep the "last, best hope of mankind" alive.  World Wars I and II were fought to defend civilized values against tyranny, and the Cold War had a convincing rationale explained by John F. Kennedy in 1960.

Obama is the first American president to have abandoned the moral high ground in his foreign policy.  Like Bill Clinton and unlike George W. Bush, Obama has never used the bully pulpit of the presidency to explain why we are at war.  Because don't doubt for a moment that war has been declared on us by every jihadist regime from Ayatollah Khomeini to Muhammed Morsi.

The Obama presidency pre-emptively surrenders to the enemy whenever it gets a chance.  It has appointed Muslim Brotherhood loyalists to high positions in this administration.  It has swept under the rug jihadist assaults on our military and our civilian population.  It has failed to stop the aggressive jihadist regime in Iran in its assault -- not just on Israel, but on America itself.

Prime Minister Netanyahu just pointed out that the Iranians are building ICBMs with enough range to hit the United States.  The mullahs already have missiles able to hit Israel and the Sunni oil regimes across the Gulf.

Why does a war theocracy build long-range nukes and missiles while impoverishing its own people?  No sane person doubts the answer.  But as long as Obama is president, the United States will act like a helpless giant.  We have the best military in the world, and the most inane and flabbiest leadership.

A British saying from the Cold War goes:

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. But three times is enemy action."

American Thinker