Justplainbill's Weblog

May 30, 2017

The Obamas and the Clinton Road to Perdition, by Victor Davis Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians — justplainbill @ 4:52 pm

The Obamas and the Clinton Road to Perdition
May 30, 2017 9:16 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
By Victor Davis Hanson // American Greatness

Hillary and Bill Clinton were a proud, progressive power couple who came into big-time state politics on promises of promoting “fairness” and “equality.” It did not matter much that very little in their previous personal lives had matched such elevated rhetoric with concrete action. And so the ironies and tragedies that followed were not altogether unexpected.

The theme that united the subsequent tawdry reports about the Clinton cattle futures scam and Whitewater was an overweening lust for money. The Clintons seemed to feel entitled, in the sense that their education, sophistication, and taste deserved the sort of peace of mind, enjoyment, and security that only comfortable circumstances could provide, and which was taken for granted among the rich progressive environments in which the Clintons increasingly navigated. They had arrived and they “deserved” it.

In 2001, we are supposed to believe, the Clintons left office “dead broke” as the result of their sacrifices as first family. In Hillary’s words, they were scarcely able to afford the various mortgages on their homes with which they had been encumbered (“we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses”).

Given an ever greater need for cash beyond a mere government pension, given that from 2001 onward they had something to sell beyond Bill as a “wise-man” president emeritus (i.e., Hillary’s New York Senate career as a springboard to a second Clinton presidency), and given their innate characters (or perhaps their hamartiai), the next years were predictable. After 2001, the long arc of their moral universe bent toward personal aggrandizement through the Clinton Foundation, pay-for-play State Department favors, and $10,000-20,000-a minute rah-rah speeches to rich people eager to leverage the next episode of Clinton influence peddling.

Such smart, capable, self-assured, and haughty people are the stuff of Greek tragedy, and its warnings about the descent from hubris (overweening arrogance) to atê (unhinged madness) to nemesis (divine retribution and downfall).

At the denouement of most tragedies. the figures who survive the wrath of the gods—and who are not themselves beheaded or slain by their own hands—are sometimes enlightened by their destruction, rediscover some purpose, acquire an appreciation of pathei mathos (wisdom through pain) and find peaceful redemption.

People like the Clintons—or for that matter Euripides’s characters such as Jason (Medea) or King Pentheus (Bacchae)—are oblivious to the ultimate and preordained trajectories of their fates. Hillary Clinton has ended up a two-time failed presidential candidate, stained with money grubbing scandals and chronic deceit, who blew huge leads in 2008 and 2016, despite being the beneficiary of unprecedented cash, campaign consultants, and party endorsements. She has sacrificed her health, her reputation, and her very life to do everything politically right, which was not only ethically wrong but also proved, in good Athenian tragic fashion, politically disastrous. (Tragic figures, remember, do anything and everything they can to pursue an ambitious sense of self—and thereby only ensure that they can never obtain it.)

A gaunt Dorian Gray-like Bill Clinton in his twilight is indeed tragic. He may have the sins of the flesh written all over his face, but he had also convinced himself at one point in his life that his undeniable political cunning, education, and folksy charm could be put to use for noble purposes beyond the tawdry sex, chronic lying, and narcissism that were his brands. But after the scandals, the impeachment, the pardons, the Foundation miasma, the quid pro quo speaking fees, the Lolita Express, the disastrous campaign interventions for Hillary from 2008 to the tarmac scene with Loretta Lynch, the petty rivalries and double-dealing, optics reflect that there is nothing much left of a once dynamic president but an empty shell.

At the denouement of most tragedies. the figures who survive the wrath of the gods—and who are not themselves beheaded or slain by their own hands—are sometimes enlightened by their destruction, rediscover some purpose, acquire an appreciation of pathei mathos (wisdom through pain) and find peaceful redemption. And perhaps Bill and Hillary, after the wreckage of 2016, might still earn pity and end up like an elderly but sympathetic Oedipus at Colonus.

The departing Obamas should study and learn from the Clinton dual tragedies.

Jason and Medea charming the sleepless dragon of the golden fleece. Giovanni Battista Crosato. (1697-1756)

So far they have already shared uncanny affinities to the early- and mid-careers of Bill and Hillary. Like the Clintons, the Obamas were of the middle-class, Ivy-League trained lawyers, and committed progressives. Similarly, they returned to their Midwest homes to establish local political identities, in order eventually to springboard back to the always favored eastern coastal corridor of culture and power.

Like the Clintons, the Obamas had a unique message that reverberated well beyond progressives: the first African-American president trumped perhaps even the selling-point of the first woman president. Both couples were hip, and helped to redefine the new Democratic Party as the natural home of Wall Street billionaires, Silicon Valley masters of the universe, and celebrity activists. Goldman Sachs and rap music are now complementary, in the manner ostentatious golf gear is now iconic of youthful vigor and not of suburban apartheid.

Like the Clintons, the Obamas felt that their education and progressive caring had unfairly denied them just compensation (cf. Michelle’s chronic “raise the bar” lamentations, and her “downright mean” country, “never been proud” unhappiness). And like the Clintons, their marriage seemed at times as much the fruit of professional legal training, shared ambitions and liberal politics as it is of a bond forged in love and devotion.

Bill always enjoyed good times and was a gifted crammer, in the way that Barack once confessed that he was prone to laziness (“I think there is a laziness in me”). His body man Reggie Love claimed that Obama had a propensity for killing time, such as playing cards on the day of the bin Laden raid.

In contrast, Hillary and Michelle supposedly goaded their husbands onward. Both were sometimes hammered in the press for their dourness, temper tantrums, tough talk, and even more left-wing agendas, and who were protective of their daughters in the sense that they might someday rightfully follow the political pathways of their fathers.

Such angst (as in the case of the Clintons) occasionally led the pre-presidential Obamas to get mixed up with their own petite versions of impropriety (the opportunistic nexus between Michelle’s high-salaried raises and Barack’s steady political advancement) or disreputable Jim McDougal-like hangers-on, such as the felonious low-income housing lord and Obama campaign fundraiser Tony Rezko and his unreported discounted sale to the Obamas of an expanded backyard.

Like the Clintons, the Obamas survived scandals in office that might have imploded doctrinaire conservatives (Fast and Furious, the surveillance of the Associated Press journalists and Fox News’s James Rosen, Benghazi, the NSA taps, the Clinton email fiasco, the politicization of the IRS, the likely unmasking of surveilled political opponents, and assorted tawdry incidents at the General Services Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Secret Service.)

The Obamas—unlike the Carters, the Reagans, and the Bushes—have decided to stay in the Washington-New York corridor. They have bought a Clinton-like mansion and plan to remain directly engaged in domestic politics, by focusing opposition against their successors. The Clintons might remind them that being a hooked political junkie is not as easy or as post-presidential as easing into the role of a senior statesman.

Now, like the Clintons, the Obamas are leaving the presidency at a similarly young age (Bill was not yet 55 when he left office, Barack is 55) and eager to monetize years of public service and apparent progressive selflessness. The Obamas certainly enjoy the same press adulation and popularity that met the Clintons in 2001.

They should now pause and read Euripides.

One of the first things Barack Obama did after leaving office was to jet off to Tahiti to enjoy a month of downtime (for the majority of the sojourn reportedly alone) with sybarite California multimillionaires and celebrities on yachts while staying in multi-thousand-dollar-a-night paradisiac digs. Bill Clinton long ago wrote the primer on all that.

The Obamas—unlike the Carters, the Reagans, and the Bushes—have decided to stay in the Washington-New York corridor. They have bought a Clinton-like mansion and plan to remain directly engaged in domestic politics, by focusing opposition against their successors. The Clintons might remind them that being a hooked political junkie is not as easy or as post-presidential as easing into the role of a senior statesman.

Like the Clintons, the Obamas have signed his-and-hers book deals, reportedly for somewhere between $60 and $65 million, topping the Bill and Hillary volumes that in aggregate won advances of little more than half that sum.

We should assume that, like the Clinton tomes, the Obamas will rely heavily on ghostwriters—and aside from some score-settling and self-congratulation, will publish mostly uncontroversial, “inspirational” Clinton-like accounts of their White House tribulations and their speaking truth to the power of the Neanderthal right.

Like the Clintons, the Obamas have discovered that a presidential couple must have a foundation. And so “The Obama Foundation” now follows in the footsteps of the Clinton Foundation, boasting of its noble ambitions (“we will have projects all over the city, the country, and the world”) in the universal fashion of the once heralded Clinton Global Initiative.

Unlike presidential foundations other than the Clintons’, its potential earnings will be enhanced by the fact that both Obamas are going to stay active in national politics, and that Michelle has been mentioned as both a possible senate candidate (think Hillary in New York) and a national officer seeker (think Hillary in 2008 and 2016). Again, the paradigm may be Clintonian—leveraging big money to the foundation that in the Clinton calculus could serve as a convenient prop to keep otherwise unemployable surrogates paid until the next campaign, and to provide the sort of free private jet travel to which the Obamas now feel entitled.

Of course, central to the Clinton blueprint was big-money from Wall Street speaking gigs. Obama just earned $400,000 for a speech, and, reportedly, has signed on for more. Like the Clintons, he will square the circle that once upon a time, as a progressive in good standing, he fired lots of anti-Wall-Street/free market bullets (“now is not the time for profits”, “at some point you’ve made enough money” [$60 million?], or “you didn’t build that”).

Thus Obama can facilitate that paradox with the proven Clinton wink-and-nod formula (a cynical Wall Street knows that it has prospered as never before under progressives like Obama, that liberal anti-wealthy invective is as scripted as it is irrelevant, and that in the future an Obama may well have political clout worth investing in).

The Obamas, as progressives, are exempt from the hypocrisies of both decrying and leveraging wealth. And they know that the Democratic Party has used hip and cool as cover for rich and privileged. Indeed, they are already half-way along the Clinton post-presidential arc.

Still, they should pause, reflect, and remember where that bend of the Clinton moral universe ultimately ends up.

Advertisements

May 26, 2017

Something to think about – Vic Hanson on Memorial Day [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 2:31 pm

What We Remember on Memorial Day
May 25, 2017 12:59 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
The obligation to honor the war dead has often conflicted with the need to make distinctions among them and their causes
By Victor Davis Hanson// Wall Street Journal

A few years ago I was honored to serve briefly on the American Battle Monuments Commission, whose chief duty is the custodianship of American military cemeteries abroad. Over 125,000 American dead now rest in these serene parks, some 26 in 16 countries. Another 94,000 of the missing are commemorated by name only. The graves (mostly fatalities of World Wars I and II) are as perfectly maintained all over the world, from Tunisia to the Philippines, as those of the war dead who rest in the well-manicured acres of the U.S. military cemetery in Arlington, Va.

A world away from the white marble statuary, crosses, Stars of David, noble inscriptions and manicured greenery of these cemeteries is the stark 246-foot wall of polished igneous rock of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the mall in Washington. On its black surfaces are etched 58,307 names of American dead in Vietnam. They are listed in the chronological order of their deaths. The melancholy wall, birthed in bitter controversy at its inception in 1982, emphasizes tragedy more than American confidence in its transcendent values—as if to warn the nation that the agenda of Vietnam was not quite that of 1917 and 1941.

The Vietnam War may have reopened with special starkness the question of how to honor our fallen dead, but it is hardly a new problem in our history. As today’s disputes over the legacy of the Civil War and the Confederacy suggest, it has never been enough just to lament the sacrifice and carnage of our wars, whether successful or failed. We feel the need to honor the war dead but also to make distinctions among them, elevating those who served noble causes while passing judgment on their foes. This is not an exclusively American impulse. It has deep roots in the larger Western tradition of commemoration, and no era—certainly not our own—has managed to escape its complexities and paradoxes.

Our own idea of Memorial Day originated as “Decoration Day,” the post-Civil War tradition, in both the North and the South, of decorating the graves of the war dead. That rite grew out of the shock and trauma of the Civil War. In the conflict’s first major battle at Shiloh (April 6-7, 1862) there were likely more American casualties (about 24,000 dead, wounded and missing on both sides) than in all the nation’s prior wars combined since its founding.

The shared ordeal of the Civil War, with some 650,000 fatalities, would eventually demand a unified national day of remembrance. Memorial Day began as an effort to square the circle in honoring America’s dead—without privileging the victors or their cause. The approach of the summer holidays seemed the most appropriate moment to heal our civic wounds. The timing suggested renewal and continuity, whereas an autumn or winter date might add unduly to the grim lamentation of the day.

But could the distinctions so crucial to war itself really be suppressed? Consider the themes of the two greatest speeches in the history of Western oratory: Pericles’ long Funeral Oration for the Athenian dead of the first year of the Peloponnesian War, delivered in 431 B.C. and amounting to some 3,000 words in most translations; and nearly 2,300 years later, President Abraham Lincoln’s 272-word Gettysburg Address of 1863.
An illustration of Pericles’ Funeral Oration.
An illustration of Pericles’ Funeral Oration. Photo: Alamy

Both statesmen agree that the mere words of the present generation cannot do justice to the sacrifice of the fallen young. Lincoln sees the talking and the living as less authentic commemorators than the mute dead: “We can not consecrate—we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.”

Pericles argues that even a notable such as himself has almost no right to assess the sacrifices of the dead: “I could have wished that the reputations of many brave men were not to be imperiled in the mouth of a single individual, to stand or fall according as he spoke well or ill.”

By their ultimate sacrifice—what Lincoln calls “the last full measure of devotion”—the mute war dead argue that even heroic men are less important than the eternal values of freedom and democracy that “shall not perish from the earth.” Such chauvinism assumes that democracies are by nature superior to the alternatives. Thus to Pericles, Athens was the “school of Hellas” and for Lincoln America was “a new nation, conceived in Liberty.”

For both orators, the dead are the natural link between self-sacrificing forefathers and the present generation’s own progeny, who at some future date may be called upon to emulate those who have died to perpetuate the nation. In this view, we are not quite unique individuals but part of a larger generation whose values and accomplishments are to be judged collectively and in comparison to what came before and will follow.

‘Both Pericles and Lincoln see war and its evils as tragically innate to the human experience.’

Finally, both Pericles and Lincoln see war and its evils as tragically innate to the human experience. Conflict will demand sacrifices, in varying degrees, from each successive generation of free peoples. As the philosopher George Santayana more pessimistically put it, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” Both orators suggest that democracies and republics will always be the natural targets of aggressors who see their freedom as weakness to be exploited rather than as magnanimity to be appreciated.

The Western tradition of commemoration also includes a unique idea of individual moral exemption. As first articulated by Pericles, we overlook any defects of character of the war dead, attributing to one brief moment of ultimate sacrifice the power to wash away all prior moral faults.

A noble death serves, in the words of Pericles, as “a cloak to cover a man’s other imperfections; since the good action has blotted out the bad, and his merit as a citizen more than outweighed his demerits as an individual.” The great playwright Aeschylus wanted his epitaph to read only that he was a veteran of the Athenian victory at Marathon—a battle where his brother fell.

These themes still resonate in our own habits and rites. This Memorial Day the flags on graves in American cemeteries set the dead apart, in a special moral category that discourages any discussion of the bothersome details of their short lives.

‘We now tend to see the Confederate dead as faceless emblems of larger causes.’

Pericles and Lincoln assume that the sacrifice of the war dead is enhanced by the nobility of their cause and the victories they have won. In the age of the Parthenon and Sophocles, democratic Athenians considered themselves superior to oligarchic Spartans, seeing vindication in their early successes (Athens would go on to lose the war 26 years after the great speech of Pericles). Similarly, the Union believed itself the moral better of the slaveholding South and would march to triumph under that banner two years after Gettysburg.

For democratic peoples, it is difficult to separate victory and nobility from commemorations of the fallen. This is especially true when it comes to events that directly engage our own moral imperatives. In the case of the Civil War, we now tend to see the Confederate dead as faceless emblems of larger causes, not as unique individuals who wrestled with their own moral paradoxes. Yet we seem to think that future generations will not do the same to us, applying their own—possibly quite different—standards to the collective sacrifices of our generation.

Herodotus, the Greek historian of the Persian Wars, saw armed conflict as a tragedy for all warring parties precisely because it was central to the human experience and thus endless. In obscene fashion, war inverted the natural order of peacetime by compelling fathers to bury sons. Pericles bluntly reminded us that the tragedy is not when we the middle-aged and old die but when the youth do, “to whom a fall, if it came, would be most tremendous in its consequences.”

A portrait of Abraham Lincoln.
A portrait of Abraham Lincoln. Photo: Getty Images

Railing at the loss of the nation’s youth has thus long accompanied the tradition of praising noble sacrifice for a just cause. The historian Thucydides nearly wept over the young Athenians senselessly killed—in the wrong place, at the wrong time, on the wrong mission—by the tribes of wild Aetolia: “These were by far the best men in the city of Athens that fell during this war.” When Lincoln said of the dead that they “shall not have died in vain,” he implied that the sacrifices of the aggregate Union war dead by November 1863 would be for naught if the North lost the war.

The Roman lyric poet Horace in his Odes famously praised the ultimate contributions of Roman legionaries, declaring, “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori”: “It is a sweet and fitting thing to die on behalf of the fatherland.” Wilfred Owen, the English poet and veteran of the trenches of World War I (killed one week before the armistice), would have none of it. In the conclusion of his nightmarish signature poem, he bitterly channeled Horace:

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est

Pro patria mori.

After the Somme and Verdun, Owen no longer saw clear moral winners and losers, only endless carnage without hope of resolution: hence the “old Lie.” Similarly scornful was the poet and critic Randall Jarrell’s response to the contribution of Allied bombing to winning World War II. His poem “The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner” ends with the verse, “When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.”

‘We don’t mourn all war dead equally or find tragedy in every loss.’

Still, for all the carnage and senselessness in just and unjust wars alike, we don’t mourn all war dead equally or find tragedy in every loss. Certainly the SS officers who were buried at Bitburg, Germany—where President Ronald Reagan in 1985 caused a storm by visiting on the 40th anniversary of V-E Day—were connected to the horrors of Auschwitz. And while there is something understandable in solemn visits of Japanese officials to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo to honor the 2,466,532 names of the dead found in the Shinto shrine’s “Book of Souls,” many of those men left a trail of 20 million dead throughout Asia and the Pacific from 1931 to 1945.

I grew up in a Swedish-American family in which the name “Okinawa” went unmentioned, a campaign that was tactically unimaginative and strategically incoherent—and yet aimed at finally stopping a murderous imperial regime. My uncle and namesake, Victor Hanson, a corporal in the 6th Marine Division, was killed in the last hours of the last day of battle for Sugar Loaf Hill.

I inherited both Vic’s college athletic equipment and a Periclean admonition from my father (who himself flew on 39 missions over Japan in a B-29) to “live up to Vic”—without much elaboration other than the implicit advice that the only thing worse than fighting a dirty war on Okinawa would have been to lose it.

I visit Victor Hanson’s grave each Memorial Day in the nearby small California Central Valley farming town of Kingsburg, still in astonishment that such a mythical person, whom I never met, gave up his youth (and a long life ahead) for what we have now collectively become. Pericles hoped that such sacrifices would move the living of subsequent generations to a deeper appreciation of the greatness of Athens: “feed your eyes upon her from day to day, until love of her fills your hearts.”

On Memorial Day we should remember that all commemoration is underpinned by ambiguities about the causes, conduct and aims of particular wars. No one has captured the heartbreak of the war dead more effectively than the Marine memorialist E.B. Sledge, who wrote “With the Old Breed,” a horrific account of his nightmare on Peleliu and Okinawa.

Sledge is sometimes simplistically described as an antiwar voice (“So many dead. So many maimed. So many bright futures consigned to the ashes of the past.”), but he did not end his gruesome story of combat with a universal denunciation of war. He finished instead with a solemn reminder—somewhere between Horace and Wilfred Owen—that circumstances count.

His words are worth recalling as we cast our eyes over the endless fields of tiny flags we will again see this Memorial Day on the graves of Americans who gave their all for us:

Until the millennium arrives and countries cease trying to enslave others, it will be necessary to accept one’s responsibilities and be willing to make sacrifices for one’s country—as my comrades did. As the troops used to say, “If the country is good enough to live in, it’s good enough to fight for.” With privilege goes responsibility.

May 10, 2017

And Texas Makes Eleven

Filed under: Econonics, Elections, Historical context, Political Commentary, US Constitution — justplainbill @ 3:09 pm

And Texas Makes Eleven

United States Constitution Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress (no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One Thousan Eight Hundred and Eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article) (no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate).

Texas has become the 11th State requesting a Constitutional Convention.

Those who have followed my posts, know that the 1787 Constitution has been nullified for over 100 years. The nullification took place through improper Supreme Court rulings, the failure of both the Executive Branch and the Legislature to fulfil their Constitutional obligations and responsibilities. The use of the regulatory process to pass to the Civil Service the duties of both branches in order to avoid the politically inconvenient has led to our current set of crises. The open borders, illegal legalization of drugs, murdering of police, abuse of taxes, theft from taxpayers for unconstitutional purposes, and on and on, are as do to taxpayer ignorance as politicians’ apostacy.

In 1787, the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, took numerous templates for consideration. At the convention, Alexander Hamilton, to his enemies’ delight, even proposed a Monarchy so that the convention could cover all workable government forms in their debates.

There are numerous books available to us, which cover this period extensively. I recommend Edwin Meese, III’s “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution”, and that you visit Brion McClanahan’s website, http://www.brionmcclanahan.com and pick from his numerous works, I suggest starting with his “The Founding Fathers’ Guide to the Constitution”.

As much as I dislike Mark Levin, his American Trilogy in which he explains, quite accurately and comprehensively, the origins of the 1787 constitution, where it was felled, and what can be done about it, including his 27 recommended amendments, is another work I recommend.

Judge Andrew Napolitano has several works I recommend and for the same reasons.

“The Albany Plan Re-Visited”, has a template that includes variations and reasons for them including an Article on aggregation, and how weighted voting may be a much better form of direct representation than any proffered so far. ( http://www.bn.com/ebooks ).

Why?

With Texas now on board for an Article V Constitutional Convention, we are now 1/3 of the way there. YOU may soon be asked to vote for delegates from your state to attend and decide on what our next Federal government will have power to do and not do.

In the XVIIIth Century, politics was a major form of entertainment for the populace. Currently, VR, XBOX, & Playstation are the major forms of entertainment. In order for us to pick the correct delegates to such a convention, we must know of the various forms of governments and the templates for constitutions. Waiting until the last minute to educate ourselves on the possibilities, is a losing strategy.

Learn the templates, learn the variations, learn the possibilities available to us that will free all of us, and allow all of us to keep our wealth, and not have it taken at gun point and sent to foreign and domestic tyrants.

How to Blow an Election, by Victor Hanson, [c]

Filed under: Elections, Historical context, Political Commentary, US Constitution — Tags: , , , — justplainbill @ 2:43 pm

How to Blow an Election — in Five Easy Steps
May 9, 2017 12:27 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
By Victor Davis Hanson// National Review

Counting the ways, and Comey is not among them.

Hillary Clinton recently took “full responsibility” for her 2016 loss. Only she didn’t. Instead of explaining what the historian Thucydides once called the “truest causes” (aitiai), she went on to list at least three pretexts (prophases) for her defeat: sexism, FBI director James Comey, and the purported Russian hacking of her unsecured e-mail server and the John Podesta e-mail trove.

Clinton’s accusations also raise the larger question of why a presidential candidate wins or loses an election.

In general, there seem to be five hinges of fate: personality, positions on the issues, the general political atmosphere of the era, the quality of the campaign, and sudden and unforeseen outside events such as depression, scandal, or war. Even a biased media or lots of money pales in comparison.

The Pretexts
We can fairly dismiss Clinton’s pretexts.

Take sexism. Hillary Clinton found her sex an advantage in being elected to the U.S. Senate from New York. For a generation, among the most powerful and successful figures in U.S. politics were three progressive, multimillionaire, Bay Area women who, in a most non-diverse fashion, lived within 50 miles of one another: Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi.

From 1997 to 2013 women of both parties were in charge of U.S. foreign policy as secretary of state, for twelve out of 16 years. One could make the argument that “the first female president” was an advantageous campaigning point, not a drawback; it was certainly designed to bookend Barack Obama’s successful trumpeting of being the first African-American president.

Blaming a deer-in-the-headlights FBI director James Comey is equally problematic. His passive-aggressive pronouncements irrationally first exonerated her, then did not, then did again. Faulting the FBI for her own likely felonious behavior of sending and receiving classified communications on an unsecured server (or of Bill Clinton’s trying to leverage Attorney General Loretta Lynch on an airport tarmac) is sort of like blaming the defeat at Pearl Harbor on the Japanese — true, but hardly the whole story given America’s responsibility for its own unpreparedness.

In similar fashion, had Donald Trump lost, he might have faulted the Washington Post for airing the decade-old Access Hollywood tape that nearly destroyed his campaign, as if the clear ill will and partisanship of Jeff Bezos’s Post were not empowered by Trump’s own private, hot-mic — but nonetheless crude — statements. The Germans claimed that harsh snows and the last-minute campaign in the Balkans had delayed and thus doomed their 1941 Russian offensive, as if the Red Army did not have a say or as if Germans were a tropical people.

As far as the Russians, they are Russians — always seeking to throw wrenches into the gears of U.S. elections. The Republicans claimed that their firewalls kept the Russians out of RNC e-mail; John Podesta using “password” for his password invited them in. And, of course, no one forced Washington journalists to collude through e-mail with the Clinton campaign, and no one ordered Hillary to jerry-rig a home-brewed server. The Russian-collusion bogeyman was probably as effective a campaign prop for Clinton as the supposed Russian-inspired e-mail revelations were for Trump.

1. McMurphy Trumps Nurse Ratched
More likely, Clinton lost the key, Rust Belt states that swung the electoral vote to Trump for our five classic reasons.

Her personality, in far different ways, was as polarizing as Trump’s. But Trump was far better as a TV showman, given his long stint on reality TV. Hillary’s voice, facial expressions, and comportment were not winning. Even on the rare occasions that she told the truth, she seemed more insincere than Trump, even when he was spinning a yarn.

Trump’s image as a bad boy was less damaging than Hillary’s as a scold. Both are roughly the same age and, to the eye, not in the best of shape, but Trump displayed an almost animal energy while Clinton often appeared frail, worn, and on occasion ill on the stump. In Ken Kesey’s One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the reader sympathizes with the pseudo-patient and con Randle McMurphy, who does everything haywire, rather than “Big Nurse” Mildred Ratched, who does everything by the book; the former was at least undeniably alive, the latter only ostensibly so.

2. Against Something Is Not For Something
Second, Hillary Clinton had no real sincere position on any issue other than a desire to stay in public office for nearly a quarter-century, and her willingness to extend the eight years of the Obama agenda — an agenda that had never achieved 2 percent economic growth and that saw record labor non-participation, a doubling of the national debt to $20 trillion, and a world in chaos abroad.

Once Obama got wise in January 2016 that he was the most popular when he was not seen or heard, he dropped out of sight and kept silent. Meanwhile, 17 Republicans along with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton hogged the national spotlight and tore one another apart. Through it all, Obama’s eight-year-long stream of dismal popularity ratings gradually improved. But his newfound transient popularity did not mean that most Americans liked Obama’s policies or judged them as successful.

The result was that Hillary played a losing 1968 Hubert Humphrey to Obama’s lame-duck Lyndon Johnson — she risked an occasionally meek nip on the administration’s ankles but was otherwise silent about her own positions to the extent they even existed. In a year when people wanted a change from the prior eight years, Clinton offered none. “I am a woman” and “Trump is a monster” were not serious campaign issues, but they sum up the totality of why Clinton wished Americans to vote for her. Most still did, but not in the key states where Obamism had wrought disaster.

3. Populists Bite Back
Third, voters had, once again, tired of Washington politics. The aura of 2016 was “drain the swamp” change. A septuagenarian socialist, who was not a Democrat, nonetheless almost won the Democratic primary on the theme that a Washington insider Bernie Sanders was at least not a Clintonian apparatchik mired in quid-pro quo beltway payola.

In a normal year, a sober and judicious Jeb Bush, or a proven competent governor such as Scott Walker, or a charismatic ascendant such as Marco Rubio would have won the Republican nomination.

But not in 2016, when voters wearied of sermons about their ethical shortcomings delivered by liberal and conservative grandees who were not subject to the consequences of their own ideologies — whether on trade, globalization, illegal immigration, health care, the budget, or foreign policy. Many voters saw Hillary, accurately, as the epitome of self-interested professional politics, leading always to personal enrichment. Trump’s supposed vulgarity and crudity only enhanced his image as a reckless (but nonetheless defiant) Samson determined to pull down the supporting pillars of the rotten Washington temple — even if the wreckage fell on himself, he’d ensure rubble on everyone else as well. Hillary was the EU; Trump was Brexit.

4. Super Bowl III: The Colts Upset the Jets
Fourth, arrogance, ignorance, and sloth are a fatal trifecta—sort of like the conditions that led the Baltimore Colts to be disastrously upset by the New York Jets in Super Bowl III. The Colts’ tried and true and careful Johnny Unitas proved no match for erratic and flamboyant Joe Namath.

Haughtiness, insularity, and laziness characterized the conduct of the Clinton campaign. Even a novice outsider could see that Obama’s successful electoral matrix — record minority turnout and bloc voting, coupled with the drop-off in turnout by a disengaged white working middle class (tired both of left-wing identity politics and Republican bluestocking elitism) — was not going to be transferrable to an off-putting 69-year-old, white multimillionaire.

Not only did Hillary Clinton lack Obama’s youthful vigor and mellifluousness; she also seemed at times geriatric, snarky, and screechy. The result was that she did not win the minority vote at the levels she needed. Further, she galvanized the supposedly ossified and irrelevant white working classes to finally come out and vote, in their own bloc fashion, against her. Obama had guaranteed her his downside but never delivered his upside.

Clinton’s only chance to make up for missing identity-politics voters by appealing to the working classes of the Midwest was to replay her 2008 Annie Oakley Democratic-primary role — by drinking boilermakers in Milwaukee, or bowling in Scranton, or reminiscing about shooting guns as young gal. But eight years ago, the Democratic party was still aw-shucks Bill Clinton’s. In 2016, it was captive to the identity-politics polarization so effectively deployed, in community-organizer style, by Barack Obama.

So instead Clinton doubled down on the tired theme that Rust Belt losers needed to shape up and get with the globalized progressive project and a demography-is-destiny new America. Obama had deprecated Pennsylvanians as has-beens clinging to their Bibles and guns; Hillary updated them, adding “half of Trump’s supporters” as irredeemables and deplorables. Miners were toxic losers who needed to learn how to build solar panels rather than mine coal. In contrast, Trump called them “our miners.”

She made her disdain concrete by never campaigning in Wisconsin and only sporadically visiting the Blue Wall states eastward to the Carolinas. And she was convinced that demography had doomed the white working classes and empowered Latinos and blacks in red states such as Arizona and Georgia. Clinton’s inept campaign aimed, then, not just at a win (which was attainable by nonstop populist barnstorming and message massaging in the Rust Belt) but, greedily, at a “mandate” that was impossible, given minority-vote falloff and Democratic estrangement from the working classes. Apparently, no one told the campaign that open borders were not a popular national issue, and that Democrats could not win Texas even with Latino bloc voting, and that they could do so in deep-blue California but without any electoral significance.

Clinton surrounded herself with Pajama Boy whizz kids who looked and sounded as if they were on vacation from DuPont Circle in D.C., or Manhattan’s Upper West Side (and who appeared as Stanley and Livingston explorers to the natives of southern Michigan or eastern Pennsylvania). Meanwhile, Trump advisers, such as Kelly Ann Conway and Steven Bannon, acted and talked like they had been around the proverbial American block.

Hillary had the money edge, all the establishment endorsements, a united Democratic party, and a captive toadyish media. Yet she still lost to an outspent Trump, who had never run for a single public office and whose own party and media elite damned him as much as they did his enemies. His victory will remain one of the most amazing campaign outcome in U.S. election history — especially in a postmodern electronic age in which “analytics” and “data” are supposed to make human capriciousness a relic of the past.

5. From Clinton Cash to Non-secure E-mail
In 2016, there was nothing comparable to the unpopular Iraq War or the frightening 2008 financial meltdown that had propelled Obama to the White House. But there was a succession of scandals — almost all Clinton’s — that confirmed the image that she was not just unethical, but predictably so.

Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash is underappreciated for its effect on the campaign. Through painstaking research, it tied together all the strands of Clinton nefariousness: the Clinton Foundation as an excuse to hire political flunkies and provide free jet travel; the quid pro quo State Department nods to those who hired Bill Clinton to speak; and corruption under Hillary Clinton, from cellphone concessions in Haiti to North American uranium sales to Russian interests.

Add to the Clinton sleaze Hillary’s unsecured server and communications of classified material, the creepy New York and Washington careerists who turned up in the Podesta archives, and the political rigging that warped the conduct of the Democratic National Committee.

The result was that Hillary could no longer play the role of the “good” Clinton who “put up” with her husband’s “good ole boy” sleaze. Her new image was that of an equal partner in crime — or perhaps even a godmother who used the capo Bill as muscle. In comparison, Trump steaks, Trump University, Trump taxes, and Trump ties were old-fashioned American hucksterism, but with one important difference: Trump’s excesses were a private person’s; Clinton’s were those of a public servant.

The correct exegesis for losing in 2016 should explain the Democratic strategy for winning in 2020: Run a vigorous, mellifluent, and sympathetic candidate; put forth new solutions to old problems; empathize with noncoastal America and camp out there, too; run a campaign as if it were in danger of losing rather than already past the finish line; and prune away Washington, D.C., hangers-on, with their acceptance of corruption as the new normal.

Or instead maybe Democrats can nominate another 69-year-old, multimillionaire female political insider who will run an identity-politics campaign on her gender, on the fact that she is not the monstrous Donald Trump — and on the premise that all the world, from the FBI to the Russians, are out to get her.

[One of many reasons that I like Dr. Hanson’s posts, is his adherence to practical history. One may take out all personal content, and then be able to use this, as so many of his columns, as a guide to “how to” do something. If we take his posts analyzing the 2016 election, remove the personality components, we have a book that explains both how to win an election and how to lose an election.

The same may be said of his columns on social issues. His analytical approach allows us to see how to run a government properly, or not, through is writings on the conditions in California.]

May 9, 2017

CAIR, A FIfth Column in the US, by Joseph John [c]

To jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
CC ‘Charles S. LiMandri, Esq.’
May 8 at 9:06 AM

CAIR, A Fifth Column In The US, Targeting American Children In Public Schools

By Capt Joseph R. John, May 8, 2017: Op Ed # 347

Former Special Agent John Guandolo, FBI, US Naval Academy Class of 1989, (USMC) in the below listed recording, discusses how dangerous to the Republic, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is. CAIR was founded in 1994 by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) its subversive activities, guided by the MB, are dangerous to the survival of the Republican form of government, as outlined in the US Constitution. The below listed recording is an extremely important recording and we are encouraging recipients to distribute to those in their address book who oppose replacing the US Constitution with Islamic Sharia Law. The MB created Al Q’ieda, ISIS, Hamas, CAIR, and spawned many other terrorist groups. They are all Radical Islamic Terrorist groups who have the same objectives—to destroy Western Civilization from within.

During the last 8 years, Obama appointed members of CAIR, the MB, and members of the MB Front Groups to thousands of very sensitive and highly classified positions in DHS, NSC, NSA, CIA, DOD, STATE, the White House, the FBI, Congressional Staffs, as well as to other US Government Agencies. The MB, CAIR, and the MB Front Groups have established a dangerous Fifth Column in the US Government, much more dangerous than the Fifth Column the Communist Party was able to establish in the US Government in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.

CAIR and the MB have been trying to eliminate Anti-Terror Training Programs from all service branches of the US Armed Forces. CAIR leaders managed to get Muslim Clerics appointed, as supposedly “unbiased” investigators to review the current DOD Anti-Terror Training Programs. CAIR’s goal is to get the appointed Muslim Clerics to make so many major recommendation for change, that they will effectively eliminate the Anti-Terror Training Program—it’s like putting the fox in the chicken coop to guard the chickens.

Air Force Special Agent David Gaubatz, who worked a CAIR headquarters as an undercover agent, convinced CAIR that he was a converted Muslim. He uncovered 12,000 incriminating pages of CAIR internal documents outlining their subversive activities, and acquired incriminating audio and video recordings of their subversive activities. Those CAIR internal documents prove that Radical Islamic Terrorist Agents in the nation’s capital, working closely with CAIR, have developed plans to undermine the authority of the US Constitution, and replace it with the governing authority of the Quran and Sharia Law. The incriminating documents, the audio recordings, and video recordings were turned over to the FBI.

”The documents show that CAIR, despite claiming to cooperate with Law Enforcement Agencies, is actively working behind the scenes to mislead and deceive the FBI and other Law Enforcement Agencies in support of terrorist suspects – and have even cultivated Muslim moles inside of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies who have tipped off FBI terror targets” (those Muslim moles were placed there by the Obama administration). (WND Exclusive by Art Moore May 3, 2016).

The MB and its Front Groups have been outlawed and designated dangerous International Terrorist Organizations by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrein, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia. Israel, Canada, and the United Kingdom announced they are close to designating the MB as an International Terrorist Organization. In 2014, CAIR was designated as an International Terrorist Organization and outlawed by the UAE.

The State Department should designated the CAIR, the MB, and the MB Front groups as International Terrorist organizations. Once they are designated as International Terrorist Organizations, the FBI and the Justice Department will be able to remove their members, from highly sensitive and classified positions in the US Federal Government.

Exposing the MB & CAIR as a Fifth Column in the US Government, and revealing the MB & CAIR’s plans to replace the US Constitution with Sharia Law will permit the FBI and Justice Department to remove them from their government jobs. That can be accomplished by administering lie detector tests to members of the MB &CAIR in government; they can be simply asked if they want Sharia Law to replace the US Constitution. A security screening program could be initiated that is similar to the one that the FBI and the Justice Department employed to eliminate a Communist Fifth Column from the US Government from 1940 to 1960, when members of the Communists Party were located in US government positions, by administering lie detector tests that ferreted out hundreds of Communists who were trying to subvert the US Federal Government.

In 2008, in the Holy Land Foundation Trial (HLF) in Dallas, which was the culmination of 15 years of investigation by the FBI, CAIR was found to be guilty in US Federal Court of a terror-funding plot. It was revealed that CAIR was involved in fraud, sedition, and terrorism, yet Obama appointed them to very sensitive and high security positions in the Federal Government The US Justice Department identified CAIR, as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing conviction in the nation’s 240 year history. Prior to HLF, and since, CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce terrorist groups like the MB, ICE, Al Q’ieda, Hamas, and Hizballah.

While CAIR Senior Management repeatedly denied receiving unlimited amounts of foreign funding from off shore sources, the authors of the book “Muslim Mafia” obtained a video of CAIR spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, boasting of his ability to bring in half a million dollars of “overseas money” from Saudi Arabia. (WND Exclusive by Art Moore May 3, 2016).

The FBI specifically identified CAIR as “a Hamas front group in the US, and as an entity of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, a secret body set up to advance the Hamas terrorist agenda.”

“FBI wiretap evidence from the Holy Land Foundation case showed that CAIR’s Executive Director, Nihad Awad, attended an October 1993 meeting of Hamas leaders, and participated in their activists in Philadelphia, PA. CAIR, according to the evidence, was created by the MB, out of a need to give a “media twinkle” in order to the MB leaders’ agenda, of supporting violent jihad abroad, while slowly institutionalizing Islamic Sharia Law in the US. A federal judge later determined that the Justice Department provided “ample evidence” to designate CAIR as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator, affirming the Islamic group had been involved in “a conspiracy to support Hamas. In addition, CAIR leaders have made statements affirming that their aim is to establish Islamic rule in the United States.” (WND Exclusive by Art Moore May 3, 2016)

The FBI is involved in prosecuting over 1000 Radical Islamic Terrorist cases in all 50 states, and the subjects under investigation include members of the MB, CAIR, ISIS, Al Q’ieda, MB Front Groups, self-Radicalized Islamic Terrorists, and 1/3rd of the cases concern Muslim Refugees who entered the US from 7 of the 43 Muslim majority countries, that the Trump administration has been trying to put a temporary travel ban. Some of the members of CAIR, who have been appointed to thousands of government positions by Obama, are suspected of engaging in subversive activities, in furtherance of MB goals, that are detrimental to the security of the United States.

Former FBI Agent Mike Rolf stated that the CAIR leaders, listed below, have been charged with or convicted of terrorism-related crimes, documented in “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America” authored by David Gaubatz and investigative journalist Paul Sperry. In addition to the CAIR leaders, listed below, other CAIR members have been involved in the 194 Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks in the US listed in the attachment, that have been perpetrated in 63 cities in the US since 9/11, that the left of center liberal media establishment continue to try to cover up.

1)Ghassan Elashi one of CAIR’s Founding Directors was convicted of terrorism and is in federal prison,

2)Rabith Hadid, a CAIR fundraiser, was blacklisted by the Treasury Department for financing Al Q’ieda and other terror groups, was arrested on terror-related charges and deported to Lebanon,

3)Abdurahman Alamoudi, a CAIR Director is serving 23 years in federal prison for plotting terrorism.

4)Randall “Ismail” Royer, a former CAIR Communications Specialist, is serving 20 years in federal prison in connection with the Virginia Jihad Network which he led,

5)Bassam Khafagi, a CAIR Director of Community Affairs, was arrested and pleaded guilty to bank & visa fraud in supporting Al Q’ieda and advocating suicide attacks on Americans,

6)Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of CAIR, was wiretapped by the FBI and evidence of his plot to disguise payments to terrorists as charitable giving, caused the FBI to sever ties with CAIR in the US.

7)Laura Jaghlit, a CAIR Civil-rights Coordinator, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation as part of the FBI investigation into terrorist financing, money laundering, and tax fraud.

8)Omar Ahmad, Founder & Chairman Emeritus of CAIR, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

9)Nabil Sadoun, a CAIR Board Member, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation and was in a Hamas Front organization; he was deported to Jordan by the Justice Department.

10)Muthanna al-Hanooti, a CAIR Director, whose home was raided by the FBI is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy land Foundation case

San Diego is the second largest city in deep blue California, with a history of being pro-American and pro-military, and it is the initial targeted battleground city in Southern California that George Soros and CAIR are focused on changing San Diego’s pro-American agenda in the future. Soros and CAIR supported the election of the type of San Diego Unified School Board (SDUSB) that would install a progressive, anti-American, and Islam-centric curriculum to indoctrinate students. San Diego is CAIR’s initial city in the US, ground zero, where the MB Islam-centric indoctrination program would be implemented, by “Targeting American Children In Public Schools”, while at the same time, Soros would also be implementing his own progressive anti-American and Marxist indoctrination program described below.

Members of the SDUSB has been endorsed and supported in their elections by CAIR, and by Soros’ funded Progressive, Marxists, Anti-American, and pro-Illegal Aliens & pro-Muslim Refugees organizations (i.e. Free Press, La Raza, America Federation of Teachers, Planned Parenthood, SEIU, NOW, the AFL-CIO Labor Council, the CA Democratic Party, Muslim Advocates, Catholic Alliance For Common Good, the Rotary Peace Committee, the Peace & Freedom Party, and the Communist Party USA).

Members of the SDUSB have formed a close working partnership with CAIR, a dangerous Islamic Terrorist Organization. In 2015, Kevin Beiser and Michael McQuary, two members of the SDUSB, issued a formal proclamation in support of, and in recognition of CAIR San Diego, citing ten years of “constructive civic engagement” in San Diego and Imperial Counties. They praised CAIR’s work to “promote not only religious and cultural tolerance and understanding, but also justice and equality for all who live in the United States.” While CAIR, as you read above, is an international terrorist organization whose leaders have been convicted of terrorism, listed above.

Under the guise of establishing an anti-bullying program, the SDUSB became the first School Board in America to approve the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic indoctrination plan that is discriminatory towards Christians and Jews. The policy violates American parents’ opposition to the indoctrination of their children in the Islamic religion, and violates their opposition to having their children taught to accept Anti-Constitutional Sharia Law.

An anti-bullying policy already exists in the San Diego City Schools, there was no need for the SDUSB to vote for a new discriminatory anti-bullying policy, which is an excuse to issue text books to teach Islam in San Diego City Schools.

A parent’s permission is required, prior to subjecting their child to being indoctrinated in the Islamic Religion, Sharia Law, or any religion in the classroom. By their actions, members of the SDUSB, as individuals, have subjected themselves to a Class Action Law Suit for violating US Federal Law (parents of students or any interested party, can contact Attorney Charles LiMandri, Esq. listed on the copy line of the address bar, to represent them in a class action law suit).

Even though Muslims are allowed to forego religious obligations in a non-Muslim countries like the US. The new MB Islam indoctrinating program voted for by the SDUSB will include adding lessons on Islam in the Social Studies curriculum that emphasize prominent Muslims in history, that creates Muslim-only “safe spaces,” adding Muslim holidays to the school calendar, and providing support and resources for Muslim students during Ramadan. Instead of prescribing detention for those who bully students which is the current bullying policy in San Diego Schools, the SDUSB plans a “restorative justice” program in which students are required to dialogue with each other about perceived bullying words or actions. Special disciplinary measures will also be created for the so-called bullying of Muslims.

At the same time Christmas vacation has been replaced with Winter holiday, Easter break has been replace with Spring break, Christian holidays are not listed to the school calendar, yet Ramadan is called Ramadan on the School Calendar. The SDUSB has not created Christian-only or Jewish –only “safe spaces.” In an intentional discriminatory act, lesson plans in Judaism &Christianity will not be taught to Muslim students in the Social Studies curriculum with emphasis on prominent Christians and Jews in history. A previous request by a student for Christian Bible Study at lunchtime was rejected by the SDUSB. CAIR complained and alleged favoritism when Christian students in Roseville, a Detroit suburb, were given permission slips to attend off-site Bible study classes—CAIR has a double standard and aggressively discriminates against Christians.

The SDUSB plans to use “restorative justice” in their Islamophilic anti-bullying program. “Restorative Justice” is inspired by Marxist “group criticism.” It is not just a punishment for bad behavior, but a Communist technique to reprogram the young impressionable student’s mind in the way they think. Group criticism is a technique, which has long been used by Communist brain-washers and re-education specialists to make independent thinkers conform to group dogma. It is the SDUSB that is actually bullying very young school children, in order to control their thoughts and speech, by indoctrinating them in Islamic Religion, Marxism philosophy, and an Anti-American curriculum where patriotism has been minimized.

The SDUSB is employing Common Core, instituted by Obama. Over the last 8 years Common Core has eliminated most historic Patriotic references in their history books, eliminated references & stories about the Founding Fathers in the curriculum, and failed to teach the analysis of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. US History as it was once taught, for the most part has been removed from grammar and Junior High School curriculum, resulting in millions of graduates with very little knowledge of US History.

The SDUSB is controlled by 5 radical Marxist ideologues. They would not call themselves that, of course, but voters should watch what they have been doing to the school children’s classroom curriculum. Last year they approved a program for all schools in (cultural Marxist) ethnic studies. The votes of the SDUSB demonstrates that they are sympathetic with radical Marxist ideologues.

The President of the SDUSB, Marne Foster, was removed from the Board for criminal corruption, yet all 5 members voted to honor her with a proclamation—that fact should be reason enough to remove all 5 members of the SDUSB from office. Despite the fact that the budget is $134 million in the red, the 5 inept SDUSB members voted to give across the board pay raises to every teacher and all employees. The 5 members of the SDUSB have repeatedly demonstrated their inept financial management and their inability to manage billions of taxpayer dollars; they have effectively bankrupted the city schools.

The 5 member SDUSB have been promoting anti-Christian religious, and anti-Jewish religious policies, and have violated a Supreme Court ruling that prevents teaching religion in Public Schools. The Board’s vote to partner with the CAIR Terrorist Organization, in order to force feed, and indoctrinate millions of very young students with the teachings of Islam, and brow beat them into being compliant with Sharia Law, is in a violation of “Establishment Clause” the US Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits a government agency from attempting to effect a secular goal by the propagation of religious concepts.

It also appears that there are allegation against the School Board for “covering up” the sexual assault on students in city schools, some of the students are as young as 5 years of age. American parents who want to protect their children in the San Diego Schools from bullying by the SDUSB members should attend the May 16th School Board meeting, as their first step in initiating a recall election for every Board member.

The SDUSB should consist of American Patriots who understand generally accepted financial practices, who will no longer partner with a Radical Islamic Terrorist organization to force feed the indoctrination of Islam into the minds of millions of very young Christian and Jewish children, and who will protect and defend the US Constitution, not try to install Sharia Law in the United States to replace the US Constitution.

There are thousands of US Marine Corps, US Navy, and US Army Veterans residing in San Diego who repeatedly put their lives on the line in combat against Radical Islamic Terrorists, who swore to protect and defend the US Constitution, understand generally accepted good financial practices, have been extremely successful managers of large budgets, and have supervised thousands of Military & civilian personnel—-one or more of those veterans should be elected to the SDUSB in a recall election.

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)/Former FBI

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Cell: (310) 989-8778

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

https://www.facebook.com/combatveteransforcongress?ref=hl

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)/Former FBI

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Cell: (310) 989-8778

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

https://www.facebook.com/combatveteransforcongress?ref=hl

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

Itemized below are 83 of the 194 Radical Islamic Terrorists attacks on US soil perpetrated since 9/11, by Jihadist, by Muslim refugees, by descendants of Muslim refugees, by Islamists who were radicalized thru the Internet, or Radical Islamic Terrorists who traveled to Syria and Africa to train with ISIS, Al Q’ieda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. The countries of origins from which many of the Radical Islamic Terrorists have been entering the US thru the UN Refugee Resettlement Program, and have been killing and raping Americans for 8 years, are Somalia, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Iran, and Libya. Except for Iran, those countries had effectively no control over the identity of terrorists operating and training within their country’s borders.

The Radical Islamic Terrorist perpetrated attacks on US soil in Sacramento (CA), Houston (TX), Morganton (NC), Philadelphia (PA), San Bernardino (CA), Times Square (NYC), Chelsea Area of Manhattan, Moore (OK), Detroit (MI), Boise (ID), Orlando (FL), West Orange (NJ), Fort Hood (TX), Portland (ME), Chattanooga (TN), Garland (TX), Boston (MA), Portland (OR), Minneapolis (MN), St Cloud (MN), Buffalo (NY), Jonesboro (GA), Ashtabula (OH), Bingham (NY), Glendale (AZ), Phoenix (AZ), Little Rock (AR), Merced (CA), Marquette Park (IL), Fresno (CA), Seattle (WA), Skyway (WA), Denver (CO), Aspen Hill (MD), Baltimore (MD), Oakland (CA), Fresno (Arlington (VA), Fredricksburg (VA), Montgomery County (MO), St Louis (MO), Bowling Green (KY), Scottsville,(NY), Richmond (CA), Washington (DC), Irving (TX), Port Bolivar (TX), Warren (MI), Waltham (MA), Manassas (VA), Buena Vista (NJ), Baton Rouge (LA), Montgomery (AL), Aberdeen, (SD), Chicago (IL), Los Angeles (CA), Hamden, (CT), Colorado Springs (CO), Denver (CO), Niskayuna (NY), Twin Falls (ID). and many other US cities too numerous to be listed here.

After each Radical Islamic Terrorist instigated attack, the identity of the attackers were covered up by the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood for 8 years, working in concert with the left of center liberal media establishment to mislead Americans about who perpetrated the 194 terrorist attacks or threats to injure Americans in the US. They used politically correct language to cover up the identity of the Radical Islamic Terrorists who repeatedly murdered Americans for the last 8 years. It was a continuing conspiracy that resulted in the injury and murder of hundreds of American citizens, the cover up undermined the National Security of the United States! The FBI is evaluating 1000 open cases on potential plots to kill Americans in all 50 states, and uncovered 83 Radical Islamic Terrorist plots, 37 of them were ISIS plots to kill or injure Americans in the United States. A percentage of the 83 uncovered plots to kill or injure America by potential terrorists can be attributed to some of the 900,000+ Middle East and African Muslim Refugees Obama resettlement in 187 cities throughout the US over an 8 year period.

The foreign nationals listed below executed 83 Radical Islamic Terrorists attacks and attempted support for ISIS designed to injure or kill American citizens in the above listed US cities during the last 8 years, and is a partial list of the 194 Radical Islamic Terrorist incidents perpetrated in US cities by Radical Islamic Terrorists since 9/11:

Bilal Abood was a translator who came here on an Special Immigration Visa for Iraqi nationals who provided services for American Forces. He even briefly joined the US Army. On the surface he was exactly the sort of Iraqi Refugee that the media likes to depict as the ideal immigrant, but Abood was also a member of ISIS. When he was arrested, he insisted “America was the enemy of Allah”.
Jasim Mohammed Hasin Ramadon and Ali Mohammed Hasan Al Juboori came to this country with Special Immigration Visas. Then Ramadon, Juboori and three other Iraqi refugees brutally assaulted a 53-year-old Colorado Springs woman. When the police arrived at the scene of the Iraqi Refugee sexual assault, they found blood splattered on the walls. The Iraqi Refugee rapists lured in their victim by complaining about how hard it was living in America and being called terrorists. The victim, a night nurse, took pity on them because they reminded her of her son. By the time the Iraqi Refugees were done, she had been violated and left near death.
Abdullatif Ali Aldosary an Iraqi Refugee who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program set off a bomb outside a Social Security office in Phoenix, Arizona. The authorities found plenty of bomb making materials in his home. He was also accused of a murder that had taken place a few days before the bombing and had previously been sent to jail for harassment. His case had been put on hold for “terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility”, but he still couldn’t be deported.
On April 18, 2017 Kori Ali Mohammad, age 39, a black suspect was taken into custody on Fulton Street in downtown Fresno, CA by police after firing 16 shots from a large caliber handgun, killing 3 white males; he shouted “Allah Akbar”, and declared a hatred for white people when taken into custody. On April 13th he shot and killed a white security guard at a Motel 6 in Fresno.
On April 12, 2017 the Chicago FBI Field Office and Joint Terrorist Task Force arrested and charged Chicago based Edward Schimenti and Joseph Jones for attempting to provide material support and resources to the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist Organization (FTO).
On March 3, 2017 Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan came here from Iraq as a refugee thru the UN Refugee Program. When the FBI searched his Houston apartment, agents found an ISIS flag. Hardan had been planning to leave bombs in the trash cans of two Houston malls. He had contemplated an attack on the Grand Prairie military base in Texas.
On February 14, 2017, 35 year old Adam Nauveed Hyat of Pakistani descent and a former Marine wrote “Explosives” on a closet door mirror in a Denver, CO Sheraton Downtown Hotel, leading police to find pipe bombs after running up a bill of $10,000 at the hotel; guests were removed from the hotel while the pipe bombs were defused. After flying to Los Angeles on February 17th, Hyat was tracked down and arrested, armed with knives, near the Los Angeles Airport. Adam’s father, Sultan Hyat, said his son has mental problems.
On January 31, 2017, 29 year old Ahmad Bahjat of New Haven, an Iraqi Refugee who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program, posing as Uber Driver, was arrested for raping a woman. The woman had left a New Haven bar and walked to a parking area designated for Uber and taxi drivers, according to Hamden Police who arrested him. Bahjat pretended to be an Uber driver and the woman got into his car, believing he was the Uber driver.
On November 28, 2016, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a 18 year old Somali refugee who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program drove his car into a crowd students on the campus of Ohio State University, then got out of his car and attacked students with a butcher knife injuring 11.
On September 19, 2016 Ahmed Khan Rahimi, a 28 year old Afghani refugee, who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program. He traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan to train as a Radical Islamic Terrorist and set off a bomb in the Chelsea District of Manhattan, NY. The explosion injured 29 people; he was arrested after a shootout with Police Officers in Linden, New Jersey, where he wounded two police officers. Ahmed was charged with 5 counts of murder. Earlier in the day, he set off a pipe bomb in Seaside Park, New Jersey; five other bombs were found at his residence.
On September 17, 2016 Dar Ahmed Adnan, a Somali refugee who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program perpetrated a knife attack on 9 shoppers at the St Cloud Crossroads Mall in Minnesota, and was shot to death by an off duty St Cloud police Officer.
In July 8, 2016, Abdirhman Ahmed Noor, a 24 year4 old refugee from Somalia, who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program, jumped bail and remains at large after being charged with 2 counts of attempted murder in Aberdeen, South Dakota. Noor chased two men down, firing at them. One man, Dar’na Tansmore, was hit and laid wounded on the ground when Noor allegedly walked up, stood over his victim and shot him again. Lutheran Social Services South Dakota has been paid by the federal government to resettle 947 Somali refugees in South Dakota since 2002.
On June 12, 2016, Omar Saddiqul Mateen, the son of Afghan refugees, massacred 49 gentle & innocent Americans, and wounded 53 others, in the Orlando night club, Pulse, in the deadliest mass shooting in US history.
On June 2, 2016, one Sudanese refugee boy 14, and two Iraqi refugee boys, aged 7 and 10, lured a special needs 5 year old girl, Jayla Peterson, stripped her naked. then savagely raped her under knife point, in the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls, Idaho; they then urinated in her mouth. An alert 89 year old retired nurse, Jaylene Payne, interrupted the attack when she saw all three of the refugees boys with their clothes off. The three refuges boys pleaded guilty to committing, aiding in committing, and acting as an accessory in committing a felony.
On March 24, 2016 seven Iranians working on behalf of the Iranian Government were indicted for a series of cyber-crimes that cost US financial institutions tens of millions of dollars and compromised critical controls of a New York Dam.
On February 16, 2016, a court magistrate ruled, after hearing the FBI testimony, that Khalil Abu-Rayyan, a 21 year old Iraqi man from Dearborn, MI, who is a son of an Iraqi Refugee. He was considered too much of a threat to public safety and was ordered held without bail. He got excited by thoughts of beheading Americans, burning people alive, and throwing homosexuals off of tall buildings. In conversations with an undercover FBI agent, he actually made plans to shoot 6,000 member of a Christian Church in Detroit. (If I) can’t go do Jihad at the Middle East, I would do my Jihad over here.” He also told the agent that “shooting and death make me excited. I love to hear people begging and screaming. … I wish I had my gun.” The FBI claims that since 2014, Abu-Rayyan used Twitter for “retweeting, liking and commenting” on Islamic State propaganda.
On February 12, 2016 a machete wielding assailant known to the FBI, identified as Mohammad Barry, a Somali refugee who entered the US on the UN Refugee Program, living in Ohio attacked Jewish and Christian patrons at a restaurant in Columbus, Ohio, wounding four people. Witnesses said it was carnage. Some of the patrons fought back by throwing chairs. Police later shot and killed Barry after a short chase. Investigators are trying to determine if Barry attacked the Nazareth Mediterranean Restaurant because he thought the owner was Jewish. In actuality, the restaurant is owned by an Israeli Christian.
In Philadelphia, PA, Edward Archer, a 30 year old Jihadi, who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, opened fire in the name of Islam, on Philadelphia Police Officer Jessie Hartnett, who was ambushed sitting in his car on January 8, 2016. Archer fired 11 shots and hit the Officer Hartnett three times, grievously wounding the officer; the officer returned fire and hit Archer three times.
In an unrelated case, also on January 7, 2016, Omar Faraj Saeed al Hardan, an Iraqi Refugee, was arrested in Houston, TX on charges of providing material support to ISIS and going thru terrorist training.
On January 7, 2016, Aws Mohammad Younis Al-Jayab, a Palestine born Iraqi, was arrested in Sacramento, CA on charges of assisting Jihadi organizations.
In December 2015, a Somali-American was arrested after encouraging several friends to leave the United States and join ISIS, and giving one individual over $200 for their passport application.
The son of an Pakistani immigrant Syed Rizwan Farouk, and Tashfeen Malik, who entered the United States on a fiancé visa thru Canada as Syed’s bride, and subsequently became a Lawful Permanent Resident, along with her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, who pledged allegiance to ISIS, killed 14 people at a Christmas Party in San Bernardino, CA on December 2, 2015 , and wounded 22 others, in the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001. They were recruited to their jihad by a Muslim Somali refugee who has now moved to Syria, but continues to recruit Jihadist in America using social media.
Five Bosnian Muslim refugees (in the same family) were arrested on November 18, 2015, two in Missouri, two in Illinois and one New York for sending arms and cash to ISIS.
In November 17, 2015 A Uzbek Muslim refugee in Boise, ID was convicted of plotting to bomb US military bases.
On November 4, 2015. 18 year old Faisal Mohammad who had a black ISIS flag in his possessions and a terrorist manifesto, stabbed 4 of his fellow student at U C Merced; police had to shoot him to stop his stabbing spree. He had pro-ISIS propaganda on his computer. The FBI said he was a self-radicalized Islamic Jihadist.
A second Immigrant from India, who is married to a US citizen, who was indicted on charges of conspiring to provide thousands of dollars to Al Q’ieda in the Arabian Peninsula, in order to assist them in their global Jihad, and on one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud (November 2015)
On October 1, 2015, Chris Harper Mercer, a black Islamist terrorist who traveled to Syria in September 2015, to train with ISIS, and was identified as a Radical Islamic Terrorist by the Russian Security Service, executed a mass shooting on the campus of Umpqua Community College in Rosebud, Oregon killed 9 people and wounded 7 others. He was associated with Mahmoud Ali Ehsani, but the Obama administration refused to accept the referral from the Russian Security Service, and when he returned from Syria in September, he wasn’t arrested, so he perpetrated his mass shooting. He was shot to death by Police Officers
An immigrant from Egypt, who subsequently was granted U.S. citizenship, was charged with providing, and conspiring to provide, material support to ISIS, for aiding and abetting a New York college student in receiving terrorist training from ISIS, and conspiring to receive such training. (August 2015)
An immigrant from Albania, who applied for and received Lawful Permanent Resident status, was sentenced to 16 years in prison for giving over $1,000 to terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, and for attempting to join a radical jihadist insurgent group in Pakistan. (August 2015)
A refugee from Uzbekistan was convicted of providing material support and money to a designated foreign terrorist organization. According to the Department of Justice, he also procured bomb-making materials in the interest of perpetrating a terrorist attack on American soil. (August 2015)
On August 14, 2015 three Somali Muslims, Mohamud Mohamed, 36, and Osman Sheikh, 31, Abil Teshome, 23, brutally beat and murdered Freddy Akoa, 49 a Christian in Portland, ME. The attack allegedly took place over the span of several hours, in which Akoa suffered cuts and bruises all over his body, a lacerated liver and 22 rib fractures. However, according to the autopsy, Akoa died as a result of blows to his head.
On August 12, 2015, a 39 year old Muslim Somali refugee, Libyan Mohamed, was sentence to three years in prison for attempted sexual assault on a 31 year old severely mentally handicapped woman sitting outside at a group home for the disabled in Aberdeen, South Dakota
Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez murdered five US Armed Forces (1 Navy and 4 Marines) in Chattanooga, TN in July 2015. Mohammad was an immigrant brought here by his family from Kuwait at a young age, and who was later approved for U.S. citizenship, who carried out the Islamist attack that killed the 5 military personnel in Chattanooga.
An Uzbek refugee living in Idaho was arrested and charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, in the form of teaching terror recruits how to build bombs. (July 2015)
An immigrant from Sudan, who applied and received US citizenship, tried to join ISIS and wage Jihad on its behalf after having been recruited on line(June 2015).
An immigrant from Ghana, who applied for and received US citizenship, pledged allegiance to ISIS and plotted a terrorist attack on the US soil (June 2015).
On May 3, 2015 an attack with gunfire was carried by two Radical Islamic Terrorists followers of ISIS at the entrance to the Curtis Culwell Center, in Garland, TX featuring cartoon images of Mohammad—both were shot and killed by a police officer. Just prior to the attack one of the gunmen posted “May Allah accept us as Mujahedeen”—he wrote both pledged allegiance to “Amirul Mu’mineen”, a likely reference to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
An Iraqi immigrant, who later applied for and received US citizenship, was arrested for lying to federal agents about pledging allegiance to ISIS and his travel to Syria (May 2015)
The Somali refugee who recruited the San Bernardino killers also recruited the jihadist who attacked the Garland, TX “Draw Mohammad” contest in May 2015, fled the United States.
On April 20, 2015, Six Somalian Muslim refugees were arrested in Minneapolis, Minnesota for attempting to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State and fight for ISIS.
An immigrant from Saudi Arabia, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, swore allegiance to ISIS and pledged to explode a propane tank bomb on U.S. soil. (April 2015).
An immigrant from Yemen, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, along with six other men, was charged with conspiracy to travel to Syria and to provide material support to ISIS. (April 2015).
A Uzbek man in Brooklyn encouraged other Uzbeki nationals to wage Jihad on behalf of ISIS, and raised $1,600 for the terror organization. (April 2015)
An immigrant from Syria, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, was accused by federal prosecutors of planning to rob a gun store to “go to a military base in Texas and kill three or four American soldiers execution style.” (April 2015)
A Kazakhstani immigrant with lawful permanent resident status conspired to purchase a machine gun to shoot FBI and other law enforcement agents if they prevented him from traveling to Syria to join ISIS. (February 2015)
A Bosnian refugee, along with his wife and five others, donated money and supplies, and smuggled arms, to terrorist organizations in Syria and Iraq. (February 2015)
On December 18, 2014 an radicalized ISIS supporter in Morganton, NC shot a 74 year old man in the head multiple times.
On December 14, 2014, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, born to a Muslim African American family, executed two NYC police officers as they sat in their patrol car. Brinsley is reported to have approached the two officers as they were sitting in their patrol car in the notorious crime ridden Bedford-Stuyvesant area of Brooklyn, New York and began firing rounds into the vehicle before fleeing on foot to the closest subway station where he later committed suicide.
Two Bosnian Muslim refugee in Portland, Oregon was arrested in November 21, 2014 for trying to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony.
In September 30, 2014, ex-con Alton Nolan, a Muslim convert, a proponent of Sharia Law, who was radicalized to Islam behind bars, wielding a knife, beheaded a female employee, Colleen Hufford, at the Vaughn Foods processing plant in Moor, OK, and was prevented from beheading a second female employee by the company COO, who shot Nolan to stop his rampage.
An immigrant from Afghanistan, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, and a legal permanent resident from the Philippines, were convicted for “join Al Q’ieda and the Taliban in order to kill Americans.” (September 2014)
Five Somali Muslim refugees were charged in July 2014 with fundraising for jihadi groups in Africa.
A Somali immigrant with lawful permanent resident status, along with four other Somali nationals, is charged with leading an al-Shabaab fundraising conspiracy in the United States, with monthly payments directed to the Somali terrorist organization. (July 2014)
An immigrant from Bangladesh, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, tried to incite people to travel to Somalia and conduct violent jihad against the United States. (June 2014)
On June 25, 2014 Ali Muhammad Brown, age 29, a devout Muslim, gunned down Brendan Brown, age 19, in Livingston, NJ. Ali said it was an act of retribution for US Military actions against Muslims in Iraq, Syria, and Iran.
On June,1, 2014, Ali Muhammed Brown confessed to the murder of a 30 year old man on April 27th. in Skyway, WA.
A Moroccan national who came to the U.S. on a student visa was arrested for plotting to blow up a university and a federal court house. (April 2014).
On April 3, 2014, Salam Al Haideri a 24 year old Iraqi Refugee from Niskayuna, NY who entered the US thru the UN Refugee program. He raped a 19 year old 4’11 teenager behind a “I Love NY” pizza place dumpster while slamming her head into the ground. The Iraqi Refugee’s 96-pound teenage victim was left with broken ribs and a fractured nose. Al Haideri was the third refugee to be convicted of a sex crime in the area. He was found guilty of aggravated assault and rape and was sentenced to 22 years to life.
On March 6, 2014 a Muslim man shoots his lesbian daughter and her lover to death a leave a copy of the Quran open to a page condemning homosexuality.
A college student who immigrated from Somalia, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. (Dec 2013)
On August 4, 2013 in Richmond, CA a radicalized Islamist convert “on a mission from Allah” stabbed a store clerk to death.
On April 19, 2013 in Boston, MA a Radical Islamic Terrorist, the Tsarnaev brothers (the Boston Marathon Bombers) gunned down a University police officer sitting in his car
The April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon bombing by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev; those brothers and their family were Muslim refugees. -The Boston Bombers were granted political asylum and were thus deemed legitimate refugees. The younger brother applied for citizenship and was naturalized on September 11th, 2012. The older brother had a pending application for citizenship.
On March 24, 2013 in Ashtabula, OH a Muslim convert walks into a church service Quran, and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah
On February 7, 2013 in Buena Vista, NJ a Muslim man beheaded two Coptic Christians Immigrants.
On November 11, 2012 in Houston, TX a 28 year old American man is shot to death by a radical Muslim over an alleged role of converting a woman to Christianity.
In September 15, 2012, Amine El Khalifi, and al Q’ieda Radical Islamic Terrorist plotted to do a suicide bombing of the US Capital.
On February 18, 2012, two Radical Islamic Terrorists from Pakistan, who later applied for and received US Citizenship, were apprehended trying to detonate a bomb in New York City
On January 1, 2012 in Houston TX a 30 year old Muslim convert to Christianity is shot to death by a devout Muslim for converting his daughter to Christianity
On September 11, 2011 in Waltham, MA three Jewish men have their throats cut by Radical Islamic Terrorists.
Two Al Qaeda members from Iraq who had spent years in Iraq using IEDs and participated in attacks that killed American soldiers (their fingerprints were recovered from IEDs). Mohamed Hammadi age 25 and Walid Alwan age 31, were arrested in Bowling Green, KY on May 25, 2011 while living in public housing and were receiving public assistance; both entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program as Iraqi refugees! Hammadi was recorded in a telephone conversation plotting a terrorist attack in the US. They were both convicted of terrorism and sentenced to 40 years in prison.
On April 30, 2011 Mohammad Alfatlawi a proponent of Sharia Law was charged with the “Honor Killing” of his wife and daughter in Detroit, Michigan.
In May 4, 2010 Faisal Shahzad conducted a terrorist car bombing plot in Times Square that failed.
In December 25, 2009, the bombing terror plot to kill 290 innocent passengers on a flight from the Netherland to Detroit the Nigerian Radical Islamic Terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutlallab (aka the Underwear Bomber) failed to detonate on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 because the explosives in his underwear malfunctioned, and passengers were able to subdue him until he was arrested.
On December 4, 2009 in Bingham, NY a non-Muslim Islamic Studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim graduate student in revenge for Muslims who have been persecuted.
On November 5, 2009, Maj Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 US Army soldiers and wounded 32 others in Fort Hood while yelling “Allah Akbar” at the top of his lungs—Obama insisted it was simply “Work Place Violence” and not a Radical Islamic terrorist attack by a disciple of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Prior to the shooting, in his previous assignment as an intern and resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center his colleagues and superiors were deeply concerned about his behavior and anti-American comments—but because they were cowered by the Obama’s administration’s warnings and perceived threats to their military standing, that they better be “politically correct’ and not disparage such anti-American comments—nothing was done to drum that Radical Islamic Terrorist out of the US Armed Forces.
On November 2, 2009 in Glendale, AZ a Muslim daughter dies from injuries suffered when her Muslim father runs her over with his car for being too “Westernized.”
On June 1, 2009, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a convert to Islam, who had gone to Yemen in 2007 and stayed for about 16 months, open fire on a Little Rock, Arkansas US Armed Forces Recruiting Office in a drive by shooting with a rifle, against a group of US Army Soldiers standing in front of the Recruiting Office. He killed Private William Long and wounded Private Quinton Ezeagwula; he was given 11 consecutive life sentences.
On April 12, 2009 in Phoenix, AZ a Muslim man shoots his Muslim brother-in-law and another man to death, after he finds out that they visited a strip club in contradiction to Islamic values.
On February12, 2009 in Buffalo, NY a Muslim founder of a Muslim TV Station beheads his wife in the hallway of the TV Station for seeking a divorce.
On July 6, 2008 in Jonesboro, GA a devout Muslim man strangles his 25 year old daughter in an honor killing.

[In recent Senate Hearings, Susan Yates, Esq., former acting AG, supported her position of not representing Pres. Trump’s travel ban by citing to her concern over constitutional issues re discrimination by religion. She, as most politicians and media empty heads, have not read the Qu’Ran. Posted elsewhere on this blog are over one hundred direct citations from the Qu’Ran. According to the definition of a Hate Group, as established by the federal Hate Crimes Act, Islam is the Satanic Cult of the pedophile Mohammed to worship the Arab Moon god, god of Darkness, Allah.

Beware! Recently reported, then shushed, a Detroit doctor was discovered performing female genital mutilation surgery on young Muslim girls. Where is NOW? Where is Elizabeth Warren? Where is Hillary? Where is Pelosi? Where is Feinstien? Where are the university academics?

Y’all are, hopefully, forwarding these to your elected officials, municipal, county, state, and federal. Overwhelm their inboxes. Get active in Tea Party and Freedom Caucus politicians.

God Bless America!]

May 3, 2017

Was the Civil War Necessary? by Brion McClanahan [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 4:20 pm

LewRockwell.com ANTI-STATE•ANTI-WAR•PRO-MARKET
Was the Civil War Necessary?
By Brion McClanahan
May 3, 2017

FacebookTwitter

Trump supposedly stepped in it. Again.
In an interview that aired Monday with Salena Zito, he wondered aloud that if better leadership could have prevented the Civil War [sic].
Trump thought that Andrew Jackson would have prevailed in a showdown between the North and the South. After all, he did it before in the 1830s. Trump then said this: “He [Jackson] was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, ‘There’s no reason for this.’”
Trump followed up by committing the most heinous of all heinous acts. He questioned if the Civil War [sic] was necessary!
The leftist media immediately pounced, with several openly mocking Trump for believing that Andrew Jackson was alive in 1861.
Time to buy old US gold coins
A USA Today headline read: “Note to Donald Trump: Andrew Jackson wasn’t alive for the Civil War.”
The LA Times: “Trump makes puzzling claim about Andrew Jackson, Civil War.” The Chicago Tribune ran the same headline (groupthink) as did a number of other “news” outlets.
Social media trolls ran post after post criticizing Trump’s “revisionist” history, lambasting him for not knowing when Jackson was alive, or that he dared to buck modern historical interpretation. The snarky liberal establishment dimwit historian Kevin Krause Tweeted “When the Civil War came, Andrew Jackson had been dead fifteen years.”
Zing! You nailed him Dr. Kevin. How bright! How engaging! Only a Princeton prof could have come up with that one.
The congratulatory remarks rolled in from his “esteemed” colleagues.
And then The Atlantic staff lowered the boom. At least that is what they thought.
In only a matter of hours, this “news” magazine published two pieces on Trump’s supposed gaffe.
Young leftist twit David Graham published a piece titled “Trump’s Peculiar Understanding of the Civil War” in which he made a number of “peculiar” claims himself.
Graham suggested that: 1) “nullification” is unconstitutional because the federal courts say so. 2) “The Civil War [sic] was fought over slavery, and the insistence of Southern states that they be allowed to keep it.” 3) The Civil War [sic] wasn’t tragic because the “great thinker” Ta-Nehisi Coates said so in 2011. 4) War was inevitable because of the “Confederate states’ commitment to slavery.” 5) If Trump had read great history like Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Lincoln biography Team of Rivals, he would have a different position on the War—this position is hysterical.
Graham also dusted off the “Dunning school” pejorative in order to show his supposed intellectual superiority to the sitting president. After all, Graham insisted that Trump can’t be blamed for being such a dunderhead because even though he attended great schools, “Many Americans are still taught, incorrectly, that the war was essentially a conflict over state’s rights, with abolition as a byproduct of the war. This revisionist view flourished after the war, and though gradually being displaced, is common across the country.”
This is the revisionist calling traditional history revisionism.
The Atlantic followed up just over an hour later with a piece by Yoni Applebaum titled “Why There Was a Civil War.” The revisionist hits just kept coming.
Applebaum didn’t berate Trump for suggesting that historians don’t ask if the Civil War [sic] could have been avoided—he proved that this has been done for years by going through about a century of American historiography on the issue—but for claiming that the War could have been avoided and by “the omission of a critical word: slavery.” To Applebaum, the question of the War begins and ends with slavery and nothing but slavery. He provided one quote from Lincoln to prove his point and as most shallow Lincoln apologists do today, several quotes from the Southern States’ declaration of causes that seem to prove unequivocally that slavery and only slavery led to the War.
He concluded his article with a strange application of moral causation to the War, a moral causation that the vast majority of Americans missed in both 1860 and 1861 when the question of war or peace was still on the table. “There are some conflicts,” he wrote, “that a leader cannot suppress, no matter how strong he may be; some deals that should not be struck, no matter how alluring they may seem. This was the great moral truth on which the Republican Party was founded.”
If only it were that simple. And if only Lincoln was the great leader that both Graham and Applebaum believe him to be.
It seems both Graham and Applebaum fell asleep in class or at the very least have swallowed the Lincoln myth so thoroughly that no evidence to the contrary could persuade them of their folly or their revisionism.
Certainly, Trump is no scholar and his reverence for Jackson is troubling, for it was Jackson who provided the blueprint for Lincoln’s heavy handed tactics toward the South in 1861. To suggest that he would have worked out a compromise is a stretch, though he did support the deal Henry Clay brokered with South Carolina in 1832, a deal that resulted in the people of South Carolina nullifying the Force Bill and then heading home.
That is often lost in the story. Nullification worked and contrary to what Graham suggested, the federal court system has never had the final say on the constitutionality of nullification. That was always the point. States don’t ask permission from the federal courts to nullify unconstitutional legislation, and as every proponent of the Constitution swore in 1787 and 1788, including Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, laws contrary to the Constitution would be void. Jefferson and Madison made it clear the States could void them.
The real problem with both pieces in The Atlantic, however, is the insistence that the War was inevitable and some moral conflict over slavery caused the shooting.
Applebaum understood that the entire fabric of early American history was built on compromise, but Graham seemed to miss that.
Based on the history of the United States, there was never an “irrepressible conflict” until the North decided to fabricate one.
The South, in fact, was willing to compromise in 1860 and 1861, as it had been for the eighty years prior. Jefferson Davis insisted that any compromise placed before the special Committee of 13 established to handle the crisis needed the support of both Republican and Democratic members. He could get the Democrats to support several. But the Republicans, at the insistence of president-elect Lincoln, said no to every single one. Is that the work of a leader?
That led six other Southern States out of the Union in early 1861. Lincoln could still have saved the Union through compromise at this juncture, but chose not to do so. As Senator James Bayard of Delaware stated in 1861, the Union still existed even with seven States missing. The government, banking houses, and infrastructure remained. It seems that the “Confederate States insistence on slavery” had nothing to do with War. War and secession are separate issues. Secession didn’t mean war was inevitable. Most Americans hoped otherwise, even in the South where President Davis insisted that the South simply wanted to be left alone. To think the opposite is to assume the posture of the British in 1776. That is un-American.
There were still six other slave States in the Union as late as April 1861, over a month after Lincoln took office, six slave States that had already rejected secession. Lincoln was not worried about slavery at this point. He supported a proposed thirteenth amendment which would have protected slavery indefinitely in the States where it already existed. He promised never to interfere with the institution in the South. Lincoln’s objective in March 1861 was to “preserve the Union” at all costs, and by “preserving the Union” Lincoln meant preserving the Republican Party and his fledgling administration. Letting the South go would have certainly made him a one term president. He received less than forty percent of the popular vote in 1860.
Applebaum is correct that letting the South go would have ensured the existence of slavery both within the Union and out for the near future (every other power abolished slavery by 1880), but this was not a moral question for most Americans. Lincoln received thunderous applause across the North in 1860 when he made promises to leave the institution alone. Racism was an American institution and Lincoln never challenged the prevailing attitudes on blacks. He embraced them. The Republican Party didn’t dabble in “moral truths.” Their objective was always political. Bottle the South up, ensure that the Whig economic agenda could be ascendant, and control the spoils.
This still doesn’t take away from the tragedy of the War. Contrary to what the “great scholar” Coates had to say—and he has as much claim to being a great scholar as David Barton, which isn’t much—the loss of one million men, the best blood in America, to a war for Union as Lincoln insisted was unnecessary at best and diabolical at worst. The elimination of slavery was for much of the war an afterthought. Lincoln considered it nothing more than a war measure to “best subdue the enemy.”
The simple fact is that Lincoln wanted war. He had the chance to save the Union without war before he took office. He had the chance to save the Union without war in March 1861. He rejected attempts to peacefully purchase federal property and began polling his cabinet about provisioning Sumter less than a week after taking office knowing full well it would cause war. As he later told a political ally, his decision to provision Fort Sumter had the desired outcome, meaning armed conflict. Nothing can sugarcoat Lincoln’s headlong rush into the bloodiest war in American history.
Trump may have been on to something here. Better leadership could have avoided the carnage. But saying that is now considered sacrilege. How closed minded of the “liberal” historical profession and establishment gatekeepers of acceptable truth.
But who cares. No one really reads The Atlantic anymore, anyway.
The Best of Brion McClanahan

FacebookTwitter

Brion McClanahan [send him mail] holds a Ph.D. in American history from the University of South Carolina and is a faculty member at Tom Woods’s Liberty Classroom. He is the author or co-author of six books, most recently 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America and Four Who Tried to Save Her (Regnery History, 2016). Find him at http://www.brionmcclanahan.com.

Previous article by Brion McClanahan: The Latest 18th Century Fake News

May 2, 2017

Angry Reader 1 May 17, Victor Hanson [c]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 2:22 pm

Angry Reader
May 1, 2017 5:14 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
From an Angry Reader:

Mr. Hanson,

Did you volunteer or were you drafted (like so many of us) to fight in Vietnam? Did you know “we” lost that war to those so called “commies” and now those “commies” make Trump brand shirts and ties?

Also, are you willing to pay for increased US military involvement throughout the world with more tax cuts as the US did in the never ending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Cutting spending for meals on wheels, planned parenthood, health insurance benefits for Americans, clean air and water, might not be enough to pay for all your munitions or even meet payroll for a lowly paid non drafted military. At least US tax dollars paid for our napalm in Vietnam. What are you willing to sacrifice in Syria, Iran, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. etc. etc. to “make America great again?” Perhaps your own life or limbs again?

Perhaps reading a little more George Santayana might help balance your thirst for blood. And perhaps a “proportionate” bombing of an air base before warning Russia and Assad before time might actually be actually a bit more equal in “proportions” to scare your enemies. And as a veteran and historian try to remember how many bombs, and napalm, and bullets, and killings of the enemy and our own troops it took in that classic military loss. Revenge may be sweet but it doesn’t always go as planned, even for those willing to pay for the effort with massive tax cuts. As a historian, that is one thing you should know by now.

Happy Easter.

Sincerely,

Jimmy Gorman

Chicago Tribune Subscriber

Victor Davis Hanson’s Reply:

Dear Angry Reader Jimmy Gorman,

I registered for the draft the day that I was eligible, and received a lottery number in 1972 at a time when the draft then shortly ended and less than 25,000 Americans were left in Vietnam at year’s end—and when U.S. combat operations on the ground were largely over in Vietnam.

Do you eat food? If so, would you be competent and morally qualified to comment on food policy, given the likelihood that you have never farmed or shared the life of a farmer, and have no first-hand experience with tractor work, peach pruning, or fertilization—or the work of others that brings your food to your table? I also did not live in ancient Greece and therefore should not write about the Peloponnesian War? I cannot adjudicate the success or failure of a past ruptured appendix operation because I am not a surgeon?

We did not lose to North Vietnam, but achieved a settlement that was set up by a peace agreement between the two countries in 1973. The aftermath of Watergate and the serial cut-offs of all U.S. military aid to the South Vietnamese government encouraged North Vietnam to resume the war, and it did so successfully—sort of as if Eisenhower had cut all U.S. aid to South Korea in the election year 1956 and withdrawn U.S. peacekeepers. Do you think South Korea would exist today?

Vietnam is opening its economy, but otherwise it is a Stalinist country; the millions who were jailed, executed, or fled as boat people might not share your rosy scenarios or jest. I opposed the bombing in Libya. I suggested that Obama was foolish to have set a redline in Syria that he never intended to honor and would empower the Assad government to kill even more innocents. I criticized judge/jury/executioner drone assassination missions (which Obama joked about at a White House Correspondence Dinner). Do you read or just rant?

You must know, of course, that current defense spending is near historic postwar lows as a percentage of the budget, and that entitlements and social spending are at record highs. Go back and check the ratios between social expenditures as a percentage of the federal budget versus defense spending in 1950 and then compare those ratios to today’s figures. And you must know that Obama doubled the debt in the largest spending spree in U.S. history, despite raising taxes and earning record revenues. Yet he never achieved 3% economic growth unlike both Bush and Clinton. Do you think those massive outlays since 2009 made the U.S. safer, the inner-city more tranquil, or the “blue wall” rust-belt states more prosperous?

Have you really read George Santayana other than to pull out his tired, one-trick pony quote on learning from history? I suggest you try reading his collected lectures on aesthetics published as The Sense of Beauty and then once you get through them, write how inspired you were about its argument and aims. (Incidentally, the widely quoted “only the dead have seen the end of war,” which is usually and wrongly attributed to Thucydides, was Santayana’s Soliloquies in England).

I was waiting for the leftist ad hominem attack and of course it appeared with the slur “thirst for blood.”

Deterrence keeps the peace; appeasement starts wars and gets people killed. I have written repeatedly that war never goes as anticipated, that it is often more costly than expected, and that those who urge it often bail when it becomes controversial. Had “war monger” Winston Churchill been prime minister in 1936 instead of the appeaser Stanley Baldwin there was a far greater chance that millions would not have subsequently perished as victims of the Third Reich.

The usefulness of military history is in trying to keep the current peace (unless you think oncologists like tumors or seismologists enjoy earthquakes), and in remembering that the tragic lessons from the past are predictable: military readiness in a consensual society deters aggressors and keeps the calm; disarmament or appeasement encourages belligerents to try something stupid.

As a self-described historian of some sort, that is one thing you should know by now.

Happy Post-Easter.

Sincerely,

Vic Hanson

Chicago Tribune syndicated columnist

[As a Viet Nam vet & former Marine, it is interesting to note that N. Vietnamese Gen. Giap, the man who ran the war for Hanoi, wrote a book explaining how and why they won. In it, he explains how everything was lost for the North, until the Democrat Congress bailed them out. The US Military and RVN Military had won the war, and US politicians lost it. That is what Gen. Giap says!]

April 27, 2017

The Deification of Lincoln, by Lew Rockwell, [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 8:43 pm

LewRockwell.com
ANTI-STATE•ANTI-WAR•PRO-MARKET

Archives
Authors
Blog
Books & Resources
Political Theatre
Podcasts
Store
About
Contact
Donate
Advertise

The Deification of Lincoln
(and of the American State)

By Thomas DiLorenzo

April 27, 2017
Email Print
Facebook
Twitter
Share

“The violence of the criticism aimed at Lincoln by the great men of his time on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line is startling. The breadth and depth of the spectacular prejudice against him is often shocking for its cruelty, intensity, and unrelenting vigor. The plain truth is that Mr. Lincoln was deeply reviled by many who knew him personally, and by hundreds of thousands who only knew of him.”

–Larry Tagg, The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: America’s Most Reviled President

In his book, The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln, historian Larry Tagg, a native of Lincoln, Illinois, constructs a powerful case that Abraham Lincoln was by far the most hated and reviled of all American presidents, North and South, during his lifetime. For example, in May of 1864 the New York Times labeled Lincoln “a perjurer, a usurper, a tyrant, a subverter of the Constitution, a destroyer of the liberties of this country, a reckless desperado, a heartless trifler . . . there is no circle in Dante’s Inferno full enough of torment to expiate his iniquities.”

Current Prices on popular forms of Gold Bullion

The Lacrosse, Wisconsin Democrat newspaper warned in November of 1864 that should Lincoln be reelected, “we hope that a bold hand will be found to plunge the dagger into the tyrant’s heart . . .” Such views were commonplace in the North.

This all changed after Lincoln’s death, as the Republican Party recruited (and probably paid quite handsomely) the New England clergy to capitalize on the assassination for political propaganda purposes. Professor Tagg explains this in a chapter entitled “The Sudden Saint.” After viciously vilifying him for four years as an infidel, and worse, “pastors across America rewrote their Easter sermons” after Lincoln’s death on Good Friday, “to include a new, exalted view of Lincoln as an American Moses, a leader out of slavery, a national savior who was not allowed to cross over into the Promised Land.” The Republican Party, with the help of a highly-politicized clergy, saw that “all their political enemies would fall before the sword that Lincoln’s death had put into their hands” in the post-war world. THE UNPOPULAR MR. LINC… Larry Tagg Best Price: $50.24

Such were the origins of the Lincoln Myth, a much bigger rewriting of history than anything the Soviets or any other totalitarian regime ever attempted, for it has been going on now for more than 150 years. An important part of this story is told in a 1943 book that I recently discovered entitled The Deification of Lincoln by Ira D. Cardiff. It is for sale on Amazon.com, and is also online. It was recently reprinted by the Christopher Publishing House of Boston and is dedicated to “those lovers of truth who are unafraid of special interests, public opinion or popular superstitions.”

The book starts out stating that, by 1943 most Americans were already “not at all interested in the truth about Lincoln” thanks to nearly eighty years of lies, myths, and superstitions about him in thousands of books. “They are not interested, in other words, in the real Lincoln,” wrote Cardiff. “They desire a supernatural Lincoln, a Lincoln with none of the faults or frailties of the common man, a Lincoln who is a savior, leading us to democracy and liberty – though most of said readers are not interested in democracy or liberty . . .” Moreover, “a biography of Lincoln which told the truth about him would probably have great difficulty in finding a publisher.” That was nearly seventy-five years ago.

Nearly three quarters of a century before Larry Tagg’s book was published, Ira Cardiff wrote of the widespread hatred and revulsion of Lincoln by Northerners, especially the Northern clergy, and how that all changed after his death for purely political reasons, based on an ever-growing mountain of lies. Cardiff focuses on perhaps the biggest lie told by the hyper-political New England clergy, the zealots who instigated the war in the name of eradicating America – and then the world – of sin in order to create a Kingdom of God on Earth that would pave the way for the Second Coming of Christ. That is what motivated the “abolitionist” movement much more than concern for the slaves. (See Murray Rothbard’s essay, “Just War”). The Deification of Lin… Ira D. Cardiff Best Price: $15.57 Buy New $9.57

All of a sudden, the atheist Abraham Lincoln was portrayed by the lying New England clergy, in cahoots with the Republican Party, as the holiest and most saintly man in America, if not on the entire planet. His father, who he hated so much that he did not attend his funeral, suddenly was said to have possessed “sterling mental and moral qualities.” Lincoln the atheist was said to have spent most of his time on his knees in prayer in the White House. “His mother became second only to the Virgin Mary in her chastity.”

“Thousands of sermons were preached to prove him devoutly religious . . “ There was of course never any evidence or proof of any of this. In fact, there is voluminous evidence that exactly the opposite was true, as Cardiff explains in great detail. The first biographies of Lincoln, of which there are now over ten thousand, were filled with statements like “He [Lincoln] believed in his inmost soul that he was an instrument in the hands of God for the accomplishment of a great purpose.” It is of course absurd to assert that you know what is in a man’s “innermost soul.” Yours truly has found that contemporary Lincoln biographies are polluted with similarly silly statements about what was supposedly in Lincoln’s heart, his soul, his mind, etc. Bill O’Reilly’s Killing Lincoln is especially ridiculous in this regard. There are statements on nearly every page about what was “in his mind” or “in his heart.”

Another hallmark of contemporary Lincoln “scholarship” is the repetition of statements just like this one from one of the very first Lincoln biographies: “He was in the White House as God’s instrument.” The assumption here is that the biographer knows what is in the mind of God. Such nonsense set the template for almost all future Lincoln biographies, with very few exceptions.

Cardiff devoted much of his book citing primary sources describing how atheistic and anti-religious the “saintly” Lincoln really was. For example, “previous to his nomination for the presidency, he was roundly condemned by the clergy as an infidel, while after his martyrdom, the same clerics were loud in the claim of his piety (emphasis added).” Larry Tagg says the exact same thing. Killing Lincoln: The S… Bill O’Reilly, Martin … Best Price: $0.82 Buy New $6.97

When Lincoln was a candidate for president, Cardiff points out, only three of the twenty-three ministers in Springfield, Illinois supported him. Moreover, early biographers who actually knew Lincoln had a very different take on his views on religion than writers who never had any personal contact with him, or anyone else who did. Colonel Ward Lamon, a close friend and confidant of Lincoln’s, wrote a biography in which he called Lincoln “an infidel.” His personal White House secretary, John G. Nicolay, wrote that “Mr. Lincoln did not, to my knowledge, in any way, change his religious ideas, opinions of beliefs from the time he left Springfield till the day of his death.” Those “religious ideas” were the ideas of a non-believer. Nicolay made this comment to counter the absurd lie pedaled by the Republican Party, the New England clergy, and court historians after the war that Lincoln experienced some kind of religious conversion late in life. This lie is still repeated to this day in myriad Lincoln biographies.

Judge David Davis, who managed Lincoln’s presidential campaign and who was subsequently appointed to the Supreme Court, wrote that Lincoln “had no faith, in the Christian sense of the term . . .” Lincoln’s wife, Mary Todd, said that “Mr. Lincoln had no hope, and no faith, in the usual acceptation of those words.”

All of this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to The Lincoln Myth, as I discuss in The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked. Mountains of lies, myths and superstitions envelope almost every fact of Lincoln’s life, thanks to generations of “Lincoln scholars.” To be a card-carrying “Lincoln scholar” one must demonstrate the ability to come up with at least a half dozen excuses or rationales for every tyrannical or immoral act or words of Lincoln’s. His lifelong racist, white-supremacist speeches were not his sincere beliefs but a ploy to win over white racist voters, we are told. He objected “to making voters or jurors of Negroes,” he said in a Lincoln-Douglas debate, so that Negroes could eventually become voters and jurors, Harry Jaffa informed us in his last book on “Father Abraham.” He proposed the The Real Lincoln: A Ne… Thomas DiLorenzo Best Price: $2.91 Buy New $7.62 enshrinement of slavery explicitly into the Constitution with the Corwin Amendment, Doris Kearns-Goodwin informs us, to “save the Republican Party” so that it could, someday, maybe in fifty years, end slavery. When he advocated the deportation or “colonization” of black people, “this is how honest people lie,” Gabor Boritt tells us. And on and on. As Cardiff wrote: “The unfortunate and defenseless public . . . is almost powerless to protect itself from Lincoln hysteria. If it attempts to get the truth about Lincoln, it is confronted with a mountain of fable and froth, foolishness and fancy . . . . Of the thousands of books published on Lincoln [as of 1943], one can almost count on his fingers those of any value as critical, scientific productions.”

Cardiff believed that the U.S. could have ended slavery peacefully, as all the rest of the world did in the nineteenth century (including the British, French, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, Spaniards, the northern states in the U.S.). That would have taken a real statesman, however, and not a small-time Illinois railroad lobbyist who once stated his life’s aspiration as being the political party boss of Illinois. Without the war, wrote Cardiff:

“[T]here would have been saved several million valuable lives and several billions of money . . . . But the secondary effects [of the war] were even more disastrous . . . . the enmity and sectional hatred which arose, the political oligarchy of ex soldiers with their disgusting pension raids upon the public treasury and a monopoly by them of political offices, a false and distorted idea of patriotism, the retardation to the material development of the South, the racial hatred between southern whites and blacks greatly exaggerated . . .”

To all of this “is now added the debasing moral effect of presenting to the innocent youth of the land the account of a prominent national character of this period in an utterly false light.” Even worse, as Clyde Wilson once remarked, is the fact that the deification of Lincoln led to the deification of the presidency in general, and then eventually to the entire government.

Robert Penn Warren wrote about this phenomenon in his book, The Legacy of the Civil War, in which he explains how the Lincoln myth – The Legacy of the Civi… Robert Penn Warren Best Price: $3.48 Buy New $9.64 and myriad other myths about the war in general – were used by the Republican Party to create The Mother of All Political Myths – that thanks to Lincoln, the U.S. government had acquired a “treasury of virtue.” This meant that anything the government did from then on – genocide against the Plains Indians, murdering hundreds of thousands of Filipinos, the imperialistic Spanish-American War, entering World War I, dropping atomic bombs on Japan, etc., was virtuous, by definition, because it was the U.S. government that was doing it.

The founding fathers never argued that Americans were so morally exceptional that they therefore had a right to become the bullies of the world and attempt to remake the entire planet in their image. That is the Lincoln legacy. Actually, the idea emanates from the New England “yankees” and their Mid-Western compatriots like Lincoln. See Clyde Wilson’s “The Yankee Problem in America.” Lincoln’s own political rhetoric, which has been faithfully repeated by generations of court historians, is what the late Professor Mel Bradford called “the rhetoric of continuing revolution.” Others call it the rhetoric of “American exceptionalism.”

April 22, 2017

A Maxine from Kay

Filed under: Humor, Illegal Aliens, Military — justplainbill @ 7:52 pm

All We Loyal American’s Say Amen!

Maxine’s Best one yet!!!

41F0116681034DBB8DF152364FC6CC2D.gifOne

of Maxine ‘s very best!!

B97B31A1ABE6436DB0D3DF7FC9771EB5.jpg

We need
to show more sympathy
for these people.

*
They travel miles in the
heat.

*
They risk their lives crossing a
border.

*
They don’t get paid enough
wages.

*
They do jobs that others won’t do
or are afraid to do

*
They live in crowded

conditions
among a people who
speak a different
language.

*

They rarely see their families,

and they face adversity all day ~

every day.

*

I’m not
talking about illegal Mexicans
~
I’m talking
about our troops!

Doesn’t it seem strange that so

many are willing to lavish all kinds

of social benefits on illegals,
but don’t support our troops?
Wouldn’t it be great if we took

the $360,000,000,000 (that’s billion)

we spend on illegals every
year, and spent it on our troops!!!

Please pass this on;

this is worth the
short time it takes!

5354B5C9C28344A4BA580281AD643AE5.gif

A veteran is someone who,

at one point in their life,
wrote a blank check

made payable to

The United States of America for any amount, up to
and including their life.

And gave me the right to send this to anyone that I want to!!

cid:X.MA5.1488241332@aol.com

April 7, 2017

The Latest Skullduggery: Too Much Even for the Gods, Victor Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 2:27 pm

The Latest Skullduggery: Too Much Even for the Gods
April 7, 2017 6:26 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson

The Corner: The one and only.

By Victor Davis Hanson// National Review

The latest disclosures that former Obama national-security adviser Susan Rice may have requested that intelligence agencies reveal or “unmask” those from the Trump team who were surveilled in purportedly normal intelligence gathering — and that such requests may have extended over an apparently considerable period of time — remind us that at some point there is always an accounting.

Rice’s past serial and shameless untruths about the tragic deaths at Benghazi (a 2012 Obama re-election “al-Qaeda on the run” narrative, with a supposedly spontaneous riot over a YouTube video as the cause of the attack) were contextualized by the media and eventually vaporized. Her sad “honor and distinction” narrative about the Bowe Bergdahl betrayal of his comrades — the infamous purported “prisoner of war” “captured on the battlefield” fabrication — was intended to mask what was otherwise a dishonest and terrible hostage swap for someone who had endangered the lives of his fellow soldiers. Recently, she has denied all knowledge of what House Intelligence chairman Devin Nunes had been fighting to uncover, and has even tweeted periodically to criticize the purported ethical lapses and unprofessionalism of the Trump administration.

All that is a lot for even the gods to grind. If, as likely, she had access to, or requested, such raw data, and sent it, with names illegally unmasked, to primary players of the Obama administration (e.g., Clapper, Brennan, Rhodes, etc.), that fact would blow up some heretofore denials of any knowledge of such skullduggery and perhaps become the greatest presidential scandal of the last half century.

The Rice revelation might also put into the proper landscape the following: a) the astounding self-confessionals of Hillary adviser Evelyn Farkas about her frantic efforts to convince Obama operatives to increase intelligence gathering and to leak the information to the press (what gave a former mid-level Department of Defense employee the presumption that she could influence the intelligence operations of the U.S. government?), b) the unprecedented eleventh-hour Obama effort to broaden access to classified data to spread and leak such unmasked individuals, c) the political and media landmines that Representative Nunes (facing “kill the messenger” efforts to kill the message) had to navigate around and the character assassination to which he has been subjected, d) why the Russian-collusion narrative, denied by intelligence chiefs, has become the necessary distraction — first, to steer attention away from the improper leaking and surveillance, and, second, to be used to offer pseudo-moral equivalence to stop further investigation: as if Russian collusion is the bookend to unmasking Trump; as if Nunes is the mirror-image of Representative Adam Schiff, to achieve an impasse of “so let’s just call it even and quit the entire mess and ‘move on.’” e) the relative silence of former president and “constitutional law professor” Barack Obama.

What will be most interesting will be two corollary inquiries: 1) We need to know when, why, and how the White House put such unmasked data illegally into the hands of the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, etc. perhaps initially to smear the Trump campaign (will the same reporters who ran with the “Trump frolicking in Moscow” collusion narratives now reboot and run with the true story?), and later the Trump transition and presidency; and 2) were these unmasked individuals really incidentally picked up data from surveilled foreigners — or, in fact, were they the primary targets of monitoring all along, with supposedly preplanned surveillance of foreign operators acting as cover?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/446417/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-associates-allegations

April 6, 2017

Journey to the Center of the Country, Victor Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 1:24 pm

Journey to the Center of the Country
April 5, 2017 3:00 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
By Victor Davis Hanson// National Review

Trump seems radical only to the radicals who aim to take America far, far left.

There have been roughly two sorts of Democratic presidents over the last century. A few were revolutionaries who sought to take the country leftward with them. They were masters of “never letting a serious crisis go to waste” transformations and came to power after the chaos of national crises and near collapse.

Franklin Roosevelt created the modern notion of intrusive, redistributive government during the panic of the Depression. Lyndon Johnson, following the trauma of the John F. Kennedy assassination, pushed through the Great Society, which institutionalized the idea that it was the duty of government to use its power and money to seek an equality of result among the citizenry.

Barack Obama, following the economic crisis of 2008, sought to implant “lead from behind” foreign policy and an update of the Great Society, and to “fundamentally transform” the country, usually by focusing on identity politics as the core of the culture (in which the color of our skin rather than the content of our character would brand us for who we are).

In contrast, Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton acted more as caretakers. They more or less administered what they had inherited but lacked the ideological fervor (or perhaps the political savvy or desire) to take the state further leftward.

The immediate Republican antidotes to Democratic revolutionaries were rarely themselves counter-revolutionaries. Dwight Eisenhower modestly tried to pull the country back to the center after 20 years of the New Deal — but nonetheless was hounded unmercifully for trying to do so. The supposedly dark and evil Richard Nixon instituted wage and price controls, created the EPA, and went to China. He did not dismantle the Great Society.

A true conservative revolutionary has been rare — Goldwater failed to get elected, and Reagan, without both houses of Congress, ended up more moderate than he expected and was followed in office by a Republican centrist.

Nonetheless, the media and the Left, in their respective arenas, howled that these modest corrections back to the center by Eisenhower, Nixon, and now Trump were nihilistic and extreme.

True to form, we are now hearing those same end-of-days accusations — even as Trump seeks to bring the U.S. back to about where it was between 1980 and 1992. Note that this endless cycle of change and counter-change is not a static phenomenon but incrementally (and over time radically) takes government and the culture ever more leftward.

So far, Trump has adopted the old Bill Clinton approach to illegal immigration, a formerly centrist but now strangely unorthodox position: He favors law enforcement rather than politically inspired amnesties calibrated to give him electoral and demographic political advantage.

His appeals to the white working classes are right out of the Clinton-Gore appeals in 1992, and they’re a rehash of Reagan’s courting of Democrats.

Hillary Clinton pandered more to working-class whites in 2008 than Trump did in 2016. The latter never said something akin to Hillary’s overt boasts about her white support in the 2008 primaries. “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she told USA Today, adding that an AP story “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in [Indiana and North Carolina] who had not completed college were supporting me.”

Trump seeks to finish the border wall that was authorized and started by others. And he is called nativist, racist, and worse, largely because between 2009 and 2016 what was extreme was presented not just as the new normal but as the new foundation of something even more radical to come. Trump’s proposed modest cuts in discretionary spending — less than 2 percent of a quarter of the budget — will hardly affect the deficit or the $20 trillion national debt. Nonetheless, Democrats will condemn him as a modern-day Scrooge.

On energy, Trump again is simply trying to finish the Keystone and Dakota pipelines that were authorized by others. His approach to coal is standard 1990s boilerplate Democratic politics. Sarah Palin’s 2008 mantra of “drill, baby, drill” was smugly written off by then-candidate Obama as Neanderthalism. In fact, she not only proved prescient; she also outlined the eventual energy protocols that saved the Obama presidency. When all of Obama’s efforts failed to achieve 3 percent economic growth, what he opposed — fracking and horizontal drilling — prevented a weak economy from completely tanking.

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is mild-mannered and superbly qualified, and by design he avoids polarization. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor had far greater records of unapologetic political activism.

Trump’s vision of the EPA, of regulations in general, and of taxes take us back to what was also normal in the George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton eras. They seem revolutionary — again only because Obama used executive-branch regulations along with the courts as a means to implement radical agendas that otherwise lacked both public and congressional support.

If Trump’s tax reform is successful, the top brackets won’t be that much different from what they were under George W. Bush.

The furor over Trump’s efforts to reform Obamacare (rather than repeal it and start over) largely grew out of the assumption formed over the last eight years that it was the duty of the federal government to demand that everyone have one standard brand of health insurance, regardless of individual circumstance and preferences. If Trump ever reforms health care, it will probably be a return to the old system prior to Obama, with some state subsidies for the indigent to buy their own private health-care plans and with a few protections about preexisting conditions and young adults being able to stay on their parents’ plans until age 26. These are radical ideas only to radicals who had envisioned Obamacare as the final step to a one-payer system like Britain’s National Health Service.

So far, the Left has not said much about Trump’s foreign policy, to the extent its shape can be discerned in the administration’s first 100 days. But again, what is emerging is something that is neither neoconservative nation-building nor “lead from behind” Obama-era recessionals.

Practically, it looks to be an unleashing of the restrictions on American power against ISIS, but no intention of occupying and rebuilding Syria; a Jacksonian determination to deter Iran and North Korea, but no desire to implement regime change by force in either country; and a return to the status quo of old friends and enemies after the Obama-era recalibration of American interests (Israel and the Gulf States are once again friends, Iran most certainly is not). Putin is Putin — to be quietly deterred rather than loudly, gratuitously romanced or alienated. He is neither worthy of attempting another reset along the lines of Obama’s open-mic promises of “flexibility,” nor is he the existential demon who robbed them of a third term of the Obama presidency, as the Democrats have suddenly decided.

Trump’s foreign-policy team has few hard-core politicos like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, or Ben Rhodes.

James Mattis, Rex Tillerson, and H. R. McMaster may or may not have voted for Trump; they are Jacksonians, certainly not international utopians, ideologues, and globalists. They have never been elected to anything. Mostly, the trio wishes to protect American interests abroad, and they agree that U.S. interests come first. In other words, in them, we have something in between George Marshall and John Foster Dulles at the helm, rather than Cyrus Vance and John Kerry.

If Trump so far has tried to push the country back to the center after the last eight years of Obama’s efforts to “fundamentally transform” the country, why the hysteria?

Three obvious reasons come to mind.

1) Some in the media and the liberal community are mimicking Trump’s own “Art of the Deal” methodology. They know that Trump’s agenda so far is pretty much centrist by their own standards, but they believe that by exaggerating and demonizing it as nearly a John Bircher project, Trump will back off — and therefore end up to the left-center rather than in the center or right of center. If Trump is smeared now as 90 percent demonic, they can later negotiate downward for a 55 percent demonic president and consider it a smashing victory.

2) Other hysterical leftists are still furious, as much at themselves as at Trump. In the 2016 election, they had everything imaginable going for them: the Clinton brand name, the country’s Big Money from Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood, Republican civil war and Never Trump insurrections, a captive and toady media, an abandonment of Trump by conservative megaphones, veritable collusion between the press and the Obama campaign, popular culture, the foreign press, and the European bureaucracy — and they blew it.

To admit that they imploded because Hillary Clinton was a shrill and unimaginative candidate, that the campaign was both horribly and arrogantly run, and that the proverbial “people’s party” was not seen as populist by millions of Americans in the key swing states is still impossible. In contrast, Trump as the beneficiary of Russian collusion and as a veritable Hitlerian Gruppenführer offers leftists the psychological atonement they require to recover from their self-inflicted disasters.

3) Finally, Trump the person, not the particulars of his agenda, drives the Left crazy. It is not just that he can be crude, blunt, and uncouth, but that by doing so he delights the half of the country that is sickened by supposedly elegant political correctness.

If Trump’s political agendas so far are correctives of Obama radicalism, his cultural and rhetorical agendas — Americans first, nationalism in lieu of globalization, economic and military rather than soft power, confident American ascendance rather than slow and comfortable adjustment to decline, the melting pot over the salad bowl — represent to the Democrats heretical apostasies from the entire politically correct national faith.

We know from the history of American politics that zealots more often are provoked by words than deeds, and react more to symbols than to statistics.

What to expect in this new civil war?

Trumpism, to the extent it can be defined, will be deemed successful and even iconic if it achieves a GDP growth of 3 percent or above.

If not, then expect the present hysteria over the journey back to the center to grow.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446384/trump-centrist-moderate-course-correction-after-obama-era-radicalism

March 30, 2017

Angry Reader 29 Mar 17, Victor Hanson [great response/ nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 2:48 pm

03/29/17
From an Angry Reader:

Do you mean educated people who worked hard to better themselves? Let’s all just stay in the old steel mill towns and coal mining towns gripping about how unfair the world is to us. You know, the good old days when blacks knew their place and we didn’t have no Mexicans around. You are right I guess they were ready for a Trump and the left was unprepared but it does not make them correct. Carol Hoyt, Big Lake Ak. And Las Vegas Nv.
Victor Davis Hanson’s Reply:

Dear Angry Reader Carol Hoyt,

How you managed to cram such a stream of confusion into just four sentences is in a way impressive.

Sentence one: I did not conflate elites with educated people, but rather with a subset of urban, powerful people in politics, academia, the media, and entertainment who exercise influence and power without any discernible display of competence. These are not neurosurgeons or engineers but the architects of $20 trillion in debt, stereotyped and dull Hollywood movies, and inaccurate and undependable news accounts of the Dan Rather/Brian Williams sort.

Sentence two: Those who voted for Trump were not just people “in the old steel mill towns and coal mining towns” but half the country that felt the progressive project under Obama had bankrupted the treasury, left the world in a terrible state abroad, divided the nation along racial lines, and stalled the economy (first in over 80 years not to achieve 3% economic growth) in a way not seen since the Hoover administration. Incidentally, I’ve been to Appalachia and steel mill towns and discovered that those who have been the losers of globalization complain a lot less about their tragedies than do the winners of globalization their psychodramas and neuroses.

Sentence three: On no evidence you equate the working classes with racism. Is the sarcastic “we didn’t have no Mexicans around” an attempt to mimic what you think is the patois of the poor white working classes? You are no more effective in envisioning how the supposed poor speak than was an equally condescending Hillary Clinton in all her myriad fake accents and mannerisms.

Sentence four: My column was a political observation of why Trump, against all odds and predictions, won, and why such a victory might have been anticipated had anyone turned off pundits and ignored conventional wisdom.

Whether “they” are correct (I take it you mean the white working classes who abandoned the Democratic Party for Trump), depends entirely on Trump, not what I or you say. If he achieves 3% economic growth, reforms the tax code and regulations, address the ACA, ups the labor non-participation rate, then, yes, his supporters were “correct”; if he doesn’t do any of that, then they were either misled or asked the impossible. We shall soon find out.

Victor Hanson, Huntington Lake, Ca. And Stanford, Ca.

March 29, 2017

The Civic Cost of Illegal Immigration, by Victor D. Hanson [nc]

The Civic Cost Of Illegal Immigration
by Victor Davis Hanson
via Defining Ideas (Hoover Institution)
Tuesday, March 28, 2017

The arguments for ignoring illegal immigration are as well-known as the self-interested motives that drive it.

In the abstract, open-borders advocates argue that in a globalized culture, borders are becoming reactionary and artificial constructs. They should not interrupt more natural ebbs and flows of migrant populations.

More concretely, an array of vested interests sees advantage in dismantling the border: employers in hospitality, construction, food processing, and agriculture prefer hard-working low-wage immigrants, whose social needs are often subsidized by the government and who are reluctant to organize for higher wages.

The Democratic Party welcomes in impoverished immigrants from Latin America and Mexico. It hopes to provide generous social welfare assistance and thereby shepherd new arrivals and their offspring into the salad bowl of victimization and identity politics—and thereby change the electoral map of key states from red to blue.

La Raza activists see unchecked illegal immigration as useful in maintaining a large pool of unassimilated and poor foreign nationals who look to group leaders, thereby ensuring the continuance of what has become an industry of ethnic activism and careerism.

Mexico—which is now offering advice to illegal immigrants on how best to avoid U.S. federal immigration authorities—has the most to gain by porous borders. It envisions the United States as a relief valve destination to export its own poor and desperate rather than to have them agitate and demand costly social services from Mexico City.

Mexico enjoys some $25 billion in annual remittances, predicated on the unspoken assumption that its poor and hard-working expatriates can only afford to send such vast sums out of the United States through the magnanimity of the American social welfare system that helps subsidize families to free up hard-earned cash. Mexico has learned that its own expatriates are loyal proponents who romanticize Mexico—the farther away and longer they are absent from it.

Yet lost in this conundrum are the pernicious effects of illegal immigration on the idea of citizenship in a consensual society. In the Western constitutional tradition, citizenship was based upon shared assumptions that were often codified in foundational constitutional documents.

The first pillar of citizenship is the idea that the nation-state has the sole right to create and control its own borders. The duty of all Western constitutions, dating back to those of the Greek city-states, was to protect their own citizens within clearly defined and defensible borders. Without a finite space, no consensual society can make rules and laws for its own, enhance and preserve commonalities of language and culture, or raise a military to protect its own self-interest.

Borders are not normally artificial or post-colonial constructs, but natural boundaries that usually arise to reflect common bonds of language, culture, habit, and tradition. These ties are sometimes fragile and limited, and cannot operate on universal terms; indeed, they become attenuated when borders disappear and residents not only have little in common, but lack the mechanisms or even the desire to assimilate and integrate their migrant populations.

When borders are fluid and unenforced, it inevitably follows that assimilation and integration also become lax, as society loses a sense of who, or even where, their residents are. And the idea that the Bill of Rights should apply to those beyond U.S. borders may be a noble sentiment, but the practical effect of such utopianism is to open a Pandora’s box of impossible enforcement, affronts to foreign governments, endless litigation, and a diversion of resources away from protecting the rights of citizens at home.

Residency is also confused with citizenship, but they are no more the same than are guests at a dinner party and the party’s hosts, who own the home.

A country reverts to tribalism unless immigrants enter it legally—often based on the host’s determination of how easily and rapidly they can become citizens, and the degree to which they can benefit their adopted country—and embrace its customs, language, and habits.

The Balkans, Rwanda, and Iraq remind us that states without common citizen ties, affinities, rights, and responsibilities become fragmented and violent, as their diverse populations share no investment in the welfare of the commonwealth. What plagues contemporary Iraq and Syria is the lack of clearly defined borders, and often shifting and migrating populations that have no stake in the country of their residence, resulting in competing tribes that vie for political control to aid their own and punish the Other.

A second pillar of citizenship is the sanctity of the law.

What also separates Western and Westernized nations from often impoverished and unsecure states is a notion that citizens entrust their elected representatives with the crafting of laws and then show their fealty by obeying the resulting legislation.

The sanctity of the entire legal system in a republic rests on two important corollaries: citizens cannot pick and choose which laws they obey—either on the grounds that some are deemed bothersome and not in their own self-interest, or on the pretext that they are minor and their violation does not impair society at large.

Citizenship instead demands that unpopular or unworkable laws be amended or repealed by the proper legislative and judicial branches of government, not by popular neglect or violation. Once immigration law goes unenforced, there are pernicious ramifications. First, citizens question why all laws are not equally subject to nullification. If the immigrant is excused from obeying immigration law, is the citizen likewise exempt from IRS statutes or simple traffic laws?

Second, the immigrant himself adopts a mindset that obeying the law is unimportant. Currently among illegal aliens, there is an epidemic of identity theft, forged government affidavits, and the use of fake social security numbers. Open-borders advocates do not disagree that these violations undermine a society, but instead argue that such desperate measures are needed for impoverished illegal aliens to survive in the shadows. Perhaps, but equally true is that once an illegal resident discovers that some of the laws of the host are not enforced, he then assumes others will not be either.

In truth, illegal aliens lose respect for their hosts, concluding that if Americans do not care to enforce their own laws, foreign nationals need not abide by them either. In reductionist terms, when an immigrant’s first act when entering the United States involves breaking the law, then all subsequent violations become only that much easier.

Besides secure borders and respect for the laws, a third tenet of citizenship is the idea of equal applicability of the law. Citizens in modern Western societies are assured that their laws are applied in the same manner to all citizens regardless of differences in class, gender, race, or religion.

Illegal immigration insidiously erodes such equality under the law. When millions of foreign nationals reside illegally in the United States, a myriad of laws must be enforced unequally to perpetuate the initial transgression. Illegal immigration does not just imply illegal entry, but also continued illegal residence and all that entails on a daily basis.

Sanctuary cities protect illegal aliens from federal immigration agencies in a way that is not true of American citizens who arrive at airports and must go through customs, with no exemption from federal agents examining their passports and personal histories. If crimes or infractions are found, there is no safe space at an airport exempt from federal enforcement.

In California, thousands of illegal aliens have operated automobiles without mandatory insurance, driver’s licenses, and registrations, and, in some municipalities, are not arrested for such violations—even as American citizens who cannot claim such apparent mitigating circumstances are.

In my own vicinity in rural California, there are hundreds of dwellings where multiple families in trailers, sheds, and garages reside, employing illegal water, power, and sewage hookups. Most are more or less left alone by county authorities. The apparent rationale is that such violations are too chronic and widespread to be addressed, or that it simply does not pay for cash-strapped agencies to enforce the law in the case of those who are unable or unwilling to pay substantial fines.

Either way, the nearby citizen who is hounded by county or federal authorities on matters concerning the proper height of his mailbox, or the exact distance between a new leach line and his existing well, feels that the laws are unequally applied and loses confidence in the value of his own citizenship. He often sees it either as no real advantage over mere residency, or perhaps even a disadvantage.

In sum, there are several reasons to put a stop to illegal immigration. But among the most important and forgotten is the insidious destruction of what it means to be a citizen.

March 28, 2017

The Russian Farce, by Victor Hanson

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 9:23 pm

The Russian Farce
March 28, 2017 11:36 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson

by Victor Davis Hanson// National Review

Remember when Obama and Hillary cozied up to Putin? And recall when the media rejoiced at surveillance leaks about Team Trump?

The American Left used to lecture the nation about its supposedly paranoid suspicions of Russia. The World War II alliance with Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union had led many leftists to envision a continuing post-war friendship with Russia.

During the subsequent Cold War, American liberals felt that the Right had unnecessarily become paranoid about Soviet Russia, logically culminating in the career of the demagogic Senator Joe McCarthy. Later, in movies such as Seven Days in May, Doctor Strangelove, and The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming, Hollywood focused on American neuroses as much as Russian hostility for strained relations.

In the great chess rivalry of 1972 known as “The Match of the Century,” American liberals favored Russian grandmaster Boris Spassky over fellow countryman Bobby Fischer, who embarrassed them by winning.

In the same manner, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev was often portrayed in the media as the urbane, suave, and reasonable conciliator, while President Ronald Reagan was depicted as the uncouth disrupter of what could have been improved Russian–American relations.

Senator Ted Kennedy reportedly reached out to Soviet leader Yuri Andropov in 1984 to gain his help in denying Reagan his reelection.

In sum, the American Left always felt that Russia was unduly demonized by the American Right and was a natural friend, if not potential ally, of the United States. That tradition no doubt influenced the decision of the incoming Obama administration to immediately reach out to Vladimir Putin’s Russia, despite is recent aggressions in Georgia and steady crackdown on internal dissent, and despite Russia’s estrangement from the prior Bush administration.

Obama’s Entreaty to the Russians

In March 2012, in a meeting with President Dimitri Medvedev of Russia, President Barack Obama thought his microphone was either off or could not pick up the eerie assurances that he gave the Russian president:

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [Vladimir Putin] to give me space.”

Medvedev answered: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you . . . ”

Obama agreed and elaborated, “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev finished the hot-mic conversation with, “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”

A fair interpretation of this stealthy conversation would run as follows:

Barack Obama naturally wanted to continue a fourth year of his reset and outreach to Vladimir Putin, the same way that he was reaching out to other former American enemies such as the Iranians and the Cubans. Yet Obama was uneasy that his opponent, Mitt Romney, might attack him during his reelection campaign as an appeaser of Putin. Thus, to preempt any such attack, Obama might be forced to appear less flexible (offer less “space”) toward Putin than he otherwise would be in a non-election year. In other words, he couldn’t publicly assure Putin that he would be “flexible” about implementing missile defense in Eastern Europe (“all these issues”) until after he was reelected.

An apprehensive Obama, in his hot-mic moment, was signaling that after his anticipated victory, he would revert to his earlier reset with Putin. And most significantly, Obama wished Putin to appreciate in advance the motives for Obama’s campaign-year behavior. Or he at least hoped that Putin would not embarrass him by making international moves that would reflect poorly on Obama’s reset policy.

Furthermore, Obama did not want his implicit quid pro quo proposal to become part of the public record. Had it been public, it might have been interpreted as a message to Putin that he should empathize with Obama’s plight — and that he should interfere with the American election by behaving in a way that would empower Obama’s candidacy rather than detract from it.

In the present hysterical climate, substitute the name Trump for Obama, and we would be hearing Democratic demands for impeachment on grounds that Trump was caught secretly whispering to the Russians about compromising vital national-security issues in a quid pro quo meant to affect the outcome of the 2012 election.

The Architects of Russian Outreach

The Obama administration came up with a reset–soft-glove approach to Vladimir’s Russia, characterized by Secretary Hillary Clinton’s heralded pushing of the red plastic button on March 6, 2009, in Geneva. Reset was couched in overt criticism of George W. Bush, who had supposedly alienated Putin by reacting too harshly (like a typical cowboy) to Russia’s aggression in Georgia.

Over the next few years, the reset policy consisted of, among other things, backtracking on previously agreed-on missile-defense plans in Eastern Europe. In the second presidential debate of 2012, Obama portrayed Romney as being too tough on Russia, to the point of delusion:

A few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaeda. You said Russia. In the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

The Obama administration invited Russia into the Middle East for the first time in nearly a half-century to help Obama back off from his own redline threats to attack Syria if evidence of WMD usage appeared. Moreover, after the Crimea and eastern Ukraine aggressions, the perception in most of the Western world was that the U.S. was not sufficiently tough with Putin, largely because of its commitment to a prior (though failed) outreach.

So what ended this one-sided reset in 2016?

The estrangement certainly did not coincide entirely with Putin’s aggressions on Russia’s borders. Nor were Democrats inordinately angry with Putin when he bombed non-al-Qaeda Syrian resistance fighters.

Rather, Democrats’ split with Putin grew from the perception that hackers had easily entered the porous e-mail account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign guru John Podesta and released his messages to WikiLeaks. This led to general embarrassment for Hillary and the Democrats — and they floated the theory that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange were taking orders from Putin or at least operating with the encouragement of the Kremlin’s intelligence services.

Hating Hillary?

After the WikiLeaks mess, the image of Putin was reset again, and now he was said to have ordered the hacking because he hated Hillary Clinton and indeed the Obama administration in general.

That was a bizarre indictment. If Putin were really a conniving realist, he would have much preferred Hillary in the 2016 election — given his success in manipulating the Obama-era reset.

Unlike Trump, Clinton would probably have kept the radical Obama defense cuts and perpetuated the restrictions on domestic energy development that were helping Russia. She probably would have likewise continued Obama’s therapeutic approach to foreign policy.

From Russia’s point of view, considering their strategic and economic interests, a pliable Obama 2.0 would have been far better than Trump, with his pro-oil-and-gas domestic agenda, his promised defense buildup, and his unpredictable Jacksonian promises to help friends and hurt enemies.

Squaring the Surveillance Circle

The entire Trump-collusion-with-Russia narrative has now descended into incoherence.

For five months, dating back to the heated final stretch of the 2016 election, mainstream media — in particular Obama-administration pet reporters at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the BBC — ran creepy and occasionally near-obscene stories about “collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Russians. These published rumors were based on “unnamed sources” often identified generically as American intelligence officers inside the FBI, CIA, and NSA.

Soon that narrative went from ominous to hysterical — but only once Hillary inexplicably lost the election. The anonymous allegations of collusion were used to convict the Trump circle of a veritable pre-election partnership with the Russians. The collusion was to be followed, the story went, with a new reset with Putin — this time born not out of naïveté but of lucre and near treason.

We forget that the Democrats’ narratives of the purported Trump collusion also radically changed to meet changing circumstances.

Before the election, a sure and poor-loser Trump was pathetically cheating with the Russians to stop the fated winner Clinton.

Then, in the post-election shock and transition, the Russian-interference storyline was repackaged as an excuse for the poorly conducted Clinton campaign that had blown a supposedly big lead and sure victory. “The Russians did it” was preferable to blaming Hillary for not visiting Wisconsin once.

Finally, Trump’s Russian connection served as a useful tool to delegitimize an abhorrent incoming Trump administration. And the delegitimizing was made easier by Obama’s eleventh-hour order, days before his departure, to expand the list of federal officials who would have access to sensitive intelligence and surveillance transcripts.

But all such accusations of Trump-Russian complicity, based on admitted leaks from intelligence agencies, required some sort of hard evidence: leaked transcripts of Trump officials clearly outlining shared strategies with the Russians, hard proof of Russian electronic tampering in key swing states, doctored e-mails planted in the Podesta WikiLeaks trove, travel records of Trump people in clandestine meetings with Russian counterparts, or bank records showing cash payoffs.

Yet a hostile media, in collusion with intelligence-agency leakers, has so far provided no such proof. John Podesta had as much invested in Russian profiteering as did former Trump aides. Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation had as many financial dealings with pro-Russian interests as did Trump people. The ubiquitous Russian ambassador had met as many Democratic grandees as he had Trump associates.

The lack so far of hard proof gradually created a boomerang effect. Attention turned away from what “unnamed sources” had alleged to the question of how unnamed sources had gathered surveillance of the Trump people in the first place — as evidenced by media reports of General Flynn’s conversations, of Trump’s private talks with foreign leaders, and of allegations of electronic contact between Russian and Trump Tower computers.

In other words, the media and their sources had gambled that congressional overseers, law enforcement, and the public would all overlook surveillance that may have been illegal or only partly legal, and they would also overlook the clearly illegal leaking of such classified information on a candidate and a president-elect — if it all resulted in a scandal of the magnitude of the Pentagon Papers or Watergate.

So far such a scandal has not emerged. But Trump’s opponents continue to push the Russian narrative not because it is believable but because it exhausts and obfuscates likely illegal surveillance and leaking.

The real scandal is probably not going to be Trump’s contacts with Russians. More likely, it will be the rogue work of a politically driven group of intelligence officers, embedded within the bureaucracy, who, either in freelancing mode, or in Henry II–Thomas Becket fashion (“Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?”) with Obama-administration officials, began monitoring Team Trump — either directly or more likely through the excuse of inadvertently chancing upon conversations while monitoring supposedly suspicious foreign communications.

Added to this mess is the role of three unsympathetic characters who are on record as either not telling the truth, deliberately obfuscating it, or showing terrible judgement.

Obama CIA director John Brennan, who assumed that role after the still mysterious and abrupt post-election departure of David Petraeus, has a long history of political gymnastics; he has made many a necessary career readjustment to changing Washington politics. He is on record as being deceptive — he failed to reveal that the CIA intercepted Senate communications. He also stated falsely that the drone program had not resulted in a single collateral death. And, in the spirit of Obama’s new Islamic outreach, Brennan strangely suggested that jihad was a sort of personal odyssey rather than a call to use force in spreading Islamic influence. Brennan is also on record as critical of Trump: Trump “should be ashamed of himself,” Brennan said the day after the inauguration, in response to Trump’s speech to CIA staffers gathered in front of the Memorial Wall of Agency heroes.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has in the past lied to Congress, when he assured that the NSA did not monitor the communications of American citizens. Likewise, he bizarrely asserted that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was largely a secular organization. And more than 50 CENTCOM officers formally accused Clapper of distorting their reports about the Islamic State. Like Brennan, Clapper has been critical of Trump, asking, “Who benefits from a president-elect trashing the intelligence community?”

During the 2016 election, FBI Director James Comey popped up to assure the nation that while Hillary Clinton had conducted herself unethically, and probably in violation of federal statutes in using her private e-mail server for government business and wiping away correspondence, her transgressions did not rise to the level of indictable offenses. It was as if the investigator Comey, rather than the appropriate federal attorney, was adjudicating the decision to charge a suspect.

Then in the final stretch of the race, Comey resurfaced to assert that “new” evidence had led him to reconsider his exculpation of Clinton. And then, on November 6, 2016, just hours before the nation went to the polls, he appeared a third time in front of cameras to reiterate his original judgment that Hillary’s transgressions did not merit further investigation, much less criminal prosecutions. The media contextualized Comey’s schizophrenia as see-saw reactions either to liberal Obama-administration pressures or to near revolts among the more conservative FBI rank-and-file. Just as likely was Comey’s own neurotic itch to seek public attention and to position himself favorably with a likely new president.

Comey’s weird election-era prominence was also apparently fueled by the fact that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was caught in an embarrassing private meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton — a meeting during the investigation of his spouse. (The encounter was intended to remain secret, but a local reporter was tipped off.) That unethical encounter had tainted Lynch’s pose of disinterested adjudication, and she accordingly de facto fobbed off her prosecutorial responsibilities to Comey. Comey most lately has asked the Justice Department to refute Trump’s claims that he was subject to electronic surveillance by the government during the last days of the Obama administration.

Given the past assertions and political natures of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey, none are very credible in any future testimony they might give about the Trump-Russia narrative or the role U.S. intelligence agencies played in the possibly illegal monitoring of Trump associates. All three men are even less credible when it comes to the illegal leaking of such classified information to media outlets.

Trump’s infamous and clumsy tweet (“just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower”) may well prove to be inaccurate — literally. But it could also end up being prescient if revelations show that Obama-appointed officials or their underlings used surveillance on foreign officials — three years after the NSA got caught tapping Angela Merkel’s cellphone — in order to sweep up Trump communications and then leak them to the media to damage his candidacy and later his transition.

We are left in the end with paradoxes:

How did Obama’s naïve pro-Putin reset and Clinton-family profiteering transmogrify into wild accusations that others had become even friendlier to such an unsavory character?

How did the image of a sacrosanct media speaking the “truth” of Trump’s collusion with Putin rest on the peddling of false narratives — many of them based on likely illegal surveillance and certainly unethical and unlawful dissemination?

And if Trump was unhinged for leveling wild allegations based on mainstream news reports, why were news outlets themselves — and those who quoted them chapter and verse — not unhinged for spreading such suddenly unreliable information?

What is the explanatory sword that cuts this Gordian knot?

Trump supposedly had zero chance of winning. But when he did, facts had to adjust to a bitter actuality — at first perhaps to explain away reality, but quite soon after to alter it by any means necessary.http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446148/russian-farce-trump-collusion-hysteria-diverts-attention-surveillance-scandal

UN Amb Haley Statement, by Joseph John, Capt USN [nc]

Joseph R. John
To jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 8:55 AM

UN Ambassador Nikki Haley’s Statement At The UN And A major Change That Must Take Place

By Capt Joseph R. John, March 28, 2017: Op Ed # 342

If you click on the below listed link, you will be able to view President Donald J. Trump’s UN Ambassador, Niki Haley make a short statement at the UN. Israel recently entered into a defensive alliance with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Oman, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates.

The defensive alliance was prompted by the Obama administrations very dangerous Nuclear Weapons Agreement with Iran, which is allowing Iran to develop an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) that will be able to strike the US, with a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration allowed them to develop.

https://www.facebook.com/plugi ns/video.php?href=https%3A%2F% 2Fwww.facebook.com%2Funwatch% 2Fvideos%2F10154172073611561% 2F&show_text=0&width=560

After 8 years, the United States has a frank & responsible UN Ambassador who will ensure that Israel is treated in the same manner as every other member nation!

The US Congress should terminate all funding for the UN Middle East and African “Muslin Only” Refugee & Resettlement Program, controlled by representatives from 43 majority Muslim member nations and members of the Muslim Brotherhood in leadership positions in the UN. The UN Refugee & Resettlement Program has been discriminating against 300,000 Middle East Syrian and Assyrian Christian Refugees being housed by the Greek Catholic Relief Agency for the last 8 years. That UN Program, funded by the Obama administration, has been involved in an ongoing violation of the US Constitutions’ “Freedom of Religion” and US Federal Laws.

For the last 8 years, hundreds of thousands of Middle East Christians have been murdered by ISIS, Al Q’ieda, and the Muslim Brotherhood genocide. They have been crucified, burned alive, beheaded, drowned in cages, shot in the back of the head, throw to their deaths from the roofs of tall buildings, buried alive, their children have been cut in half, their female children &women of all ages have been raped, and they have been sold into slavery.

Yet the Muslim UN Administrators of UN Refugee Relief & Resettlement Program refused to allow any of the 300,000 Middle East Christians refugees being housed by the Greek Catholic Relief Agency from entering the US thru the UN’s corrupt program, which has been funded for 8 years, to the tune of billions of US taxpayer dollars, by the Obama administration.

At the same time, Obama accepted over 900,000 Middle East Muslim Refugees thru the corrupt UN Refugee Relief & Resettlement Program. Then they were resettled in 187 cities across the nation, while refusing to allow the FBI to interview them, to determine if they have terrorist ties, while at the same time, preventing local, county, state, and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies from knowing where those un-vetted Muslim refugees were resettled.

Despite a petitions by 56 US Congressmen from both sides of the aisle, who pleaded with the Obama administration to provide Syrian and Assyrian Christians suffering genocide, with self-defensive small arms weapons, so they could protect their families from the on-going genocide, Obama refused to authorize the delivery of small arms weapons for self-defense.

The net result of the corrupt UN Refugee & Relief Resettlement Program is that there have been 82 terrorist incidents and attacks on Americans in the US over the last 8 years, killing hundreds of Americans citizens, listed in the attachment. Those attacks, for the last 8 years, were covered up by the left of center liberal media establishment, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood who were in senior appointive positions in The White House, the Justice Department, the State Department, and in DHS. That corrupt UN Refugee Resettlement Program, which violated the US Constitution and US Federal Laws, must be defunded by Congress.

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)/Former FBI

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

https://www.facebook.com/combatveteransforcongress?ref=hl

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

Itemized below are 82 of the 192 Radical Islamic Terrorists attacks on US soil perpetrated since 9/11, by Jihadist, by Muslim refugees, by descendants of Muslim refugees, by Islamists who were radicalized thru the Internet, or Radical Islamic Terrorists who traveled to train with ISIS in Syria. The Radical Islamic Terrorist’s countries of origins were primarily the countries of Somalia, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Iran, and Libya; except for Iran, those countries had little control over the identity of terrorists operating and training within their countries.

The terrorist attacks on US soil, occurred in Sacramento (CA), Houston (TX), Morganton (NC), Philadelphia (PA), San Bernardino (CA), Times Square (NYC), Moore (OK), Detroit (MI), Boise (ID), Orlando (FL), West Orange (NJ), Fort Hood (TX), Portland (ME), Chattanooga (TN), Garland (TX), Boston (MA), Portland (OR), Minneapolis (MN), Buffalo (NY), Jonesboro (GA), Ashtabula (OH), Bingham (NY), Glendale (AZ), Phoenix (AZ), Little Rock (AR), Merced (CA), Marquette Park (IL), Seattle (WA), Skyway (WA), Denver (CO), Aspen Hill (MD), Baltimore (MD), Oakland (CA), Arlington (VA), Fredricksburg (VA), Montgomery County (MO), St Louis (MO), Bowling Green (KY), Scottsville,(NY), Richmond (CA), Washington (DC), Irving (TX), Port Bolivar (TX), Warren (MI), Waltham (MA), Manassas (VA), Buena Vista (NJ), Baton Rouge (LA), Montgomery (AL), Aberdeen, (SD), Hamden, (CT), Colorado Springs (CO), Denver (CO), Niskayuna (NY), Twin Falls (ID). and many other cities too numerous to be listed here.

After each Radical Islamic Terrorist instigated attack, the identity of the attackers were covered up by the Obama administration for 8 years, working in concert with the Muslim Brotherhood, and the left of center liberal media establishment to mislead Americans of the 192 terrorist attacks. They used politically correct language to cover up the identity of the Radical Islamic Terrorists who repeatedly murdered Americans. It was a continuing conspiracy that resulted in the injury and murder of hundreds of American citizens and the cover up undermined the National Security of the United States!

The foreign nationals listed below executed 80 Radical Islamic Terrorists attacks against American citizens in the above listed US cities during the 8 years of the Obama administration, and is a partial list of the 192 Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks perpetrated in US cities by Radical Islamic Terrorists since 9/11:

Bilal Abood was a translator who came here on an Special Immigration Visa for Iraqi nationals who provided services for American Forces. He even briefly joined the US Army. On the surface he was exactly the sort of Iraqi Refugee that the media likes to depict as the ideal immigrant, but Abood was also a member of ISIS. When he was arrested, he insisted “America was the enemy of Allah”.
Jasim Mohammed Hasin Ramadon and Ali Mohammed Hasan Al Juboori came to this country with Special Immigration Visas. Then Ramadon, Juboori and three other Iraqi refugees brutally assaulted a 53-year-old Colorado Springs woman. When the police arrived at the scene of the Iraqi Refugee sexual assault, they found blood splattered on the walls. The Iraqi Refugee rapists lured in their victim by complaining about how hard it was living in America and being called terrorists. The victim, a night nurse, took pity on them because they reminded her of her son. By the time the Iraqi Refugees were done, she had been violated and left near death.
Abdullatif Ali Aldosary an Iraqi Refugee who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program set off a bomb outside a Social Security office in Phoenix, Arizona. The authorities found plenty of bomb making materials in his home. He was also accused of a murder that had taken place a few days before the bombing and had previously been sent to jail for harassment. His case had been put on hold for “terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility”, but he still couldn’t be deported.
On March 3, 2017 Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan came here from Iraq as a refugee thru the UN Refugee Program. When the FBI searched his Houston apartment, agents found an ISIS flag. Hardan had been planning to leave bombs in the trash cans of two Houston malls. He had contemplated an attack on the Grand Prairie military base in Texas.
On February 14, 2017, 35 year old Adam Nauveed Hyat of Pakistani descent and a former Marine wrote “Explosives” on a closet door mirror in a Denver, CO Sheraton Downtown Hotel, leading police to find pipe bombs after running up a bill of $10,000 at the hotel; guests were removed from the hotel while the pipe bombs were defused. After flying to Los Angeles on February 17th, Hyat was tracked down and arrested, armed with knives, near the Los Angeles Airport. Adam’s father, Sultan Hyat, said his son has mental problems.
On January 31, 2017, 29 year old Ahmad Bahjat of New Haven, an Iraqi Refugee who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program, posing as Uber Driver, was arrested for raping a woman. The woman had left a New Haven bar and walked to a parking area designated for Uber and taxi drivers, according to Hamden Police who arrested him. Bahjat pretended to be an Uber driver and the woman got into his car, believing he was the Uber driver.
On November 28, 2016, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a 18 year old Somali refugee who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program drove his car into a crowd students on the campus of Ohio State University, then got out of his car and attacked students with a butcher knife injuring 11.
On September 19, 2016 Ahmed Khan Rahimi, a 28 year old Afghani refugee, who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program. He traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan to train as a Radical Islamic Terrorist and set off a bomb in the Chelsea District of Manhattan, NY. The explosion injured 29 people; he was arrested after a shootout with Police Officers in Linden, New Jersey, where he wounded two police officers. Ahmed was charged with 5 counts of murder. Earlier in the day, he set off a pipe bomb in Seaside Park, New Jersey; five other bombs were found at his residence.
On September 17, 2016 Dar Ahmed Adnan, a Somali refugee who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program perpetrated a knife attack on 9 shoppers at the St Cloud Crossroads Mall in Minnesota, and was shot to death by an off duty St Cloud police Officer.
In July 8, 2016, Abdirhman Ahmed Noor, a 24 year4 old refugee from Somalia, who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program, jumped bail and remains at large after being charged with 2 counts of attempted murder in Aberdeen, South Dakota. Noor chased two men down, firing at them. One man, Dar’na Tansmore, was hit and laid wounded on the ground when Noor allegedly walked up, stood over his victim and shot him again. Lutheran Social Services South Dakota has been paid by the federal government to resettle 947 Somali refugees in South Dakota since 2002.
On June 12, 2016, Omar Saddiqul Mateen, the son of Afghan refugees, massacred 49 gentle & innocent Americans, and wounded 53 others, in the Orlando night club, Pulse, in the deadliest mass shooting in US history.
On June 2, 2016, one Sudanese refugee boy 14, and two Iraqi refugee boys, aged 7 and 10, stripped a 5 year old special needs girl naked and savagely raped her under knife point in the laundry room of the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls, Idaho. An alert 89 year old retired nurse, Jaylene Payne, interrupted the attack when she saw all three of the refugees boys with their clothes off.
On March 24, 2016 seven Iranians working on behalf of the Iranian Government were indicted for a series of cyber-crimes that cost US financial institutions tens of millions of dollars and compromised critical controls of a New York Dam.
On February 16, 2016, a court magistrate ruled, after hearing the FBI testimony, that Khalil Abu-Rayyan, a 21 year old Iraqi man from Dearborn, MI, who is a son of an Iraqi Refugee. He was considered too much of a threat to public safety and was ordered held without bail. He got excited by thoughts of beheading Americans, burning people alive, and throwing homosexuals off of tall buildings. In conversations with an undercover FBI agent, he actually made plans to shoot 6,000 member of a Christian Church in Detroit. (If I) can’t go do Jihad at the Middle East, I would do my Jihad over here.” He also told the agent that “shooting and death make me excited. I love to hear people begging and screaming. … I wish I had my gun.” The FBI claims that since 2014, Abu-Rayyan used Twitter for “retweeting, liking and commenting” on Islamic State propaganda.
On February 12, 2016 a machete wielding assailant known to the FBI, identified as Mohammad Barry, a Somali refugee who entered the US on the UN Refugee Program, living in Ohio attacked Jewish and Christian patrons at a restaurant in Columbus, Ohio, wounding four people. Witnesses said it was carnage. Some of the patrons fought back by throwing chairs. Police later shot and killed Barry after a short chase. Investigators are trying to determine if Barry attacked the Nazareth Mediterranean Restaurant because he thought the owner was Jewish. In actuality, the restaurant is owned by an Israeli Christian.
In Philadelphia, PA, Edward Archer, a 30 year old Jihadi, who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, opened fire in the name of Islam, on Philadelphia Police Officer Jessie Hartnett, who was ambushed sitting in his car on January 8, 2016. Archer fired 11 shots and hit the Officer Hartnett three times, grievously wounding the officer; the officer returned fire and hit Archer three times.
In an unrelated case, also on January 7, 2016, Omar Faraj Saeed al Hardan, an Iraqi Refugee, was arrested in Houston, TX on charges of providing material support to ISIS and going thru terrorist training.
On January 7, 2016, Aws Mohammad Younis Al-Jayab, a Palestine born Iraqi, was arrested in Sacramento, CA on charges of assisting Jihadi organizations.
In December 2015, a Somali-American was arrested after encouraging several friends to leave the United States and join ISIS, and giving one individual over $200 for their passport application.
The son of an Pakistani immigrant Syed Rizwan Farouk, and Tashfeen Malik, who entered the United States on a fiancé visa thru Canada as Syed’s bride, and subsequently became a Lawful Permanent Resident, along with her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, who pledged allegiance to ISIS, killed 14 people at a Christmas Party in San Bernardino, CA on December 2, 2015 , and wounded 22 others, in the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001. They were recruited to their jihad by a Muslim Somali refugee who has now moved to Syria, but continues to recruit Jihadist in America using social media.
Five Bosnian Muslim refugees (in the same family) were arrested on November 18, 2015, two in Missouri, two in Illinois and one New York for sending arms and cash to ISIS.
In November 17, 2015 A Uzbek Muslim refugee in Boise, ID was convicted of plotting to bomb US military bases.
On November 4, 2015. 18 year old Faisal Mohammad who had a black ISIS flag in his possessions and a terrorist manifesto, stabbed 4 of his fellow student at U C Merced; police had to shoot him to stop his stabbing spree. He had pro-ISIS propaganda on his computer. The FBI said he was a self-radicalized Islamic Jihadist.
A second Immigrant from India, who is married to a US citizen, who was indicted on charges of conspiring to provide thousands of dollars to Al Q’ieda in the Arabian Peninsula, in order to assist them in their global Jihad, and on one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud (November 2015)
On October 1, 2015, Chris Harper Mercer, a black Islamist terrorist who traveled to Syria in September 2015, to train with ISIS, and was identified as a Radical Islamic Terrorist by the Russian Security Service, executed a mass shooting on the campus of Umpqua Community College in Rosebud, Oregon killed 9 people and wounded 7 others. He was associated with Mahmoud Ali Ehsani, but the Obama administration refused to accept the referral from the Russian Security Service, and when he returned from Syria in September, he wasn’t arrested, so he perpetrated his mass shooting. He was shot to death by Police Officers
An immigrant from Egypt, who subsequently was granted U.S. citizenship, was charged with providing, and conspiring to provide, material support to ISIS, for aiding and abetting a New York college student in receiving terrorist training from ISIS, and conspiring to receive such training. (August 2015)
An immigrant from Albania, who applied for and received Lawful Permanent Resident status, was sentenced to 16 years in prison for giving over $1,000 to terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, and for attempting to join a radical jihadist insurgent group in Pakistan. (August 2015)
A refugee from Uzbekistan was convicted of providing material support and money to a designated foreign terrorist organization. According to the Department of Justice, he also procured bomb-making materials in the interest of perpetrating a terrorist attack on American soil. (August 2015)
On August 14, 2015 three Somali Muslims, Mohamud Mohamed, 36, and Osman Sheikh, 31, Abil Teshome, 23, brutally beat and murdered Freddy Akoa, 49 a Christian in Portland, ME. The attack allegedly took place over the span of several hours, in which Akoa suffered cuts and bruises all over his body, a lacerated liver and 22 rib fractures. However, according to the autopsy, Akoa died as a result of blows to his head.
On August 12, 2015, a 39 year old Muslim Somali refugee, Libyan Mohamed, was sentence to three years in prison for attempted sexual assault on a 31 year old severely mentally handicapped woman sitting outside at a group home for the disabled in Aberdeen, South Dakota
Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez murdered five US Armed Forces (1 Navy and 4 Marines) in Chattanooga, TN in July 2015. Mohammad was an immigrant brought here by his family from Kuwait at a young age, and who was later approved for U.S. citizenship, who carried out the Islamist attack that killed the 5 military personnel in Chattanooga.
An Uzbek refugee living in Idaho was arrested and charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, in the form of teaching terror recruits how to build bombs. (July 2015)
An immigrant from Sudan, who applied and received US citizenship, tried to join ISIS and wage Jihad on its behalf after having been recruited on line(June 2015).
An immigrant from Ghana, who applied for and received US citizenship, pledged allegiance to ISIS and plotted a terrorist attack on the US soil (June 2015).
On May 3, 2015 an attack with gunfire was carried by two Radical Islamic Terrorists followers of ISIS at the entrance to the Curtis Culwell Center, in Garland, TX featuring cartoon images of Mohammad—both were shot and killed by a police officer. Just prior to the attack one of the gunmen posted “May Allah accept us as Mujahedeen”—he wrote both pledged allegiance to “Amirul Mu’mineen”, a likely reference to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
An Iraqi immigrant, who later applied for and received US citizenship, was arrested for lying to federal agents about pledging allegiance to ISIS and his travel to Syria (May 2015)
The Somali refugee who recruited the San Bernardino killers also recruited the jihadist who attacked the Garland, TX “Draw Mohammad” contest in May 2015, fled the United States.
On April 20, 2015, Six Somalian Muslim refugees were arrested in Minneapolis, Minnesota for attempting to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State and fight for ISIS.
An immigrant from Saudi Arabia, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, swore allegiance to ISIS and pledged to explode a propane tank bomb on U.S. soil. (April 2015).
An immigrant from Yemen, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, along with six other men, was charged with conspiracy to travel to Syria and to provide material support to ISIS. (April 2015).
A Uzbek man in Brooklyn encouraged other Uzbeki nationals to wage Jihad on behalf of ISIS, and raised $1,600 for the terror organization. (April 2015)
An immigrant from Syria, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, was accused by federal prosecutors of planning to rob a gun store to “go to a military base in Texas and kill three or four American soldiers execution style.” (April 2015)
A Kazakhstani immigrant with lawful permanent resident status conspired to purchase a machine gun to shoot FBI and other law enforcement agents if they prevented him from traveling to Syria to join ISIS. (February 2015)
A Bosnian refugee, along with his wife and five others, donated money and supplies, and smuggled arms, to terrorist organizations in Syria and Iraq. (February 2015)
On December 18, 2014 an radicalized ISIS supporter in Morganton, NC shot a 74 year old man in the head multiple times.
On December 14, 2014, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, born to a Muslim African American family, executed two NYC police officers as they sat in their patrol car. Brinsley is reported to have approached the two officers as they were sitting in their patrol car in the notorious crime ridden Bedford-Stuyvesant area of Brooklyn, New York and began firing rounds into the vehicle before fleeing on foot to the closest subway station where he later committed suicide.
Two Bosnian Muslim refugee in Portland, Oregon was arrested in November 21, 2014 for trying to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony.
In September 30, 2014, ex-con Alton Nolan, a Muslim convert, a proponent of Sharia Law, who was radicalized to Islam behind bars, wielding a knife, beheaded a female employee, Colleen Hufford, at the Vaughn Foods processing plant in Moor, OK, and was prevented from beheading a second female employee by the company COO, who shot Nolan to stop his rampage.
An immigrant from Afghanistan, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, and a legal permanent resident from the Philippines, were convicted for “join Al Q’ieda and the Taliban in order to kill Americans.” (September 2014)
Five Somali Muslim refugees were charged in July 2014 with fundraising for jihadi groups in Africa.
A Somali immigrant with lawful permanent resident status, along with four other Somali nationals, is charged with leading an al-Shabaab fundraising conspiracy in the United States, with monthly payments directed to the Somali terrorist organization. (July 2014)
An immigrant from Bangladesh, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, tried to incite people to travel to Somalia and conduct violent jihad against the United States. (June 2014)
On June 25, 2014 Ali Muhammad Brown, age 29, a devout Muslim, gunned down Brendan Brown, age 19, in Livingston, NJ. Ali said it was an act of retribution for US Military actions against Muslims in Iraq, Syria, and Iran.
On June,1, 2014, Ali Muhammed Brown confessed to the murder of a 30 year old man on April 27th. in Skyway, WA.
A Moroccan national who came to the U.S. on a student visa was arrested for plotting to blow up a university and a federal court house. (April 2014).
On April 3, 2014, Salam Al Haideri a 24 year old Iraqi Refugee from Niskayuna, NY who entered the US thru the UN Refugee program. He raped a 19 year old 4’11 teenager behind a “I Love NY” pizza place dumpster while slamming her head into the ground. The Iraqi Refugee’s 96-pound teenage victim was left with broken ribs and a fractured nose. Al Haideri was the third refugee to be convicted of a sex crime in the area. He was found guilty of aggravated assault and rape and was sentenced to 22 years to life.
On March 6, 2014 a Muslim man shoots his lesbian daughter and her lover to death a leave a copy of the Quran open to a page condemning homosexuality.
A college student who immigrated from Somalia, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. (Dec 2013)
On August 4, 2013 in Richmond, CA a radicalized Islamist convert “on a mission from Allah” stabbed a store clerk to death.
On April 19, 2013 in Boston, MA a Radical Islamic Terrorist, the Tsarnaev brothers (the Boston Marathon Bombers) gunned down a University police officer sitting in his car
The April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon bombing by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev; those brothers and their family were Muslim refugees. -The Boston Bombers were granted political asylum and were thus deemed legitimate refugees. The younger brother applied for citizenship and was naturalized on September 11th, 2012. The older brother had a pending application for citizenship.
On March 24, 2013 in Ashtabula, OH a Muslim convert walks into a church service Quran, and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah
On February 7, 2013 in Buena Vista, NJ a Muslim man beheaded two Coptic Christians Immigrants.
On November 11, 2012 in Houston, TX a 28 year old American man is shot to death by a radical Muslim over an alleged role of converting a woman to Christianity.
In September 15, 2012, Amine El Khalifi, and al Q’ieda Radical Islamic Terrorist plotted to do a suicide bombing of the US Capital.
On February 18, 2012, two Radical Islamic Terrorists from Pakistan, who later applied for and received US Citizenship, were apprehended trying to detonate a bomb in New York City
On January 1, 2012 in Houston TX a 30 year old Muslim convert to Christianity is shot to death by a devout Muslim for converting his daughter to Christianity
On September 11, 2011 in Waltham, MA three Jewish men have their throats cut by Radical Islamic Terrorists.
Two Al Qaeda members from Iraq who had spent years in Iraq using IEDs and participated in attacks that killed American soldiers (their fingerprints were recovered from IEDs). Mohamed Hammadi age 25 and Walid Alwan age 31, were arrested in Bowling Green, KY on May 25, 2011 while living in public housing and were receiving public assistance; both entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program as Iraqi refugees! Hammadi was recorded in a telephone conversation plotting a terrorist attack in the US. They were both convicted of terrorism and sentenced to 40 years in prison.
On April 30, 2011 Mohammad Alfatlawi a proponent of Sharia Law was charged with the “Honor Killing” of his wife and daughter in Detroit, Michigan.
In May 4, 2010 Faisal Shahzad conducted a terrorist car bombing plot in Times Square that failed.
In December 25, 2009, the bombing terror plot to kill 290 innocent passengers on a flight from the Netherland to Detroit the Nigerian Radical Islamic Terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutlallab (aka the Underwear Bomber) failed to detonate on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 because the explosives in his underwear malfunctioned, and passengers were able to subdue him until he was arrested.
On December 4, 2009 in Bingham, NY a non-Muslim Islamic Studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim graduate student in revenge for Muslims who have been persecuted.
On November 5, 2009, Maj Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 US Army soldiers and wounded 32 others in Fort Hood while yelling “Allah Akbar” at the top of his lungs—Obama insisted it was simply “Work Place Violence” and not a Radical Islamic terrorist attack by a disciple of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Prior to the shooting, in his previous assignment as an intern and resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center his colleagues and superiors were deeply concerned about his behavior and anti-American comments—but because they were cowered by the Obama’s administration’s warnings and perceived threats to their military standing, that they better be “politically correct’ and not disparage such anti-American comments—nothing was done to drum that Radical Islamic Terrorist out of the US Armed Forces.
On November 2, 2009 in Glendale, AZ a Muslim daughter dies from injuries suffered when her Muslim father runs her over with his car for being too “Westernized.”
On June 1, 2009, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a convert to Islam, who had gone to Yemen in 2007 and stayed for about 16 months, open fire on a Little Rock, Arkansas US Armed Forces Recruiting Office in a drive by shooting with a rifle, against a group of US Army Soldiers standing in front of the Recruiting Office. He killed Private William Long and wounded Private Quinton Ezeagwula.
On April 12, 2009 in Phoenix, AZ a Muslim man shoots his Muslim brother-in-law and another man to death, after he finds out that they visited a strip club in contradiction to Islamic values.
On February12, 2009 in Buffalo, NY a Muslim founder of a Muslim TV Station beheads his wife in the hallway of the TV Station for seeking a divorce.
On July 6, 2008 in Jonesboro, GA a devout Muslim man strangles his 25 year old daughter in an honor killing.

March 27, 2017

10 Gun Myths

Myth #1- Semi-automatic rifles are ‘assault rifles’
Semi-automatic weapons only fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. The media would have you believe that semi-automatic weapons are weapons of mass destruction. California has even limited the sale of them. While you can certainly do some damage with a semi-automatic rifle, it’ s not the ‘pull and spray’ imagery the media uses to explain these weapons. These weapons are frequently used as hunting rifles, and are can not always be considered ‘assault weapons’ . Which leads us to #2, click the right arrow…

Myth #2- You can tell an ‘assault rifle’ just by looking at it
Assault weapons by definition are used for battlefield applications. But the media and lawmakers have blurred the lines of this definition to include anything that ‘looks’ like an assault weapon. This includes broad, erroneous assumptions about the weapons including things like “a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.” Up next, we tackle one of the most prevalent myths, click the right arrow below….

Myth #3 – Gun violence increases as gun ownership increases
This is debatable at best. The Washington Post recently pointed to a Duke University study that shows gun violence is high in the South, where gun ownership is high. But this study neglects to report that Utah and Minnesota have high rates of gun ownership and very low gun crime. A study by The Atlantic seems to how the real causation of gun violence: poverty. Which brings us to one of those ‘ viral’ myths that everyone talks about on Facebook…

Myth #4 – Australia’s gun confiscation reduced mass shootings to zero
This is a popular one on Facebook with the gun control crowd. It’ s true in some respect, Australia has had very few mass shootings since it’ s gun buy-back program in the 90’ s. But what everyone neglects to say is that gun deaths were falling drastically BEFORE the gun confiscation. And even Australia’ s own experts say attributing any decrease in violence to gun control is tenuous at best. Plus, Australia has seen a violent underground black market for guns blossom in the aftermath of gun control. Speaking of mass shootings, our next myth…

Myth #5- There were more mass shootings in 2015 than days of the year
This depends on your definition of ‘mass shooting’. Many media outlets, and the FBI in fact, define it as any case where 4 or more people were killed. And there were over 360 of those last year. But the overwhelming majority of those were the result of robbery, drugs, and gang violence. What we most think of as a ‘ mass shooting’ , in which the victims are random, occurs in a public place, and the shooter has some kind of political or social message, there were 4 (FOUR!) in 2015. Which brings us to the most common gun myth…

Myth #6 – Gun control reduces gun violence
Gun control advocates treat this as a forgone conclusion. But the data on whether gun control reduces crime is rarely decisive. Hundreds of studies have been done, and the data can really be parsed to support either side of the debate. There are cases where murder rates spike up after gun bans. In some places crime has been reduced after gun bans, but it’ s not clear if this has more to do with demographic shifts. In any case, when someone says definitively that gun control stops gun crime, they are probably using the only part of the data that suits their argument. But, don’ t most Americans favor gun control? Well….

Myth #7 – The majority of Americans favor gun control
Many media outlets treat the gun debate as if it’ s a forgone conclusion that Americans favor gun control. But Pew research polls show just how divisive this issue is. In a recent poll the data shows that about 50% of people want stricter gun laws. 50% of people support gun rights. But this all comes down to what you think guns are really used for….

Myth #8 – Guns are made to kill
Gun controllers believe that the only purpose of a gun is to kill someone or something. If that were true, guns are doing a pretty terrible job. According to Duke University, less than .02% of the guns in American households were used in a murder. And many of those guns were used in self-defense. The fact is that a gun’s best use is often to prevent crime, not perpetrate it. Which brings us to the contentious meaning of the 2nd Amendment…

Myth #9 – The Second Amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to own the weapons of modern society
It’ s a familiar refrain: our forefather’ s could not have anticipated modern technology and would never have wanted citizens to have assault weapons. ‘ They were talking about muskets!’ goes the argument. But the spirit of the Second Amendment was to ensure the right of the people to defend themselves from government and other oppressors. And they felt it was so important they made it SECOND on a list of rights. How would citizens defend themselves from anything if we applied this logic and guaranteed everyone a right to own 18th century weapons? And how would the First Amendment work in modern times if we only applied it to technology available in the 18th century? Finally, we’ll talk about easily the most ridiculous gun myth…

Myth #10 – Gun free zones stop gun violence
This is an easy one to refute. Even with common sense we know that criminals would prefer to target places where the people are unarmed. There is plenty of research that shows that not only do gun free zones not reduce gun crimes, but the only thing that does is concealed carry laws.
PLEASE SHARE THIS ON FACEBOOK, TWITTER, OR EMAIL IT TO YOUR FRIENDS.

https://www.selfrely.com/10gunmyths/

March 16, 2017

Deterrence and Human Nature, Victor Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 8:14 pm

Deterrence and Human Nature
March 16, 2017 1:07 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
By Victor Davis Hanson// National Review
The dream of a therapeutic utopia without punishment for wrongdoing fails in practice.
Deterrence is the strategy of persuading someone in advance not to do something, often by raising the likelihood of punishment.
But in the 21st century, we apparently think deterrence is Neanderthal and appeals to the worst aspects of our natures. The alternative view insists that innately nice people respond better to discussion and outreach.
History is largely the story of the tensions between, and the combination of, these two very different views of human nature — one tragic and one therapeutic.
The recent presidential election results favor a more pessimistic view of humans: that without enforceable rules, humans are likely to run amok — quite in contrast to the prior therapeutic mindset of the Obama administration.

Take illegal immigration. The Trump administration believed the answer was to persuade people not to come illegally into the United States, and to convince those who are already residing here illegally and who have broken American laws to go home. So his proposed wall on the border with Mexico and beefed-up patrols are a sort of insurance policy in case immigrants do not heed appeals to follow the law. Deportation and even the threat of deportation also serve as deterrents to persuade others not to enter the U.S. illegally, given the likelihood of being sent back home promptly.
The early result of that proposed deterrent policy is that in just two months, attempted illegal entries into the U.S. have fallen dramatically.
Past approaches to illegal immigration were largely therapeutic. Bilateral talks with Mexico, sanctuary cities, de facto amnesties, and non-enforcement of immigration laws supposedly would ensure that immigration was orderly and a positive experience for both hosts and guests. Instead, the border effectively became wide open and chaos ensued.
Currently, there are no real repercussions on campus for students who disrupt public discourse or prevent invited speakers from presenting lectures. Universities in theory claim this is a bad thing — a violation of the constitutional rights of free expression and assembly. But campuses rarely punish students for violating the rules. They seldom ask local law enforcement to apply the full force of local and state laws to (often violent) student lawbreakers.
If the intent of universities was to persuade students to respect free speech, then their therapeutic policies seem an utter failure. University laxity is seen by protestors as weakness to be held in contempt rather than magnanimity to be appreciated.
The tragic view would hold that had the University of California expelled students for recently disrupting free speech — and had it encouraged law enforcement to arrest miscreants for destroying property and using violence against others — such deterrence would have prevented such unrest in the future.
Such a precedent at Berkeley might have dissuaded Middlebury College students from trying to shout down and even injure the political and social scientist Charles Murray when he was invited to deliver a lecture. The students who charged Murray, apparently intending to physically force him off campus, might not have been so bold had they known in advance that they would be brought up on charges for any such violence.
Middlebury is an elite school where mostly rich kids fear that a criminal record would be fatal to the sort of high-power resumes they hope to compile for the good life to follow graduation.
The same tragic/therapeutic tension characterizes approaches to radical Islamic terrorism. Does vetting incoming refugees from the Middle East deter potential terrorists from entering the country, or does such scrutiny turn off people, radicalize the,m and encourage terrorism?
Did the Obama administration’s euphemistic effort to eradicate the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” — along with Obama’s apology tour and therapeutic Cairo speech — win hearts and minds in the Middle East? Or did such outreach convince radicals that the U.S. was hardly to be feared, thus encouraging anti-American sentiment?
In the past eight years, the U.S. has backed off the red lines and deadlines it issued to Syria, Russia, and Iran. Did such equivocation earn America appreciation and respect for circumspection — or contempt for empty rhetoric?
There is no clear-cut divide between deterrence and therapy. Each at times has its place in warning or wooing people and nations. But in general, anytime a government errs on the side of therapy and communicates to individuals and foreign powers that laws are flexible, that punishment is iffy, and that consequences are negotiable, it gets less of what it wants.
It is unfortunate but true that North Korea is deterred more by U.S. military strength than by United Nations resolutions.
In much the same way, radical campus lawbreakers probably respect (and fear) the local district attorney a lot more than the college president.

In other words, the more we feel we have entered a 21st-century therapeutic utopia, the more tragic that human nature seems not to have changed all that much from the Stone Age.

Strategika Issue #39, You Say You Want A Revolution? Thomas Donnelly [nc]

Hoover Institution

Research
Publications
Fellows
Library & Archives

You are here

Home › Publications › Strategika

Strategika
Issue 39
You Say You Want A Revolution?
by Thomas Donnelly
Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Image credit:
Image credit: Poster Collection, CU 032, Hoover Institution Archives.

To paraphrase the Beatles: Well, you know, you’d better free your mind instead; you may want a revolution but ought to settle for some evolution.

It is an article of revealed religion among defense elites that “we live in a relentlessly changing and fiercely competitive world.” Those words were from former Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, once a physicist and someone deeply imbued with the idea that technological change and competition were the elements propelling change, and that those who failed to “innovate” were doomed to defeat: “Today’s era of military competition is characterized by the additional variables of speed and agility, such that leading the race now frequently depends on who can out-innovate faster than everyone else, and even change the game.”

Such attitudes took root in the late Cold War, back when the Pentagon had a “director for defense research and engineering”—a powerful post separate from the actual weapons-buying bureaucracy—and invested substantial sums in the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency. These agencies were dominated by engineers, practical people whose goal was not science per say but to find ways to put new technologies into the hands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. But the combination of the Cold War’s end and the endless small wars of the post-9/11 years has inverted this traditional approach; the leaders of the Defense Department have been driven by the immediate need to respond to today’s enemies—all of them unpredicted—and have luxuriated in an extreme form of futurism—dreams that must inevitably go unfulfilled.

The failure to build and field in important numbers the weapons designs of the 1990s has all but deprived U.S. forces of the conventional-force superiority that is a premise of their strategy. The past failures to innovate incrementally have added up, even though the Russians and Chinese—and, increasingly, their Iranian partners in what Walter Russell Mead has dubbed the “Axis of Weevils”—have done little more than attained the level of lethality and sophistication reached by U.S. forces during Desert Storm. And since the Weevils are, for the moment, entirely engaged in moving into the vacuum created by American withdrawals rather than testing their strength directly, it is hard to know what level of tactical competence they have really derived from their belated modernization, but the balance of military power has undoubtedly shifted. National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster put the matter succinctly: “When we minimize our Army, we maximize the risk to our soldiers, the risk that in a crisis they will be forced to enter a fight too few in number and without the training and equipment they need to win.”

In such circumstances, broad programs of military “transformation”—Donald Rumsfeld’s dream or a “third offset,” and Ash Carter’s homage to former Defense Secretary William Perry and the creation of “stealth” aircraft—are not relevant. Photon torpedoes, warp drives, and cloaking devices remain in the realm of the starship Enterprise. Better the urgency of President John Kennedy, who vowed to put an American on the moon “in this decade,” than the spirit of Captain James Kirk. And in fact, there are fairly mature military technologies that meet the test of restoring the tactical advantages that U.S. troops once enjoyed.

Perhaps the most tantalizing near-term technologies are related to the substitution of intense amounts of electrical energy for the explosive power of gunpowder. This comprises a kind of catch-all category that subsumes several developments and could have—at least to leaders with an engineering mindset—multiple applications. Fielding electrical-energy-based weapons depends upon the ability to generate and to store immense amounts of power, and then release it either as a destructive force on its own or to propel a projectile at extremely high speeds. Stored electricity might prove to be the gunpowder of the future.

The Defense Department and the military services have been experimenting with these technologies for a decade and more. The Army and Navy have tested a number of “railgun” designs. Railguns are electromagnetic launchers with a parallel set of conductors—the “rails”—that accelerate a sliding armature by passing a very strong current down one rail, along the armature to the other rail. In essence, it’s a 21st-century slingshot that hurls a very dense, but inert, projectile about twice as fast as a traditional cannon; the kinetic energy of these projectiles is enormous.

It does appear that the science of railguns has reached some level of maturity. The main technological challenges are generating and storing enough electrical power—that is to say, a big engine and a good set of batteries—to allow for repeated pulses of direct current that would yield militarily relevant rates of fire of something like six rounds per minute. Other challenges are to build durable and practical rails, since the launch process generates extreme heat that stresses the rail materials. Further, designing guidance mechanisms that can withstand the heat generated by the speed of the projectile may be difficult. On the plus side, the design of munitions ought to be simplified, as should storage, handling, and logistics, since there is no “warhead” atop a railgun round and explosives are not required. Moreover, the range of railguns would far exceed that of any cannon.

But again, the railgun literature strongly indicates that these are challenges for engineering, not basic science. The Navy is interested in railgun technology as a potential solution to the rising challenges of surface fleet air defense and, especially, cruise and ballistic missile defense. Ironically, the otherwise-disastrous Zumwalt-class destroyer—which is now a $4 billion-per-copy pocket battleship—would make a practical platform for a railgun-based system. The ship is huge for a “destroyer”; at almost 15,000 tons it’s almost twice the size of the current Arleigh Burke-class ships. And it has an electric engine that can not only drive the ship at 30 knots, but also generate huge amounts of additional electricity. The Navy originally planned to buy 32 Zumwalts, but the program has long since run aground—because of its technological and cost problems, but also, most importantly, because the ship was misconceived—and halted at just three. To redesign and revive the project would involve great further expense and be an engineering risk, surely. But it could also result in fielding a game-changing technology that would go far toward solving the “anti-access” problem posed by the growing arsenals of Chinese, Russian, and Iranian anti-ship missiles within the next decade rather than several decades. There is no reason to believe that designing a new class of ships would be any less expensive; indeed it is irrational to think that starting over would save money.

On a smaller scale, electromagnetic guns might become the main armaments on tanks and howitzers. While all the same challenges would recur and be compounded by the need to reduce both the source of the electricity and the storage device to the size of a ground combat vehicle, the fundamental engineering challenges are the same as for ships. And the Army already is experimenting with modifying existing howitzers to shoot the same projectile as an electromagnetic weapon. “It turns out that powder guns firing the same hypervelocity projectiles gets you almost as much as you would get out of the electromagnetic rail gun, but it’s something we can do much faster,” says Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work, who has been held over from the Obama Administration to ensure continuity in defense planning. “We are [saying to the next administration]: ‘Look, we believe this is the place where you want to put your money, but we’re going to have enough money in there for both the electromagnetic rail gun and the powder gun.’”

A related development, also resulting from the ability to generate and store immense amounts of power, that is on the cusp of science fiction and reality is the prospect of using directed energy itself as a weapon. Indeed, some low-level forms of directed energy have been employed by the military for some time: microwave systems that heat the water in skin cells, causing irritation, have been used as a crowd-control measure; microwaves also have been fielded to fry enemy electronic systems. Even the radars on combat aircraft may have limited applications in disrupting the sensors of attacking missiles. And, as far back as 2002, the U.S. Air Force began flying an “Airborne Laser”—basically, a giant high-energy chemical laser stuffed inside a 747 commercial aircraft body—as a missile defense test system. In January 2010 the system successfully passed an intercept test and a month later destroyed two targets in a single engagement. But shortly thereafter, amid one of the many rounds of defense budget reductions during the Obama Administration, the effort was scrapped. In many ways, fielding the system as designed was a bad idea—the laser itself needed to be more powerful and would have required a large and vulnerable aircraft to fly within range of enemy air defenses—but the underlying concept was sound and indicative that such systems were technologically feasible, if tactically immature. Also, it was clear that using electricity rather than chemistry as a power source was a better solution.

Electromagnetic guns, hypersonic projectiles or even directed energy death rays would by themselves not necessarily constitute a revolution in warfare. But these technologies could yield a substantial increase in the capabilities of a wide variety of legacy platforms—and, importantly, again provide U.S. forces with a significant battlefield edge. Most of all, such investments could get the American military back in the habit of continuous modernization and the operational innovation that comes from actually fielding new capabilities. The enthusiasts for “transformation” of the past generation have been looking through the wrong end of the telescope; their model of innovation was that, starved of funds, the U.S. armed services would have to think of new ways to fight. But, through history, the process of change in war has been one that more frequently rewards practical tinkering—matching organizations and doctrine to technologies—more than bold conceptualization. Imagining the tank or the fighter aircraft was the basis for a revolution, but to realize it demanded their integration into combined-arms formation and figuring out how to keep that organization supplied with fossil fuel.

Finally, the experience of recent decades ought to debunk the transformationists’ idea that the United States could afford a geopolitical “strategic pause” to pursue a strategy of innovation. Nor can a global power afford an “offset” approach. To paraphrase the Beatles one last time: Evolution is the real solution. And you can see the plan.

March 14, 2017

Angry Reader 14 Mar 17, Victor Hanson [nc, cheers on the answer]

From and Angry Reader:

Dear Professor Hanson,

Evidently you are a supporter of Donald Trump. If I read your essay on this subject correctly, you seem to be implying that, unlike the false elitism of the Washington Beltway, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley, we should look to the real basis of brilliance and repute in a “demonstrable record of moral and intellectual excellence.”

Do you seriously mean to say that Donald Trump’s life has such a “demonstrable record”? A man who cavalierly treats women as objects for his sexual pleasure and lies at the drop of a hat we are to believe is a man of high moral character? Or one who has trouble constructing a sentence using a vocabulary of more than 100 words (everything is just “fantastic”) demonstrates intellectual excellence?

The problem with Trump is not so much his policies, about which reasonable people may disagree, but his character flaws. As David Brook recently commented, Trump is “ripe to be played” by foreign leaders like Putin who are smarter and more wily than he is. But Trump has such a fragile ego that he is likely to react to being played in his typically childish, immature way by lashing out at everyone and anyone he thinks is disrespecting him. He never takes responsibility for anything, always blaming others for his own mistakes, and he does not know how to accept and deal with criticism in a rational way. He also suffers from what, as you classicists know, the Greeks called hubris. And you know what hubris leads to: tragedy.

Let’s just hope that the tragedy ends up being his personally and not ours collectively. With such a man having access to the nuclear trigger, we should all be hoping that we somehow manage to survive these next four years without a tragedy of monumental proportions.

Sincerely,
Sanford G. Thatcher’

P.S. I attach a short bio so that you know my background.

Sanford G. Thatcher
Frisco, TX 75034-5514
https://scholarsphere.psu.edu

“If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying.”-John Ruskin (1865)

“The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people who can write know anything.”-Walter Bagehot (1853)

“Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.”-Ambrose Bierce (1906)
—————————————————–
Victor Davis Hanson’s Reply:

Dear Angry Reader Sanford Thatcher,

There is no need to attach your biography in our new age of populism; the persuasiveness of your argument should stand or fall by what you have written rather than the authority of your CV.

As you know, I certainly did not equate Trump with proof of non-elite moral excellence; rather I explained his election through the widespread anger at political and media elites that was aired through his populist candidacy.

I voted for Donald Trump when there was a binary between his agenda and that of Hillary Clinton.

There is some truth in what you have written about Trump’s rhetorical crudity and his past behavior, but, of course, the Clintons were a virtual crime syndicate—she using her office to leverage cash for the Foundation (a sinecure for unemployable Team Clinton politicos between campaigns) and Bill’s speaking career. Of course, when she lost and is now permanently out of federal office, she can do no connivers any good and so the money dried up and the Foundation is reeling—proof of sorts that the entire operation was a pay-for-play enterprise of the sort that earns most people an indictment.

Actually hubris is a result of Koros (instability and excess resulting from power and wealth) that leads to leads to Hubris (overweening arrogance) to Ate (madness and self-inflicted destruction) and ends in Nemesis (divine and fated retribution), which is all the stuff of tragedy, given that the sequence is usually associated initially with people of talent and good intentions.

All this may certainly apply to Trump’s earlier business implosions, and it fits Bill Clinton perfectly, and Obama may end up the same way.

My point is that in 2016 the choice was not between two characters as much as two agendas: I preferred a foreign policy of deterrence backed by military strength as a better way of preventing wars and interventions, an end to doubling the debt, zero interest rates, and record low GDP growth, a stop to illegal immigration and racial polarization, a restoration of the health care system, and efforts at tax and regulatory reform to restart the economy, as well as renewed energy production—all as a mechanism to help the so-called forgotten man, the middle classes who were the losers under globalization.

I saw far greater hope that Trump might enact such an agenda, and no hope that Hillary Clinton would.

As far as character flaws, pick your poison. His I thought were mostly rhetorical (as you note with your unease about his limited vocabulary) and in the private sphere; hers were concrete and at the public expense, from her cattle futures fraud, to her Wikileaks scandals to the Clinton foundation criminality to her callousness and lying about Benghazi. Hillary as you know is a serial liar, from the mundane (her landing in the Balkans under sniper fire) to the existential (lying to the families of the Benghazi dead).

You might have noted that we survived Bill Clinton committing sex acts in the Oval Office bathroom with a subordinate intern less than half his age (the sort of thing that gets a professor fired summarily), and then lying about it under oath, resulting in his disbarment—the sort of crudity I think you are implying disqualifies one for high office?

Obama, remember, tapped the communications of AP reporters, monitored the communications of James Rosen of Fox News, droned US citizens, bombed Libya without congressional approval, granted amnesties of the sort that he had once warned were unconstitutional, lied about the ACA, and simply chose not to enforce various federal laws he found at odds with his progressive agenda.

If you are arguing that Trump is a Frankenstein monster, then the Dr. Frankenstein creator is surely Barack Obama whose executive orders, partisan rhetoric, nullification of federal laws, and abject ruination of the Democratic Party at the state, congressional, and presidential level all empowered Trump.

So far job growth and the stock market are up; Trump’s appointments in the national security sphere are centrist and heralded. His selections from the business and military fields are a welcome change from the tired retreads from academia and government. And his illegal immigration initiatives and energy agendas are overdue.

As far as hubris, self-reflect: in the last 90 days liberal commentators and pundits have variously called for Trump’s murder, his immediate removal for health reasons, his impeachment, and his resignation.

His phone calls to foreign leaders and communications have been illegally tapped (and so note that the media is now backing away from their Russian collusion charges that proved so far groundless, as they worry more that intelligence agencies’ tapping and the leaking may be exposed as the felonious acts they were); his wife has been accused falsely of prostitution and immigration fraud. Trump himself has been falsely accused (in print) of urophilia and suffering from neurosyphilis.

One New York Times columnist has begged the IRS to commit a felony and send him the Trump tax returns; another compared his election to the mass deaths of Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Is not all that indicative of classical madness that will surely lead to an accounting? Trump, the supposed buffoon, polls higher in the public’s estimation of veracity than does the highbrow media).

On the larger topic of the “elite,” I think we could say that those in Bakersfield or Des Moines did not give us record debt, serial corruption in the IRS, VA, GSA, or EPA, and a world in free fall abroad. Here in California the best and brightest managed to deliver the highest basket of income, sales, and gas taxes in the nation resulting in infrastructure and schools rated near the very bottom in state-to-state comparisons. The Orville dam is a metaphor of elite indifference to existential problems while it pursued transgendered restrooms and bobcat health.

Sincerely,

Victor Davis Hanson

March 11, 2017

Imprimis Feb 17 Vol 46 #2

Support Imprimis

How Intelligence Works (When it Does)
February 2017 • Volume 46, Number 2 • Herbert E. Meyer
Herbert E. Meyer
Founder and President, Storm King Press
________________________________________
Herbert E. Meyer, founder and president of Storm King Press, served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council. A recipient of the U.S. National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, his articles and essays on intelligence have been published in several major newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal. He is the author of several books, including Real-World Intelligence and Hard Thinking; two eBooks, How to Analyze Information and The Cure for Poverty; and a recent booklet, Why is the World So Dangerous.
________________________________________

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 15, 2017, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona.

The performance of our country’s intelligence service is the latest example of an issue exploding into the headlines and becoming a shouting match, while failing to clarify anything about the issue itself. This explosion was ignited last fall by allegations that the Russians hacked into Hillary Clinton’s campaign to help Donald Trump win the election. The blast radius expanded after the election, when rumors surfaced that the Russians had deployed their nasty tactic of kompromat to undermine President Trump’s credibility by spreading rumors about his private behavior while in Moscow years ago. All this, on top of failures that had already wreaked havoc at the CIA and our other intelligence agencies—the 9/11 attacks themselves, the mess over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the weird 2007 National Intelligence Estimate whose key judgment was that Iran had abandoned its nuclear bomb program, Edward Snowden’s NSA espionage activities—has kept the issue of our intelligence service in the headlines.

But before addressing the question of why these failures have occurred, we need to define clearly the role and purpose of our country’s intelligence service, with a focus on how intelligence really works when it’s working properly.

Just utter the word “intelligence” and most people conjure up images of spies, secret satellites peering down on foreign cities and terrorist camps, and rooms full of young technocrats reading private emails and listening to private conversations. These images are accurate, but they reflect the tools and techniques of our intelligence service, rather than its purpose. To understand its purpose, think of a jumbo jet flying at night through turbulent skies—thunder clouds, lightning, other airplanes streaking in all directions and at all altitudes. To navigate through this, the pilot and his crew rely on their radar—the instrument that paints a picture of their environment, enabling them to see what’s going on around them and what lies ahead so they can chart a safe course. Radar doesn’t tell the captain and his crew what to do, but it gives them the accurate information they’ll need to make good decisions.

Our intelligence service is our nation’s radar. Its purpose is to provide the president and his national security team with an accurate picture of what’s going on in the world and what’s likely to happen in the days, months, and years ahead. The assumption is that if the president and his team have this information, they can chart a safe course for our country. And if they can see the distant future soon enough and clearly enough—and if they don’t like what they see—they can take steps to change the future before it happens.

Good intelligence is a combination of information and insight. Information is the raw material, while insight is the finished product. Sometimes this insight takes the form of a top secret report that alerts the president and his team to something that’s about to happen, such as a terrorist attack or the military invasion of one country by another. At other times it is a National Intelligence Estimate, whose purpose is to provide an overall assessment of a major issue—such as North Korea’s nuclear bomb program or the rapid growth of Africa’s middle class—along with a prediction of its future course.

The key to producing good intelligence lies in getting this combination of information and insight right. Intelligence work is like science. You don’t collect information randomly and then stare at it in hopes that something important will pop up. You start with a thesis—in other words, you decide what you want to know. Then you send your collectors out to get it. This is why the key to producing good intelligence lies in asking the right question, rather than in just poring over what’s been randomly collected in hopes that somewhere in the pile of reports and intercepts on your desk you’ll spot something important.

Let me give you an example of how this worked during the Reagan administration. From the end of World War II until 1981, every president’s objective had been not to lose the Cold War. If things were no worse when a president left office than when he took office, he’d done a good job. But President Reagan didn’t want to tread water—he wanted to win the Cold War. In other words, he switched from defense to offense. So Reagan’s great director of Central Intelligence, William Casey, asked the CIA’s Soviet Division two obvious questions: Where is the Soviet Union weak? and Where is it most vulnerable? The answer he received was: We don’t know. No one’s ever asked this before. Our spies had been so focused on Soviet strengths—infantry divisions, nuclear missiles, tanks, submarines, and so forth—that we had no intelligence on Soviet weaknesses, such as its imploding economy. Under Casey’s leadership, we refocused our collection efforts and, not surprisingly, found all sorts of Soviet vulnerabilities that hadn’t been grasped because no one had bothered looking for them. President Reagan used these weaknesses and vulnerabilities to put more and more pressure on the Kremlin. Eight years later the Berlin Wall came down, and two years after that the Soviet Union ceased to exist.

In the intelligence business, just as in scientific research, a thesis sometimes turns out to be wrong. The collectors can’t find what you want, because it isn’t there. When this happens—and it happens to even the best scientists and intelligence officials—you must abandon your flawed thesis and re-think the issue. If you refuse to do this, you’re like a scientist who continues to insist that the Earth is flat—or a president who continues to insist that ISIS is like a “junior varsity” team.

February 2017 • Volume 46, Number 2 • Herbert E. Meyer

When the collectors have done their work—when they’ve told the analysts what they want to know—the intelligence process shifts from gathering information to creating insight. It’s the difference between shopping for food in the supermarket and actually cooking dinner.

Insight is the product of knowledge, experience, and, above all, good judgment. You cannot say something insightful, or even something intelligent, on a subject or issue about which you don’t know anything. So the most senior intelligence analysts must be among the world’s most knowledgeable individuals in their fields of expertise—the Mideast, Russia, China, nuclear weapons, economic development, etc. And they must have that one elusive and unquantifiable skill that so often brings success in every venture: the ability to spot a pattern with the fewest possible facts—the ability to look at what’s known and combine this with their own knowledge, experience, and good judgment, to come up with a new idea or insight. This is the skill we see in great scientists like Albert Einstein, in great entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs, and in great intelligence chiefs like Bill Casey.

Back in January, when U.S. intelligence chiefs released an unclassified version of the briefing they gave to President-Elect Trump about Russian efforts to influence the November election, Americans learned a phrase that’s unique to the world of intelligence: key judgment. It was a key judgment that Russia had hacked into John Podesta’s email server, and a key judgment that Vladimir Putin preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton. Since these key judgments understandably erupted into a nasty political brawl, let’s take a moment to understand what a key judgment really is. Simply put, it’s the conclusion reached by our most senior intelligence officials, based not only on the evidence they were able to collect, but also on the insights it enabled them to reach based on their knowledge and experience.

A key judgment isn’t the same as a jury verdict. A jury verdict is based solely on the evidence presented to it. In a murder trial, unless the prosecutors can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, you must vote for acquittal. But in a National Intelligence Estimate, you reach a key judgment by starting with the evidence, then combining it with your own knowledge and experience to reach a conclusion.

Precisely because key judgments go beyond evidence, an intelligence service must be trusted by policymakers to be effective. Policymakers may not always like what they’re told—as when the obvious implication of a National Intelligence Estimate is that a favorite policy is heading for catastrophe—but if they trust the intelligence service, they will know that what they’ve been told is likely true. And this trust needs to be earned.

This is how it was during the Reagan administration, because ev¬eryone from the President on down knew perfectly well that the intelligence official who not only had read the final version of an Estimate and signed off on it—but also played a major role in writing it—was the CIA director himself. Like every other member of the cabinet, Bill Casey was a busy man. But to Casey, being in charge of our intelligence service meant more than merely being its top administrator and dealing with budgets and bureaucracies. It meant that he himself was our country’s top intelligence analyst. When the final draft of an Estimate landed on his desk—more precisely, when I walked into his office and handed it to him—Casey would take that draft, pick up a pen and a yellow legal pad, and go through it word by word.

Sometimes he made a change that clarified a sentence. Other times he asked a question that forced us to go back and re-think what we’d written. When that happened, we either changed the draft or asked to meet with Casey to try and persuade him that the original version was better. He would listen and then make his decision. All of us who worked closely with Bill Casey—he insisted that everyone, including the CIA’s most junior analysts, call him Bill—were astounded by the amount of time he devoted to getting the final draft of an Estimate, or the final version of the President’s Daily Brief, just right. He did this by sitting quietly in his office, reading, writing, and—something that so few officials in Washington, D.C. set aside the time to do—thinking.

February 2017 • Volume 46, Number 2 • Herbert E. Meyer

So why has our intelligence service suffered so many failures during the last decade or so, losing the trust of so many? Because it’s been run by career bureaucrats and administrators who rose to the top by managing intelligence rather than actually doing it. That’s like putting an airline executive with an MBA and a law degree into the cockpit of a jumbo jet. And like bureaucrats and administrators everywhere, our recent intelligence chiefs focused on structure rather than on people. Of course all organizations, including intelligence services, need the proper structure. But especially in an intelligence service, good structure is worthless without the right people—in this case world-class analysts who are deeply knowledgeable about the Mideast, China, Russia, terrorism, and all the rest. Make a list of our country’s leading experts on these subjects. How many of them have held top-level jobs in our intelligence service during the last dozen or so years? How often have the leaders of our intelligence service reached out to these people to seek their advice? The correct answers are: none and rarely.

We are still in the early days of the Trump administration, but to borrow an overused Washington cliché, we should be cautiously optimistic about the future of our intelligence service. Neither Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats nor Director of Central Intelligence Mike Pompeo are professional bureaucrats. They’ve built their careers on substance rather than on management. Each of them has proven he can talk about the key issues that confront us with an impressive level of personal knowledge and insight. Each is capable of actually doing intelligence rather than merely overseeing it.

This will require restoring the correct balance between collection and analysis. Obviously, collecting information is crucially important work. Collecting information through technology—satellites, intercepts, and so forth—is intense to the point of exhaustion. Collecting information through espionage is dangerous and sometimes fatal. All of us owe these collectors a huge debt of gratitude. What they need now is guidance from the top—a clear sense of what to look for, rather than just being told to sweep in whatever information they can in hopes it will prove useful.

Turning this raw material into first-rate intelligence will require the active participation of our country’s best geo-strategic experts in think tanks, universities, corporations, and increasingly the blogosphere. Directors Coats and Pompeo should recruit the ones they can, and be in close touch with the others. This doesn’t mean agreeing with everything these experts say and write. It means listening to them and blending their information and insights with what’s been gathered covertly, in order to reach the clearest, most accurate conclusions about what’s happening now and what’s likely to happen in the future.

Finally, Coats and Pompeo will need to do the one thing their recent predecessors didn’t do, either because they didn’t recognize the need to do it or didn’t have the ability. They will need to set aside time—quite a bit of time—to sit quietly in their offices and think. Their objective must be to paint an accurate picture of what’s going on in the world and of what’s likely to happen in the future. If they can do this, President Trump and his national security team will have what they need to see America safely through today’s global turbulence: radar.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.