Tag Archives: Putin

Root of Evil: Let’s Put ISIS on Welfare

With an astonishing refutation of reality, the White House recently announced its latest “strategy” to defeat terrorism: welfare.

(Government-created jobs are often a form of welfare.)

ISISEvil

Last night, State Department spokesman Marie Harf explained the roots cause of terrorism: unemployment. Harf asserts:

“We cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs…We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people…”

Does this White House truly believe that we can bribe terrorists to stop terrorizing? How did that succeed domestically, with the establishment of the welfare state under Johnson’s War on Poverty to create a Great Society? The War on Poverty was a failure and the poster children of the Great Society are Ferguson and Detroit.

The Obama White House has merged a Roussean view of man as noble and innocent until corrupted by society with a Socialist view of economic determinism, wherein a person’s economic status determines his character. (One cannot discount this administration’s Islamophilia.)

The root cause of terrorism is not, and never has been, unemployment. The root cause of terrorism is evil, the evil that resides in man’s heart. And the specific manifestation of that evil which compels these evil men to kill, behead, terrorize, and destroy is a desire to fulfill the wishes of Allah and pursue Islamic jihad with the end goal of creating a global, infidel-free, Muslim caliphate.

Money, jobs, and any form of appeasement will not stay the hands of these evil-doers. Evil-doers! Appeasing Putin, the Castro brothers, Iran and other tyrannical states, will not end the tyranny. Evil exists. Evil in the hearts of these evil people.

Six years of appeasement has erupted the world in flames!

The Obama administration – and the Obama administration alone – is pathologically incapable of identifying the enemy and the origins of their behavior. The enemy is Islamic jihadists whose goal is to subjugate or annihilate all those who refuse to accept Allah as God. The origins of their behavior lie in the Koran and teachings of Mohammed.

But the suicidal nonsense from the White House continues even as the jihadists are hell-bent on enflaming the globe. Harf asserted: “We cannot kill our way out of this war.”

How ludicrous! We killed our way out of World Wars I and II. Wars end after the enemy has been defeated or destroyed.

Representing an administration clearly in denial, National Security Advisor Susan Rice recently claimed, “Still, while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature of what we confronted during World War II or during the Cold War. We cannot afford to be buffeted by alarmism and a nearly instantaneous new cycle.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) disagreed with that assessment, declaring, “They [ISIS] are a dominant threat to peace in the world today. I really believe this. There’s never been a time when there are more threats to the United States than there is now. So as I said once before, we’re either going to fight them there or fight them here.”

America needs to engage and defeat the enemy in this world war, just as she did in the first two world wars. (Three world wars if you count the Cold War.)

Islamic jihadists pose an existential threat to America and the whole of Western Civilization.

Obama Abets Five Anti-American Empires

Victor Davis Hanson’s brilliant analysis of contemporary geo-politics is a must read at National Review. In less than 1,200 words, Hanson summarizes the alarming rise of five (five!) anti-American empires under Obama’s watch.

Empires

World War I saw the demise of the colonial age of empires, as four empires (Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, and Russian) “abruptly collapsed amid military defeat, rising nationalism, and revolution.”

Everything abhors a vacuum, so, “on the eve of World War II four new empires suddenly grew out of the wreckage of old Europe and Asia.” They were: Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany (Third Reich), the Greater Japanese Empire, and the Soviet Union.

The German, Italian, and Japanese Empires collapsed at the end of the Second World War, with the British Empire sputtering to an end a few decades later. “The Soviet implosion in 1991 was expected by very few.” [Ronald Reagan was the exception.]

Barack Obama, Empire Builder

That geo-political power vacuum is again creating a vortex of competing empire-building forces spanning the globe to create, as Hanson notes, five new (or revived) empires.

The first empire identified by Hanson is an “Iranian theocracy [which] fancies itself the reincarnation of the ancient Persian Empire of Cyrus and Xerxes.” Iran’s nuclear ambitions will soon be realized, and it already “controls portions of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and, soon, Yemen.”

The second emerging empire – a restored Russian Empire – fulfills Putin’s “dreams of updating 19th-century Czarist Russia.” Putin “runs an autocratic nuclear state and has dreams of restoring 19th-century imperial Russia under Orthodoxy and a new czardom.”

“Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan dreams of reviving the Ottoman Empire.” This third empire extends into “both the Arab and the Mediterranean worlds.”

The fourth empire, the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL), “has grandiose schemes of recreating the medieval pan-Arab caliphate.” It is intent upon hollowing out and absorbing the Middle East and seizing “the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.”

The jihadist Islamic State is an empire of our own making, as Hanson notes, “for the price of a cheap 2012 reelection talking point, the U.S. fled from Iraq in 2011, after enormous sacrifices in blood and treasure had achieved, in the words of Barack Obama, a relatively stable and secure Iraq that might have been, in the words of Joe Biden, the administration’s greatest achievement. Supporters of Obama claim the Iraq War created ISIS; in fact, the disintegration of Syria and the abrupt U.S. withdrawal from Iraq did.”

The fifth empire, the awakening giant of Communist China, “has terrified almost all of its Westernized neighbors – Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan.” It is attempting “to recreate its own version of” the Japanese Empire.

Our Common Enemy

Hanson notes some disturbing “common denominators to the grandiose visions of these five would-be empires.” In essence, they “are anti-democratic,” “certainly anti-American” “bullies” who cannot be appeased.

As Hanson puts it, “Obama is abetting five new empires that believe their reactionary autocracy, anti-Americanism, and growing military power should earn them greater material rewards and global influence. To paraphrase the Roman historian Tacitus, where Obama has helped to create chaos, he calls it peace.”

Although Obama rails against imperialism, and has – throughout his presidency – sought to diminish America’s geo-political footprint around the globe, Hanson points out that this present-day “turbulent age of rising empires [is] mostly due to a new American indifference and passivity.”

Ironically, as President Barack “I am not a dictator” Obama wields greater dictatorial powers at home and bullies political opponents as if they were the enemy, he appeases our enemies as if that will cause them to cease being tyrants or terrorists.

obama.empire.statement.2011

Obama treats these rising hegemonic threats as if they were legitimate, yet regards America’s presence anywhere as illegitimate, as if America was a usurper on the world stage.

Leading from behind has led to this global crisis in which America continues to hide behind Obama’s phony assurances of “Peace in our time.” Instead of exercising leadership in a world desperate for salvation, Obama rejects the reality of the threats facing us and the world.

Instead of challenging, as Reagan did, existing evil empires, Obama acts as if it is America that is evil.

Update: David French adds clarity to President Obama’s actual accomplishments in the Middle East and northern Africa. He writes:

“While no one should pretend there was an easy or obvious American diplomatic or military response to the Arab Spring, the Obama administration did worse than fail – it kept choosing to back the wrong side. It launched a war on behalf of a ragtag group of jihadist militias in Libya – jihadists who soon enough transformed into violent enemies of the U.S. It backed the revolutionary Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt – even to the point of sending it advanced American weapons – even as it violated the Camp David Accords, persecuted Christians, and supported Hamas. Then, when the Brotherhood was overthrown in one of the world’s largest political protests, the Obama administration incredibly imposed an arms embargo on the new, allied government that took power.”

French continues:

“At perhaps the most strategically critical moment in the Middle East since the Arab-Israeli wars, the Obama administration created a yawning power vacuum — one that has since been filled, with gusto, by ISIS, Iran, and now Russia.”

Hillary Crazy about Crazies

We Must Empathize With America’s Enemies

Say what?

Hillary Clinton, the as-yet-unannounced Democratic front-runner for president spoke at Georgetown this week to express her vision “to advance peace and security.”[1]

Attempting to seize the moral high ground, Hillary’s strategy for world peace is hilarious: empathy. (This is reminiscent of that quintessential quality Obama seeks in Supreme Court justices – empathy, not legality.)

HillaryCrazies

In Hillary’s world, Clinton calls this “smart power” which leaves “no one on the side lines.”

(I would think we would want terrorists and other evildoers to be “on the side lines,” but the Obama administration has been known for negotiating with the worst of the worst.)

Eschewing military action, Hillary seemingly contends that diplomacy will solve all of our problems and lead to global peace. “That is what we believe in the 21st century will change – change the prospects for peace.”

Clinton’s approach to resolving tensions with our enemies is simplistic, naïve, and dangerous: “Showing respect even for one’s enemies.”

And what does that entail? “Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”

Empathize? With terrorists and tyrants?

Having run the State Department for so many years, one would think that the smartest woman in the world – who oversaw the dismantling of peace around the world – would know what the perspectives and points of view our enemies possess.

ISIS and other Islamic terrorists want to create a worldwide caliphate and, to do so, they must convert or kill every other person on the planet, especially us. That is their perspective and point of view.

Does Clinton, like Kerry, think we can talk ISIS into peace?

How do we show these butchers, beheaders, and barbarians “respect?” Through negotiation? With appeasement?

How are we to empathize with butchers and barbarians? Will that empathy dissuade them from further butchery? Genghis Khan was undeterred by pleas for mercy.

Vladimir Putin wants to restore the old Russian Empire. He seized the Crimea despite world protests and he is hell bent on absorbing the whole of the Ukraine. Virtually unopposed by Obama and his diplomacy. How did that reset button work out for you, Hillary?

Iran is unalterably resolute in its desire to develop nuclear weapons and the Obama administration’s policy of appeasement will never contain that threat. Indeed, for all these years, negotiation has always worked to Iran’s advantage.

Instead of acknowledging evil where it exists and taking action to protect Americans, Obama talks, talks, talks. And Hillary Rodham Clinton – the presumptive POTUS in 2016 – apparently supports that policy.

Endnotes:

[1]               Daniel Harper, “Hillary: We Must Empathize With America’s Enemies,” Weekly Standard, 12/4/14, http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/12/04/hillary-we-must-empathize-americas-enemies#.

War? What War?

President Obama has been opposed to war from the moment he emerged on the national stage. He fought against combat in Afghanistan (the “good” war) and Iraq (the “bad” war). Obama is so war-averse that he completely removed all U.S. troops from a stable, self-governing Iraq (paving the way for the chaos and ISIS crisis) and intends to do the same in Afghanistan.

From the beginning of his tenure as president, Obama denied that we are in a “war on terror” and banned the use of that phrase. Indeed, accompanying his infamous apology tour, Obama declared, “I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.”

What war

Clearly, Islam is at war with us. Did Obama forget about the Twin Towers? The Islamic jihadists engaged in the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq? The recurrent attempts by Muslim extremists to commit attacks of terror in the United States?

Has the Obama administration not yet learned its lesson?

article-2720309-205f597400000578-338_634x369

In a press conference just last week, Obama asserted, “They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing but an endless slavery to their empty vision, and the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior.”

In other words, ISIS poses no threat to the United States.

Just two days ago, Deputy State Department spokesman Marie Harf echoed the President’s assertion that the threat posed by ISIS “is not about the United States and what we do.” This was said after the beheading of a U.S. journalist.

screen_shot_20140815_at_4.21.38_pm.png.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.21.38_pm

While the White House is living in fantasyland, Americans will have to suffer the reality.

American Exceptionalism is in the Eye of the Beholder

(The Sixties Coulter-Culture is Alive and Well and Seeks to Fundamentally Transform America into its Long-Sought Utopia)

For most Americans, the United States has been a force for good in the world (albeit imperfectly). To them, “American exceptionalism” speaks to the best that America has become, to the American can-do spirit which is both resourceful and generous, and to America’s reliance upon a providential God who has mightily blessed her.

FeaturedImage

For others, particularly those embracing the Sixties’ countercultural ethos, “American exceptionalism” epitomizes the dark side of Americanism. For them, America has not been exceptionally good or constructively influential but, rather, exceptionally evil, creating the chaos that we see in the world at this very moment.

President Obama’s Vision

Hence President Obama’s determined zeal to disengage America from the world, to – as author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza suggests – constrain America and its own self-interests rather than constraining the evil which would destroy us.[1]

For those who think like Obama, America is the problem, not the solution. For them, America should retreat from world affairs.

Obama and those who agree with him are wrong in a number of ways. First, America has truly been a force for good in this world, particularly when it has sought both God’s righteousness and His blessing.

Second, no matter how much they deny it, evil exists. Evil exists to do evil. Evil will never be satiated.

Third, retreating from evil never works. Evil will never be appeased. Retreat merely leaves a power vacuum in which evil can enter and thrive. Obama’s leadership vacuum is directly responsible for many of the worldwide crises so evident today, especially the empowerment of ISIS.

Obama views America as fundamentally flawed, hence his calls to fundamentally transform America. Thus, he offered “hope and change” and other Orwellian clichés. The Obama administration first denied the existence of a “war on terror,” them redefined terrorism, arguing that the real terrorists are American patriots. Even now, he opposes so-called “right-wing terrorists” more than he does Muslim jihadists.

Failing to recognize evil where it does exist (all the while believing real evil only exists in America), Obama resists accepting undeniable comparisons between Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler.

Wanting to believe the Russian “reset” worked, that his continuing world apology tour strengthens America, Obama actually claims “America is stronger than ever!

Unconcerned with what is best for America, Obama swapped five jihadist leaders for one deserter, and he created the chaos on our southern border due to his failure to grasp the meanings of simple terms like “citizenship” and “national sovereignty” and a diminished or jaundiced view of what it means to be an American.

As a direct consequence of his worldview and his foreign and domestic policies, President Obama has succeeded in fundamentally transforming America and the world.

Obama’s success derives in no small measure from a compliant media and political leaders who are in agreement with his worldview and also the employment of a wide variety of propaganda techniques, including Orwell’s infamous Newspeak.

Steve Deace on Newspeak

In an excellent Townhall commentary, Steve Deace shows how the counterculturalists of the Sixties have redefined basic terms, adapting timeless meanings to suit contemporary purposes. His entitled his essay, “The American Exceptionalism Dictionary,” presumably to suggest that – were words to mean today what they have always meant – we would not be in the many predicaments in which we find ourselves today.

Deace highlights four particular terms which have come to mean the opposite of what they once did, using Webster’s 1828 definitions as a foundation.

Rights” were once based on law and conformity to an accepted “human standard of truth, propriety or justice” but have become entitlements, primarily based upon one’s membership in a particular aggrieved group (racial, ethnic, gender, etc.).

Laws” were once objective, established, and applicable to all but are now evolving, subject to the whims of judges and politicians.

Morality” was once based on settled moral or spiritual principles which were considered absolutes, whereas moral relativism has become so exalted that “morality” is now defined as “An ancient word used only by those on the wrong side of history.”

Tolerance” once meant openly permitting a belief or action without constraint, but now requires “acceptance, validation, and participation in that which you don’t agree with.”

Fundamental Transformation

President Obama has transformed America and the world through, in large measure, through his rhetoric and, as highlighted here, his redefinition of words which were once objectively understood but now are subjectively misappropriated.

Deace concluded his column with two paragraphs worthy of including here:

“God, the ‘governor of the universe’ as ‘father of the Constitution’ James Madison referred to Him, spoke the universe into existence with mere words. Words declared our independence from tyranny. The redeemer of wayward mankind is literally the Words of God made flesh.”

“There is a reason those who plot to undo American Exceptionalism have worked so hard to capture the language. And we won’t preserve liberty for future generations until we take it back.”

Photo Credit: http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/two-cheers-for-american-exceptionalism.

Endnotes:

[1]       Dinesh D’Souza, Drive at Five, WMAL, 8/25/14.

Obama: America is Stronger Than Ever

In his recent West Point commencement address, President Obama claimed, “America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world.” The exact opposite is true.

Arguably at the nadir of his scandal-ridden presidency, with worldwide regard for America plummeting and America’s enemies proliferating in both quantity and capability, Obama desperately tried to change the narrative.

Surely we can evaluate America’s geopolitical strength “relative to the rest of the world” by how she conducts herself on the world scene.

Obama promised swift action to apprehend and prosecute the perpetrators of the coordinated terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. He quickly jailed an innocent film producer for posting a YouTube video which had absolutely no connection with Benghazi.

Hundreds of girls were captured by Nigerian terrorists, putting human faces to the worsening global terrorist threat. To rescue those girls, Obama brought the full force of America’s might, employing hashtag diplomacy.

Responding to Putin’s invasion of Crimea, Obama basically said, “Don’t do it again.” Putin is doing it again.

Obama’s notion of national strength was well articulated in his administration’s Orwellian redefinition of leadership, “leading from behind,” which was first practiced in Libya in 2011 and is employed today with Syria.

At the onset of World War II, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill promised his people, “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.” Churchill urged his fellow citizens to never give in, even in their darkest hour. Churchill’s statesmanship led his nation to victory.

In contrast, Obama continually claims victory (“al Qaeda is dead”) despite the reality that the terrorist threat to the world is greater than ever. His vision of the world is at odds with the reality that the rest of us face every day.

President Obama is not being honest with either the American people or himself. Moreover, his words and actions place America and our allies in ever-greater danger as he brags about non-existent successes and denies reality.

America is sorely in need of a statesman, not a partisan. Obama is no Churchill (or Reagan, for that matter).

Putin = Hitler? Yes!

Prince Charles was recently criticized for accurately comparing Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler.

Although Putin has not (yet) engaged in massive ethnic cleansing as Hitler did, even a cursory examination of Putin’s words, actions, and goals invite comparisons with Hitler.

What kind of a person as Putin proven himself to be? We know that Putin is ruthless, aggressive, and power-hungry. Putin cites the law while breaking the law, using rhetoric of peace to disguise his militaristic intentions. He has engaged in territorial expansion in the past as he seeks to re-establish the Russian Empire.

Hitler’s Strategy

As Prince Charles alluded to, Putin’s annexation of Crimea dramatically mirrors Hitler’s annexation of Austria. A recent documentary, Nazis: Evolution of Evil,[1] presents a chilling account of Hitler’s modus operandi. Consider how closely it mirrors Putin’s own approach to achieving his goals.

  1. Hitler annexed Austria peacefully – bringing Austrian Germans into the Reich – “against all international agreements, yet Britain and France do nothing. … Hitler has taken his first step to his Greater Germany without bloodshed.”
  2. Having seized Austria, Hitler entered Czechoslovakia, which had a large German population along its border, an area known as the Sudetenland.
  3. Hitler’s expressed goal was to unite all Germans in one country.
  4. The Czechs resisted. Hitler claimed the Germans were being persecuted by the Czechs.
  5. Pro-Nazi agitators in Czechoslovakia stirred up unrest.
  6. Hitler mobilized troops to “defend” Germans in Czechoslovakia.
  7. Hitler urged voting in the Sudetenland and, later, annexed the country.
  8. Hitler’s territorial acquisitions continued as he sought to rule the whole of Europe and Russia.

Putin’s Plans

Open Democracy asks an important question: “With Crimea under the control of Russia’s military forces and its Moscow-backed government voting to secede from Ukraine – all achieved under Russia’s pretext of protecting the Russian population there – the question arises as to whether, and where, President Vladimir Putin could seek territorial expansion next?”

Putin’s imperialistic designs remain unabated and, as yet, unchallenged. And the West appears resigned to defeat.

Endnotes:

[1]               Nazis: Evolution of Evil, episode 5, “Preparing for War,” American Heroes Channel, http://www.ahctv.com/tv-shows/nazis-evolution-of-evil.