Overblog Follow this blog
Administration Create my blog
February 12 2015 5 12 /02 /February /2015 17:02

 

The Center for Security Policy (CSP) sent an email press release to my email and probably their mailing list.

 

JRH 2/12/15

************************

U.S. Flag Officers: Keep Gitmo Open – Don’t Surrender Gitmo to Cuba (Summarized title by Editor)

 

Sent by Ben Lerner

Sent: February 12, 2015

Center for Security Policy

 

RETIRED FLAG OFFICERS, NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERTS ADVISE AGAINST TRANSFER OF GITMO DETAINEES AND SURRENDER OF GITMO TO GOVERNMENT OF CUBA

 

(Washington, DC): Today, dozens of distinguished retired senior military officers and national security experts signed a letter to President Obama, organized by the Center for Security Policy, urging him to keep the detention/interrogation facility at Guantanamo Bay open, and to refrain from transferring – either to foreign countries or to the United States – jihadist detainees currently held there.  The letter also cautions President Obama against acceding to the demands of the Castro regime that the [Guantanamo Bay Naval Base] itself be surrendered to the government of Cuba.

 

With respect to the detainees held at Gitmo, the letter underscores the extent to which transferring detainees out of Gitmo, either to foreign countries or to the United States, poses serious national security risks.  The letter states in part:

 

“The statistics concerning the recidivism rates of former Gitmo detainees should be cause for you to suspend indefinitely all overseas detainee transfers.  According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, approximately thirty percent of detainees who have been transferred out of Gitmo since detainee operations were first established there – under the previous administration as well as your own – have either been confirmed as having reengaged on the battlefield, or are suspected of having done so.  The actual number could well be considerably higher….”

 

“…While U.S. law prohibits the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United States, or the construction/modification of facilities within the United States for that purpose, your former State Department envoy for Guantanamo closure, Cliff Sloan, has indicated to the media that your strategy is eventually to make the case to Congress that the “small core” that may remain after further foreign transfers take place should be transferred into the United States for detention.  We believe that such a transfer into the United States would be unacceptable on both the domestic security and legal grounds.”

 

The letter goes on to explain the strategic value of the [Guantanamo Bay Naval Base], and the importance of maintaining U.S. control over that installation from a military and geostrategic perspective.  The letter states in part: 

 

“Quite apart from its use over the past thirteen years for detainee operations, Gitmo has served a vital security role for American interests in the Western Hemisphere since its establishment in 1903, and continues to do so.  Notably, that installation provides critical logistical support to ships and aircraft involved in counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean, and also support for contingency operations in the region.” 

 

“Even worse than the loss of this facility to our forces would be the prospect that its surrender to the Cuban government may well presage Guantanamo Bay becoming an important power-projection base in the Western Hemisphere for other, hostile powers (e.g., Russia, China or Iran).  We recall that, in 2007, Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa – shortly before he informed the United States that the agreement allowing the U.S. Air Force to use the Manta air base for counter-narcotics operations would not be renewed – offered the use of that base to China.  (Manta has subsequently become a conduit for the very drug-trafficking to this country that it once did so much to disrupt.)” 

 

Among of the signatories of the letter were:

 

  • Gen. Carl Stiner, USA (Ret.)

 

  • Adm. Jerry Johnson, USN (Ret.)

 

  • Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.)

 

  • Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Former Attorney General of the United States

 

  • Hon. Pete Hoekstra, Former Member of Congress; Former Chairman, House Permanent   Select Committee on Intelligence

 

  • Hon. Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, Former Deputy National Counterintelligence Executive

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, stated:

 

“The individuals who have signed this letter urging President Obama to change course on his disastrous agenda to close down the detention/interrogation facility at Guantanamo Bay, deserve the nation’s gratitude for having stepped up, yet again, in defense of the national security of the United States.  It is also most welcome that the signatories of this letter recognize the geostrategic necessity of keeping Guantanamo Bay under American control, rather than surrendering it to the Castro regime, which would most assuredly use that base against the interests of the United States, and invite others to do the same.  President Obama should heed the advice of these distinguished warriors and national security professionals and keep Gitmo open, operational and in American hands.”

 

The full text of the letter, with signatures, can be found below.

 

-30-

 

#####

 

12 February, 2015

 

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, D.C. 20500

 

Dear Mr. President:

 

As you are well aware, the Department of Defense has, since shortly after September 11, 2001, detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba dangerous individuals the U.S. government has designated as unlawful enemy combatants.  Yet, shortly after you took office in January of 2009, you issued an Executive Order mandating the closure of the detention/interrogation facilities at that installation (popularly known as Gitmo.) 

 

In the intervening period, you have transferred a number of those detainees to foreign countries, particularly during the past several months.  You also reiterated in your 2015 State of the Union address your intention to close Gitmo and appear intent on removing from that secure facility the unlawful enemy combatants – jihadists that have been officially described as “the worst of the worst” – still confined there.

 

Meanwhile, public reports indicate that the Castro regime has demanded that the United States surrender Gitmo as part of any arrangement for normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba.  As you have made a priority of achieving such a restoration of ties, you may feel tempted to accede to this demand.

 

Our past experience as military, intelligence, law enforcement and security policy professionals leads us to believe that the continued transfer of detainees out of Gitmo to foreign countries, and potentially into the United States, threatens national security and public safety.  This is particularly true given events of recent weeks, during which we have seen a resurgence of al Qaeda, Islamic State and other jihadist organizations eager to deploy operatives both abroad and, if possible, here at home to carry out attacks against the West. 

 

The statistics concerning the recidivism rates of former Gitmo detainees should be cause for you to suspend indefinitely all overseas detainee transfers.  According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, approximately thirty percent of detainees who have been transferred out of Gitmo since detainee operations were first established there – under the previous administration as well as your own – have either been confirmed as having reengaged on the battlefield, or are suspected of having done so.  The actual number could well be considerably higher.

 

Some of the former Gitmo detainees who have definitely resumed their jihad include: Abu Sufian bin Qumu, now the leader of a group that participated in the attacks on our facilities in Benghazi; Ibrahim al-Rubaysh, now a senior leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula; and Mazin Salih Musaid al-Alawi al-Awfi, also a senior leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. There are press reports that at least one of the Taliban commanders exchanged for Sergeant Bo Bergdahl has already returned to the fight.  Such individuals pose a direct threat to our military and diplomatic personnel overseas, as well as to our civilian population domestically.

 

While U.S. law prohibits the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United States, or the construction/modification of facilities within the United States for that purpose, your former State Department envoy for Guantanamo closure, Cliff Sloan, has indicated to the media that your strategy is eventually to make the case to Congress that the “small core” that may remain after further foreign transfers take place should be transferred into the United States for detention.  We believe that such a transfer into the United States would be unacceptable on both the domestic security and legal grounds.

 

For example, the transfer of detainees to U.S. prisons or military bases would turn those facilities – and the nearby civilian populations – into high-probability terrorist targets. In addition, convicted terrorists are known to have plotted or facilitated attacks while incarcerated in our penal institutions.  For example, Sayyid Nosair helped plan the first World Trade Center bombing from a U.S. prison.  And Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (a.k.a. the “Blind Sheikh”) ran the al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya terrorist organization from a U.S. prison. 

 

Moreover, once inside the prison system, detainees will be better positioned to argue that prison security practices violate their rights and need to be altered.  That was the case when “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid asserted the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) interfered with his free exercise of religion.  The Department of Justice chose in response to lift the SAMs at Supermax.

 

Furthermore, once on U.S. soil, detainees will argue that they are entitled, by virtue of their physical presence here, to a range of constitutional protections that can only, they will argue, be realized in our defendant-friendly civilian criminal court system.  At least, some federal judges can be expected to entertain such a contention.

 

Given the circumstances surrounding the capture of these detainees – often on foreign battlefields – civilian prosecutors will likely be forced to choose between revealing classified evidence to secure a conviction, and dropping charges.  Such a scenario begs the question of what we will have to do with detainees who, once here in the U.S., cannot be tried and cannot be sent overseas.  The options at that point will be either to detain these terrorists inside the U.S. indefinitely, without trial and possibly in the face of court orders dismissing their cases, or release them here.       

 

Additionally, proponents of closing detention operations at Gitmo often argue that the facility’s existence is a “recruiting tool” for terrorists. This ignores the fact that the United States was repeatedly attacked by terrorists during the decades prior to the commencement of detainee operations at Gitmo, including on September 11, 2001.  To suggest that Gitmo fuels terrorism ignores history and the reality that the terrorism of greatest concern today is, and has long been, driven by jihadist ideology.  Gitmo does not fuel global jihad; rather, it is global jihad that necessitates Gitmo. 

 

That said, there is some truth to the idea that Gitmo has symbolic value to our enemies: It is certain that they would, quite properly, consider its closure a signal victory in their determined effort to demonstrate our submission and enlist new recruits to their cause.

 

It is also our professional judgment that surrendering to the Castro regime control of the U.S. naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, with its deep water port and airfield, would be a strategic mistake of the first order.

 

Quite apart from its use over the past thirteen years for detainee operations, Gitmo has served a vital security role for American interests in the Western Hemisphere since its establishment in 1903, and continues to do so.  Notably, that installation provides critical logistical support to ships and aircraft involved in counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean, and also support for contingency operations in the region. 

 

Even worse than the loss of this facility to our forces would be the prospect that its surrender to the Cuban government may well presage Guantanamo Bay becoming an important power-projection base in the Western Hemisphere for other, hostile powers (e.g., Russia, China or Iran).  We recall that, in 2007, Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa – shortly before he informed the United States that the agreement allowing the U.S. Air Force to use the Manta air base for counter-narcotics operations would not be renewed – offered the use of that base to China.  (Manta has subsequently become a conduit for the very drug-trafficking to this country that it once did so much to disrupt.) 

 

The Castro regime is already making its ports, airfields, intelligence collection and other facilities available to our actual or potential foes. There is little doubt in our view that the Cuban government would be inclined toward similar arrangements with China or others with respect to Gitmo.  It would be a serious dereliction of duty were our government to facilitate such a fundamental transformation of our strategic posture in the Caribbean.

 

For these reasons, we believe that there should be no further transfers of unlawful enemy combatants currently held at Gitmo – either to other nations or to any locale in the United States or its territories – for the duration of hostilities.

 

We further strongly recommend that the Department of Defense and other federal agencies refrain from spending any funds to accomplish the closure of Guantanamo Bay  or the transfer of detainees abroad or to the United States, and that the United States reject Cuban government demands that this vital strategic facility be transferred to the latter’s control.

 

Sincerely,

 

Army

Gen. Carl Stiner, USA (Ret.)

Lt. Gen. Edward G. Anderson III, USA (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. John R. D. Cleland, USA (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Vincent E. Falter, USA (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Alvin W. Jones, USA (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. H. Douglas Robertson, USA (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. George R. Robertson, USA (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Duane Stubbs, USA (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Mel Thrash, USA (Ret.)

Brig. Gen. Dale F. Andres, USA (Ret.)

Brig. Gen. Terence M. Henry, USA (Ret.)

Brig. Gen. Darryl Powell, USA (Ret.)

Brig. Gen. Richard D. Read, USA (Ret.)

Brig. Gen. Warren A. Todd, USA (Ret.)

 

Navy

Adm. Jerry Johnson, USN (Ret.)

Adm. James A. Lyons, USN (Ret.)

Vice Adm. Edward S. Briggs, USN (Ret.)

Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, USN (Ret.)

Rear Adm. Lawrence Burkhardt, USN (Ret.)

Rear Adm. Robert H. Gormley, USN (Ret.)

Rear Adm. Robert McClinton, USN (Ret.)

Rear Adm. E. S. (Skip) McGinley, II, USN (Ret.)

Rear Adm. Don. G. Primeau, USN (Ret.)

Rear Adm. Hugh Scott, USN (Ret.)

Rear Adm. H. Denny Wisely, USN (Ret.)

 

Air Force

Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.)

Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, USAF (Ret.)

Lt. Gen. E.G. “Buck” Shuler, Jr., USAF (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Henry Canterbury, USAF (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Bentley B. Rayburn, USAF (Ret.)

 

Marine Corps

Maj. Gen. Richard M. Cooke, USMC (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. J.D. Lynch, USMC (Ret.)

BGen. William A. Bloomer, USMC (Ret.)

BGen. James M. Mead, USMC (Ret.)

BGen. Michael I. Neil, USMCR (Ret.)
BGen. W.H.J. Tiernan, USMC (Ret.)

BGen. William Weise, USMC (Ret.)

 

State Defense Forces

Maj. Gen. John Bianchi, CSMR (Ret.)

 

National Security

Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Former Attorney General of the United States 

Hon. Pete Hoekstra, Former Member of Congress; Former Chairman, House Permanent   Select Committee on Intelligence

Hon. Tidal McCoy, Former Acting Secretary of the Air Force 

Hon. Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, Former Deputy National Counterintelligence Executive

José R. Cárdenas, Former Acting Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. Agency for International Development; Former Staff Member, National Security Council

Daniel J. Gallington, Former Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Policy; Former General Counsel, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Andrew C. McCarthy, Former Chief Assistant United States Attorney

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy

Elaine Donnelly, 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Services

 

 

cc: Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee

      Members of the House Armed Services Committee 

____________________________

About the Center for Security Policy

 

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics
write a comment
February 12 2015 5 12 /02 /February /2015 10:43

 

I’m probably not as much an erudite writer as I am one who writes within the scope of a sense frustration. Thus when I do run into an erudite writer as the Patriot Post’s Mark Alexander, I am quite happy to cross post their thoughts. In this post Alexander succinctly writes what I have been blogging for some time. Read, enjoy, but most of all, understand the message!

 

JRH 2/12/15

*********************************

BO's Blinding Islamophilia

The REAL National Security Threat

 

By Mark Alexander

Feb. 11, 2015

The Patriot Post

 

“There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.” –George Washington (1793)

 

Islamophile: One who is so enchanted by Islam as to be under the influence of its tenets.

 

In 2009, I noted that Barack Hussein Obama’s remarkably brief White House bio began with this fallacious assertion: “His story is the American story – values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a strong family…” And you can make up the rest.

 

Amazingly, his [BIG Lie] (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/22209] bio page has not been altered since then.

 

So, in an effort to better understand who Obama really is, and where his religious alliances fall, let’s briefly review.

 

Barack was conceived to unwed parents, Ann Dunham and his Kenyan father, BHO senior, both atheists. They were later married and then divorced. When Obama was four, his mother remarried, this time to an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro. In his 1995 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” Obama wrote that Soetoro subscribed to “a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths.”

 

At the age of 10, Obama returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who might best be described as agnostic. There, he would fall under the spell of an avowed Marxist, Frank Marshall Davis.

 

As a young adult and budding “community organizer,” Obama was taken under wing by a radical black supremacist pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who married Barack and his wife, Michelle, baptized their children and stewarded BO’s “faith” for 20 years. For those two decades, Obama also developed close associations with many other leftist radicals, including Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Bob Creamer, Edward Said, Roberto Unger and others.

 

That is the real Barack Obama bio, and those are his “values from the heartland.” Further, while he self-identifies as “Christian” rather than Muslim, that claim may be as deceptive as his bio.

 

With that in mind, in this seventh year of Obama’s seemingly limitless foreign and domestic policy failures, despite the ominous and impending threats from resurgent al-Qa'ida terrorist networks, the Islamic State, and clear evidence that Islamist Jihadis are targeting the USA, Obama never mentioned al-Qa'ida or Islam in his 2015 SOTU address three weeks ago.

 

Nor did Obama mention Islam when referencing the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris in early January, except to insist again that Islam is the “Religion of Peace.”

 

British journalist Douglas Kear Murray, an expert on Islam, asserts that many Muslims today subscribe to “a creed of Islamic fascism – a malignant fundamentalism, woken from the dark ages to assault us here and now.” He notes, “The claim that Islam is a religion of peace is a nicety invented by Western politicians so as either not to offend their Muslim populations or simply lie to themselves that everything might yet turn out fine. In fact, since its beginning Islam has been pretty violent.”

 

More recently, Obama dismissed the subsequent slaughter of Jews in Paris as an act committed by “a bunch of violent vicious zealots who … randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli.” Obama’s spokesman Josh Earnest demonstrated a heroic display of verbal contortionism in endeavoring to explain Obama’s assertion that the attack was random. Those “violent vicious zealots” were Islamists, and there was nothing “random” about terrorists targeting a kosher Jewish deli.

 

Last week, Obama used a Christian forum, the National Prayer Breakfast, to sanctimoniously denigrate Christians. The theme for this year’s event was “Remembering the Armenian Genocide of 1915,” when more than a million Christians were murdered by Muslims. That notwithstanding, he claimed Christians and Muslims are equal partners in murder and mayhem:

 

“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place – remember that the Crusades and the Inquisition committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” He added, “Slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

 

Really? For the record, Obama has ordered drone strikes against Islamic targets that have killed more Muslims in six years than were killed during three centuries of the Spanish Inquisition. (Look it up!) And the Crusades were, arguably, undertaken in the name of “the church,” not Jesus Christ. As Islamic scholar and historian Bernard Lewis notes,

 

“The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad – a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war.”

 

Clearly, there is nothing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that advocates or could even be loosely construed to advocate violence against non-Christians. However, there is plenty in the Quran and the Hadith (the teachings of Muhammad) advocating death to infidels. As Franklin Graham reminds us,

 

“Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give his life for the sins of mankind, not to take life.”

 

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, the child in Indian immigrants, rebutted Obama’s assertion, saying,

 

“It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast. Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam. … The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.”

 

As to Obama’s reference to slavery, the abolitionist movement to end chattel slavery in the United States 150 years ago was led by white and black Christian men and women, as was the movement to end segregation 50 years ago. Christians of yore were at the forefront of these sweeping changes, while Muslims today are at the forefront of murderous global Jihad.

 

This metastasizing Islamic threat advocates for a “master race,” much as did Adolf Hitler prior to World War II. However, rather than a world dominated by Aryans, Islamists seek a worldwide caliphate of Islamists, or “Jihadistan.” And on the subject of percentages, some have suggested that because only 10 percent of Muslims are extremists we need not worry. However, in 1940 only seven percent of Germans belonged to the National Socialist German Workers Party. How did that work out?

 

Notably, the 2014 Global Slavery Index reports that of the more than 29 million humans held today in captive slavery – defined as “the possession and control of a person in such a way as to significantly deprive that person of his or her individual liberty, with the intent of exploiting that person through their use, management, profit, transfer or disposal” – more than 18 million are being held in Islamic countries, primarily (and ironically) in Africa.

 

Indeed, ISIL has institutionalized slavery in the Middle East.

 

In an interview this week, Obama delusionally insisted that concern about [Islamic] terrorism is simply media-driven hype:

 

“If it bleeds it leads, right? … It’s all about ratings.”

 

When asked why Obama would posit such a ludicrous assertion, my favorite psychiatrist, Charles Krauthammer, said flatly,

 

“Because he believes it. … If he was just being cynical as a way to dismiss this because of the failure of his policies, that would be one thing. I think he believes this. … This is what is so terrifying about the man who is commander in chief of a country, essentially a civilization, under attack.”

 

Krauthammer added,

 

“For the last six years Obama has acted as if the biggest threat American security [in the Middle East] is the Israeli government.”

 

Curiously, at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama asserted, “We are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion for their nihilistic ends.” Whose religion was he referencing?

 

Perhaps the answer is found in Obama’s many words of praise for Islam since 2009:

 

“I will stand with [Muslims] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. … The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. … We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world – including in my own country. … As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. … Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. … Islam has always been part of America. … We will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. … These [Ramadan] rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. … America and Islam … share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. … America is not and will never be at war with Islam. … Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. … In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education. … Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. … That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. … Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

 

So, why does Obama refuse to mention Islam in connection with worldwide Islamic Jihad that is at our doorstep?

 

I believe it is because he is, first and foremost, an Islamophile, and thus he has what is almost a pathological blindness to the threat posed by Jihad.

 

On the other hand, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former Defense Intelligence Agency director, has been very clear in his assessment of our enemy:

 

“You cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists. … There are many sincere people in our government who frankly are paralyzed by this complexity. … [They] accept a defensive posture, reasoning that passivity is less likely to provoke our enemies. … A strong defense is the best deterrent. … The dangers to the U.S. do not arise from the arrogance of American power, but from unpreparedness or an excessive unwillingness to fight when fighting is necessary. I think there is confusion about what it is that we are facing. It’s not just what has been defined as 40,000 fighters in the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, it’s also a large [radicalized segment of Muslims] who or threatening our very way of life. … We really don’t have an effective strategy that is coherent, that actually addresses the wider problem. … I think what the American public is looking for is … moral and intellectual courage and clarity, and not a sense of passivity and confusion.”

 

Flynn’s assessment follows that of the Director of National Intelligence, Lt. Gen. James Clapper, who, in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said a year ago,

 

“Al-Qa'ida is morphing and franchising itself … in Yemen, Somalia, in North Africa, in Syria … and what’s going on there … is very, very worrisome. … Looking back over my more than half a century in intelligence, I have not experienced a time when we’ve been beset by more crises and threats around the globe.”

 

Even one of the Democratic Party’s most liberal members, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, insisted,

 

“The presence of terrorist groups including those formerly affiliated with al-Qa'ida and others, has spread over the past year. In fact terrorism is at an all-time high worldwide.”

 

And this week, Congress provided the Army an end-run around Obama’s classifying Nidal Hasan’s murderous attack at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.” Instead, it is now classified as an act of terrorism and Hasan’s victims will now receive Purple Hearts.

 

But Obama can’t bring himself to call it what it is.

 

In fact, he insisted this week that climate change is a far greater threat, but noted it’s “happening [on] such a broad scale and [is] such a complex system, it’s a hard story for the media to tell on a day-to-day basis.”

 

Fact is, bloody Islamist attacks are also “happening on a broad scale” and on a “day-to-day basis” – and are getting closer to home every day. The murder of American relief worker Kayla Mueller, as confirmed yesterday, is yet another example of the evil we are confronting.

 

So, let me script this one for Obama so at his next stump speech he gets it right:

 

“We are at war with radical Islamic terrorists. Violent global jihad poses an immense existential threat to the civilized world, particularly since Iran is, or already has, the capacity to hand its asymmetric surrogates a nuclear weapon.”

 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

_______________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

As Editor I took the liberty to block quote the quotations used by Mark Alexander if those quotations were at the end of a paragraph.

 

Contribute to The Patriot Post

 

© 2015, The Patriot Post.

 

About The Patriot Post

 

"Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!—George Washington

 

Mission

The Patriot Post is the nation's highly acclaimed Journal of Essential Liberty, advocating individual Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.

 

We believe, as did our Founders, that we have an irrevocable right and obligation "to support and defend" Liberty, as "endowed by our creator" and enshrined as Rule of Law in our Republic's Constitution.

 

The Patriot Post frames current policy and culture issues in the correct constitutionally constructionist context established by our Founders, and supported today by the plurality of Americans who uphold the most basic tenet of our Republic: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

Operations

Key Managers of the Patriot Team

 

The Patriot Post—inspired by our National Advisory Committee and crafted by an editorial team headed by Mark Alexander—is an indispensable resource for "grass-top" leaders across the nation. These conservative gate keepers use our content as a force multiplier, a source of critical information and inspiration for their grassroots constituencies. The Patriot Post provides a hard-hitting rebuttal to contemporary political, social and mainstream media protagonists on the Left. We offer a brief, informative and entertaining analysis of the week's most significant news, policy and opinion in our Daily Digest, while READ THE REST

 

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad Politics
write a comment
February 11 2015 4 11 /02 /February /2015 11:12

 

I wish I would like to see more bloggers post about the contributions of Fjordman exposing Islam’s anti-Western nature. Dave the Sage does this on the blog The Conservative Citizen.

 

JRH 2/11/15

**************************

Meet Fjordman: Europe’s Most Infamous Anti-Islamist Writer

 

By DAVE THE SAGE

February 1, 2015

The Conservative Citizen

 

“The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization, because of victories stretching through the centuries from the days of Miltiades and Themistocles to those of Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century. During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today nobody can find in them any “social values” whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influence and the decaying native Christian churches are concerned. There are such “social values” today in Europe, America, and Australia only because during those thousand years the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do, that is, to beat back the Moslem invader. It is of course worth while for sociologists to discuss the effect of this European militarism on “social values,” but only if they first clearly realize and formulate the fact that if the European militarism had not been able to defend itself against and to overcome the militarism of Asia and Africa, there would have been no “social values” of any kind in our world today, and no sociologists to discuss them.” -Theodore Roosevelt, “Social Values and National Existence”, Papers and Proceedings of the American Sociological Society

 

The writer and author Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen, better known as Fjordman, is a European treasure and a near extinct rarity unfortunately. I have admired and followed him for many years.

 

He’s been an inspiration to me personally as a writer and essayist. In fact, his book Defeating Eurabia was the catalyst for my own book No Apologies which will be released on Amazon for the Kindle this spring.

 

Fjordman has paid the price for having the courage to stand up for what is right and true. It is incredible, that in today’s Europe, one can hardly dare to stand up ones culture and country without undergoing intense scrutiny, harassment, and sometimes even persecution from the authorities. Not to mention risking death at the hands of the Muslims hordes who those same authorities have allowed to overrun the borders and flood the continent in their millions.

 

The goal of European and Western survivalists — and that’s what we are, it is our very survival that is at stake — should not be to “fix” the ideology of Multiculturalism but to be mentally prepared for its collapse, and to develop coherent answers to what went wrong and prepare to implement the necessary remedies when the time comes. We need to seize the window of opportunity, and in order to do so, we need to define clearly what we want to achieve. What went wrong with our civilization, and how can we survive and hopefully regenerate, despite being an increasingly vulnerable minority in an often hostile world? - Fjordman

 

There was once a time when the countries and nations of Europe fought ferociously and bravely against the various barbarian waves that sought to conquer it. Those days are apparently only mere memories now in the minds of those who read dusty history books and no longer part of the mentality of a civilization that is under unending racial, cultural, and religious assault. One would think that the literal descendants of the vast hordes of fierce warriors who vigorously attacked and eventually helped destroy the great and once powerful Roman Empire would learn from what occurred in their own past, on their own continent, by their own forefathers.

 

It is heartbreaking to watch the slow and steady suicide of a once proud and powerful race, people, continent, and civilization. They have become utterly, and possibly fatally, infected with the deadly diseases of progressivism; multiculturalism, atheism, socialism, tolerance, diversity, and political correctness. Europe has been stubborn in clinging to these discredited ‘isms’ that undermine the very foundations of the very things that once made them great and powerful Peoples and Empires.

 

The two great European civil wars of the last century seems to have so weakened and disillusioned the cradle of Western Civilization that the infection of progressivism was able to get a stranglehold on its victim. It hasn’t yet let go yet as it has swept from country to country across the continent with barely a whimper of dissent from the population.

 

Fjordman is an admirable exception to that rule and has for many years been a forceful voice for the preservation of European civilization and against the Islamization of Europe. After the 2011 Norway attacks by Anders Behring Breivik (see Is Anders Behring Breivik the Nordic Che Guevara?) Peder was ‘outed’ as Fjordman (a dangerous thing in Europe), lost his job, came under intense scrutiny from the government, and had his personal computer confiscated by the police. He is currently in exile from his native Norway and has paid the price for speaking out for the truth.

 

If you are not acquainted with the writings of Fjordman and his essays then I humbly suggest you take the time to explore his passionate and intellectual defense of Europe, common sense, and the preservation of Western Civilization. An up to date collection of his writings, the Fjordman Files, can be viewed here.

 

A little bit about my future plans. At the time of writing, I am completing the manuscript for a book that will be partly about the Breivik case. I have chosen to call it Witness to Madness. This will probably be self-published and should be in circulation at Amazon.com and other venues … most likely as both an ebook and as a printed paper book. At the time of writing I have surpassed 51,000 words that have already been edited and largely proofread. I am editing an analysis of Breivik’s so-called manifesto that will not be published in advance online, but will be exclusive to the book. When this is added within a few days, the word count for already edited material will be about 70,000 words.

 

Strictly speaking, this would be long enough to publish a full-length book if I so choose. However, I wish to include a bit more material before I publish, partly about how I experienced the Breivik case — including my meeting with Norwegian police — partly about Breivik’s psyche and the trial, and finally a section about the mass media and dishonest journalism. I have the option to include even more material than this, for instance about Islamization and Western appeasement.

 

I will wrap up the book at some point this fall and have already hired a proofreader.

 

Thereafter I will complete the manuscript for my book The Curious Civilization, which was already 90% finished at the time of Anders Behring Breivik’s massacre…. I hope to find a regular publisher for this title from the start, so it won’t be in circulation for some time yet.

 

After that, I will complete a book about Islam, and why I don’t think it can be reformed.

 

I have plans for several more books, too, possibly one about the self-destruction of Sweden and its model of the welfare state; maybe one about the EU, or about what went wrong with Western civilization.

 

In the long run I have serious plans for a huge brick of a book of a thousand-plus pages about European accomplishments over the past 40,000 years, from beer to Beethoven. This ambitious project is going to take me several more years to complete, however. It won’t be in circulation any time soon. –Fjordman

 

______________________________

© 2014 The Conservative Citizen

 

THE CONSERVATIVE CITIZEN PROJECT

 

Visit The Conservative Citizen Project to access articles, blogs, websites, videos, and documents pertaining to the conservative philosophy. Knowledge is power, and every conservative should be well armed for the ideological struggle.

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad
write a comment
February 10 2015 3 10 /02 /February /2015 17:32

Green Beret Hero Matt Golsteyn

 

John R. Houk

© February 10, 2015

 

I am a member of a restricted Yahoo Group that goes by ccpga which I have not actually visited for some time. So I don’t exactly recall how the acronym was decided upon but it stands for Christian Conservative Councilors. The group is restricted primarily to keep the trolls out. Now as if you were interested, I said all this about the group because a member sent info on Army Green Beret Major Matt Golsteyn. When the Major was a Captain he engaged in acts of heroism that resulted in the Silver Star which was expected to be upgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross which is only surpassed in honor by the Medal of Honor.

 

I’ll let the Washington Free Beacon and Allen West give the specifics of why Major Golsteyn was a hero in 2010. The rendition is truly worth the read. Apparently heroism doesn’t matter much to the Obama Administration when the hero is critical of the President and the civilian leadership pols in the Defense Department of which the Department of the Army of course has a role when it comes to that Branch.

 

HERO Major Golsteyn who won his Silver Star as a Captain was stripped of that medal. Why? Because Major Golsteyn was critical of the military strategy used in Afghanistan. To be more specific Golsteyn was critical of the Rules of Engagement (ROE) used in Afghanistan. AND that criticism quoted in a book by a Marine whose name is Bing West. The book’s name is “The Wrong War”.

 

Here is a bit of an excerpt from a book review of “The Wrong War”:

 

…  While his book focuses at the tactical level, West has the contacts and background to evaluate top-level decisions. As the title indicates, he has concluded that population-centric counterinsurgency will not work for this war. He then asks the very important question, “Since it would be disastrous to pull out and we can’t win with the current strategy, is there an alternative?”

 

West sets out to answer that question by describing “the fighting, the objectives, the interaction with the tribes, and the different tactics our military has undertaken.” To provide background, West takes the reader through a years-long summary of key efforts in both the north and south of Afghanistan. In doing so, he provides context over time that pointedly illustrates both the grit of our forces and the failure of the current approach. (The Wrong War written by Bing West; Review by Col Thomas X. Hammes, USMC (Ret); Marine Corps Association & Foundation)

 

I understand it is against the Military Code of Conduct to be critical of the civilian leadership, especially the Coward … err … I mean Commander-in-Chief. The author Bing West is an ex-Marine that has made a career at being an author. According to the review I read, West’s classic book is “The Village” in 1972. So I think it is a pretty good guess that West didn’t think his book would be used to castigate an active duty member of the Service.

 

Here is an excerpt from a Time Mag online article from 2010 showing the time frame that then Captain Golsteyn faced in a do or die similar situation:

 

… Marines see an attack taking shape around them, the current rules of engagement mandate that they cannot shoot unless they are first shot at. The insurgents know this, so they often "drop and go": firing from a distance, then abandoning their weapons. Sometimes Marines never get a single shot off in defense, an exercise in restraint that is especially taxing for the American military's hardiest warriors. "It's hard as hell holding back when you know what's coming every time," says a lance corporal from Lima Company, Third Battalion, Sixth Marines. … (Will Petraeus Change the Rules for Shooting Back? By Jason Motlagh; Time; 7/7/10)

 

By 2013 the ROE only get worse:

 

The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.

 

The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.

 

The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. …

 

“U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.

 

The rules of engagement today also place restrictions on dwelling assaults, but Mr. Obama’s language of “extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk of life and limb” sets the bar much higher.

… (Rules of engagement limit the actions of U.S. troops and drones in Afghanistan; By Rowan Scarborough; Washington Times; 11/26/13)

 

The planned ROE for 2015:

 

…  the recent New York Times article is that the original plan was to allow U.S. military forces in Afghanistan to attack al Qaeda targets (the counterterrorism mission) but not Taliban, Haqqani, or other non-al Qaeda targets (the combat mission?).

 

… the article suggests that U.S. forces will continue in 2015 to have authority to attack at least Taliban targets…though not based simply on positive identification of their membership status. Rather than status-based targeting, in other words, the contemplated rules of engagement will be threat-based. An unnamed senior official explains in the article:

 

“We will no longer target belligerents solely because they are members of the Taliban,” the official said. “To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten the United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan or provide direct support to Al Qaeda, however, we will take appropriate measures to keep Americans safe.”

 

 

This leaves the question whether status-based targeting will be an option for al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. I’ve not seen it publicly stated that the military’s ROE in Afghanistan currently provides for status-based targeting, though I’m guessing that it does. Nothing in the article suggests that this would change in 2015, and indeed the emphasis on changing from status-based to some notion of threat-based targeting for Taliban fighters in 2015 implies that the rules will be otherwise (i.e., will remain status based) for al Qaeda.

 

… (Rules of Engagement for the War in Afghanistan in 2015; By Robert Chesney; Lawfare Blog; 12/3/14 10:44 AM)

 

AND SO Major Matt Golsteyn save lives but didn’t check to see if the Taliban was shooting at his Green Beret unit and some Marine engineers that were tasked to clear Taliban land mines. In 2011, the Free Beacon reports, that Major Golsteyn experienced the beginning of a military criminal investigation accused of “… an undisclosed violation of the military’s rules of engagement in combat for killing a known enemy fighter and bomb maker.

 

The accusation was baseless and unofficially based on Golsteyn’s criticism of the ROE that was quoted in the West book. So they stripped him of the well-deserved Silver Star.

 

In the process of researching this outrage I just found out more crap is proceeding from the influence of the Obama Administration:

 

Separations proceedings were initiated against Army Major Matt Golsteyn on the same day that Congressman Duncan Hunter (R., Calif.) published an article in the Daily Beast highlighting Golsteyn’s case, according to a letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

 

The letter, signed by Hunter and addressed to Secretary of the Army John McHugh, states the investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by Golsteyn began on November 29, 2011, and concluded on November 24, 2013, with no charges being pressed.

 

Hunter’s original article appeared on the the (sic) Daily Beast‘s website on Tuesday, February 3, 2015. The Army initiated proceedings to eject Golsteyn from the military the same day, the letter states.

 

The letter also raises questions about whether Golsteyn was offered appropriate due process in response to the decision to revoke his Silver Star made late last year, noting that, “denial of [Golsteyn's] appeal appears not to have been reviewed by the appropriate authority–underscored by the fact that Matt was notified of his record change via a system generated e-mail on January 8, 2015.” Hunter goes on to ask McHugh to confirm that the appeal was reviewed by the appropriate authority and was not influenced by McHugh’s office.

 

The letter also suggested that there had been “questionable actions” on the part of investigators during the course of the inquiry into Golsteyn, and offers to share information regarding those actions with McHugh’s office.

 

 

Hunter’s letter concludes by noting that “from the beginning, I have urged the Army to bring a case forward against Matt should the full scope of evidence point to a crime.”

 

However, instead of criminal charges, Golsteyn has faced exclusively administrative actions that offer little chance for self-defense, now including the initiation of proceedings to eject him from the Army after thirteen years of service.

 

… (BREAKING: Army Starts Proceedings to Kick Golsteyn Out of Military; By Aaron MacLean; Free Beacon; 2/9/15 2:16 pm)

 

Here’s a copy and pasted of Duncan’s letter to the Secretary of the Army John McHugh which I extracted from a PDF file linked from the Free Beacon with a Scribd link:

 

February 9, 2015

 

Honorable John McHugh Secretary of the Army 101 Army Pentagon

Washington, DC 20310

 

Dear Secretary McHugh:

 

The Army’s case against Major Mail Golsteyn continues to lack clarity and consistency. I am especially confused by your decision to revoke Matt’s valor awards without substantive justification—when Army officials have said that all decisions related to Matt now sit with his command following the conclusion of the investigation. Several individuals within the Army have indicated that decisions regarding Matt are being influenced from outside his command. I hope this is not the case.

 

Matt’s situation demands objectivity, which I fear has not been provided. Most recently, separation proceedings were initiated by Major General Richard Mustion, Human Resources Command, on February 3, 2015—the same morning I introduced Matt in a Daily Beast commentary indentifying (sic) failures in leadership. Such timing is unlikely a coincidence, given that the Army’s investigation started on November 29, 2011, and concluded on November 24, 2013.

 

In fact, you will recall that the Commander of Criminal Investigation Command was surprised to see Matt at Will Swenson’s Medal of Honor ceremony, stating that he thought Matt was no longer serving in the Army.  He too must have been confused by his own investigation.

 

That same investigation is what the Army is imposing on Matt’s command. Unfortunately, the investigation fails to thoroughly account for some information—including Matt’s relationship to Swenson and the Army’s conduct with both individuals. Questionable actions by investigating agents continued throughout the investigation—and I am willing, once again, to provide that information at your request.  Bottom line: I have serious concerns that the investigation into Matt was neither fair nor objective, yet the command is being asked to make judgments, reportedly under influence from Army leadership, on that same investigation.

 

Moreover, when you revoked Matt’s valor awards under your authority, it was stated that Matt is entitled to an appeal, and that the appeal would not bear the Army’s mark in any manner. Though denial of the appeal appears not have been reviewed by the proper authority— underscored by the fact that Matt was notified of his record change via a system generated email on January 8, 2015.  As such, I ask for confirmation that the appeal was reviewed by the proper authority—and not influenced by your office.  I would also like to make an official request for a detailed timeline of communications between your office and HRC related to the valor awards you personally revoked. This includes any communications pertaining to Matt’s appeal.

 

Mr. Secretary, from the beginning, I have urged the Army to bring a case forward against Matt should the full scope of evidence point to a crime. It’s been over three years since the Army started its investigation and a high-level operator has been sidelined as a result. Still, Man has yet to be charged with a crime or convicted of any wrongdoing.  Yet the Army is going to great lengths to administratively punish him.

 

You are probably aware that I have made several requests to discuss the latest developments in Man’s case. I hope you will reconsider

 

Sincerely

 

Duncan Hunter

Member of Congress

 

As Representative Hunter wrote in his letter, Major Matt Golsteyn was NEVER charged or tried in Military Court. Hence mustering out is a top down order probably politically inspired by vindictiveness associated with public criticism shared in a book. A CHARGE NEVER BROUGHT AGAINST Major Golsteyn!

 

It is my opinion that Golsteyn is a victim of the Obama purge (See HERE and HERE) of anyone in the military that has a contrary opinion on President Barack Hussein Obama’s policy on winning or I should say – LOSING – a war that was started by Islamic terrorists who were protected by a strict Sharia ruled Taliban-Afghan government. President Bush was correct when he let Americans know we are at war with Islamic fascists. In the latter days of his Presidency massive criticism against the war in Iraq saw President Bush walk-back his thoughts on Islam.

 

VIDEO: President Bush January 2007 SOTU Speech on Islamic Fascism

 

We’ve gone from a Bush walk-back to an Obama nearly promoting Islamic fascism with lies about his connections to a Muslim past, association with Jeremiah Wright’s buddy Louis Farrakhan (See also HERE), supporting al Qaeda terrorists in Libya and then trying to send deposed Qaddafi’s armaments to other pro-al-Qaeda terrorists to Jabhat al-Nusra which probably made its way to the of ISIS (or ISIL or IS or DAESH and etc.). Then obscuring those arms deals and eventual Benghazi debacle during the 2012 election by blaming a poorly made movie trailer about Mohammed that was basically accurate but with crude acting. Then Obama supported Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood winning its election and criticized Egypt’s generals for giving the Muslim Brotherhood the boot. Not to mention all the secret meetings with Muslim Brotherhood operatives (See HERE and HERE) and the Iranian government securing a deal that allows Iranian nuke-armed missiles. O yes, did I mention the good President has been cozy with Muslim Brotherhood operative Malik Obama – the President’s brother. I am sure some of my readers could list even more BHO coziness to Islam while maligning Christianity and Christian values.

 

I don’t know the constitutional situation for this thought. If Major Matt Golsteyn is indeed drummed out of the Army due to criticism made public in a book that the Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan are bogus AND a recipe for defeat. Then the current Republican Congress should take steps to overrule the Secretary of the Army and just go ahead and award the Constitutional Medal of Honor to Matt Golsteyn.

 

JRH 2/10/15

*********************************

Afghanistan War Hero Stripped of Silver Star

Feature: Army Major Matt Golsteyn betrayed by cowardly leaders

 

By Aaron MacLean

February 6, 2015 5:00 am

Washington Free Beacon

 

By February 20th, 2010, the Battle of Marjah had been underway for a week. In order to seize the Afghan district—an IED-infested, Taliban-dominated collection of villages and crisscrossing canals and tree lines that were a defending fighter’s dream—the U.S. military had divided its force into thirds. A task force of more than a thousand U.S. Marines, accompanied by Afghan soldiers, assaulted the northern portion of Marjah. Ditto for the central portion of the district.

 

And the southern third? It had been attacked by a single U.S. Army Special Forces team consisting of nine men, accompanied by a handful of Marine engineers tasked with clearing bombs from the roads and a few hundred Afghan troops that were more of a babysitting case than true partners. Such a light American footprint on at least part of the battlefield would “put an Afghan face” on the operation, as the lingo went at the time.

 

As the Special Forces soldiers wore Afghan Army uniforms, the Taliban concluded that there were virtually no Americans on their southern flank. The fighting there was intense.

 

Having secured a defensive position in the heart of the Balakino Bazaar (picture the Bakara market in the film Black Hawk Down, but more impoverished) the Special Forces team, led by a captain named Matt Golsteyn, repeatedly attempted to expand their footprint, but regularly met fierce resistance. On the 20th, one of the team’s assaults into Taliban territory took a turn for the worse. An Afghan soldier was wounded and a vehicle got stuck in the mud as insurgents raked the coalition formation with gunfire.

 

Under heavy fire, Golsteyn, as Dan Lamothe of the Washington Post summarized this week, “ran about 150 meters to the trapped MRAP to retrieve a powerful 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle, an anti-tank weapon. While moving under gunfire, he coordinated a medical evacuation for the wounded Afghan soldier and then opened fire with the Carl Gustav.”

 

Running through the open despite the fact that the Taliban had successfully pinned down the rest of his men, Golsteyn looked like he “was alone fighting 30 enemy fighters out in the poppy fields.” He then coordinated airstrikes from F/A-18 Hornets and a drone, silencing the enemy. The battle lasted four hours.

 

For his actions, Golsteyn was awarded the Silver Star, and was told that the medal would likely be upgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross (the Army’s equivalent of the Navy Cross, and second only to the Medal of Honor) after review by the Secretary of the Army. I can confirm that this was true because I was present at the ceremony where Golsteyn received his Silver Star, and personally overheard Lieutenant General John Mulholland, then the commander of the Army’s Special Operation’s Command, say that an upgrade was under consideration.

 

In fact, I know Golsteyn—now a major—well. I served alongside him in Marjah for months (though not on the 20th of February—I was among the thousands of Marines fighting elsewhere in the district that day) and can attest that he is one of the most courageous, dedicated, and honorable officers I encountered during my service in the military. He would give his life for the men he led without a moment’s thought—and he very nearly did, on several occasions. When we returned from our deployments and honors began to roll in for Golsteyn, I reflected that it is nice to see the good guys get recognized.

 

It didn’t last long. In 2011, shortly after a book by author and Marine Bing West came out that detailed Golsteyn’s heroism and quoted him making critical remarks about the American strategy in Afghanistan, I learned that the Army had launched a criminal investigation into his actions during the battle. (Again, full disclosure: I was also interviewed for that book, The Wrong War, and make a brief appearance in it.)

 

The investigation, apparently, had nothing to do with the acts of bravery that earned Golsteyn his medal. Instead, according to the Washington Post, which cited officials familiar with the case, it concerned “an undisclosed violation of the military’s rules of engagement in combat for killing a known enemy fighter and bomb maker.” The investigation stretched on for nearly two years, during which time the Army effectively put Golsteyn’s career on ice. In 2014, Golsteyn and his lawyer were informed that the investigation was finally complete. No charges were filed, but Golsteyn still wasn’t released from administrative limbo.

 

Alerted about the controversy by another Army officer, Captain Will Swenson, Congressman Duncan Hunter wrote last year to John McHugh, the secretary of the Army, asking about the status of Golsteyn’s seemingly endless career freeze. Apparently the secretary did not take kindly to the inquiry, as he responded in a letter last November that not only would he not be upgrading Golsteyn’s Silver Star to a Distinguished Service Cross, but would be revoking Golsteyn’s Silver Star entirely, a fact that Hunter revealed publicly in an article for the Daily Beast published on Tuesday.

 

The revocation of an award such as the Silver Star is extraordinarily rare, and typically would happen in the case of the recipient being convicted of a serious crime that in some way dishonored his service. But not only has Golsteyn not been convicted of a crime—he hasn’t even been charged with one.

 

McHugh would not reveal to Hunter specifically why he was taking his action beyond submitting the innuendo that he was privy to “derogatory information” regarding Golsteyn’s record. What could this information be? Who knows? Having, according to Hunter, spent years threatening Golsteyn’s men, searching for and failing “to find one piece of evidence to corroborate the allegation” that launched the investigation, the Army clearly decided to punish Golsteyn anyway, through publicly dishonoring him in a manner that allows him effectively no recourse or due process.

 

Such institutional cravenness is even more extraordinary when one considers the circumstances of Golsteyn’s service. Commissioned in 2002 out of West Point, he has served combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and was already the recipient of valor awards by the time he fought in Marjah. There, he and his handful of American soldiers succeeded in securing a big chunk of one of the deadliest places on earth at the time, under constant and intense opposition from the Taliban. Working with the local tribes, Golsteyn came to be recognized as one of the most successful officers in Helmand Province. The Taliban tried to kill him and his men again and again, and found themselves driven back every time. What success there was in Marjah was in no small part due to him.

 

Such is the quality of American military leadership that generals and political appointees like McHugh will send courageous soldiers like Golsteyn into incredibly difficult (some would suggest impossible) circumstances, then invest years in second-guessing their actions after the fact—and then, finding no evidence of wrongdoing, still publicly dishonor the man without giving him a chance to defend himself. Never mind the fact that if a Taliban bombmaker did in fact die in a violation of the rules of engagement, then in what topsy-turvy universe is that a bad thing? The veterans who had to risk their lives because of these ROEs have almost universally criticized them. Established and enforced by men sitting safely in Kabul and Washington who never shared the daily risks of Golsteyn and his soldiers, the rules were wrong and self-serving to begin with, a politicized effort that has, without question, caused the needless deaths of many young Americans.

 

In any event, if the Army truly does believe that Golsteyn violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, then they should charge him with a crime. If they can’t do that, then we must conclude that insufficient evidence of a crime exists, in which case Secretary McHugh should give him the Distinguished Service Cross he deserves.

 

Congressman Hunter pointed out in his article that a recent survey conducted by the Military Times revealed only 27 percent of the military felt that their leaders were looking out for the best interests of the troops. Golsteyn’s situation illustrates why this is the case, and is of a piece with the case of Will Swenson, whose Medal of Honor package was “lost” after he bitterly criticized his chain of command over the ROEs, or of Jim Gant, one of the most successful special operators of the last decade, who was nonetheless drummed out of the Army after running afoul of his superiors.

 

Golsteyn, Swenson, Gant, and others like them are led by men who interrupt their political intrigues and email flirtations with wealthy socialites only to crucify the troops actually doing the fighting when, for whatever reason, they become politically inconvenient—preferably, as with Golsteyn, in a manner that allows for no response or appeal.

 

Most Americans would take one look at Golsteyn’s record of service and call him a hero. The men who will not share Golsteyn’s risks, but who will hurl innuendoes at him after the fact and publicly dishonor him in a manner that allows him to mount no case on his own behalf? There’s a word for them too: cowards.

++++++++++++++++++++

Army revokes Green Beret’s Silver Star for killing known enemy and bomb-maker

 

By Allen West

February 7, 2015

Allen B West – Steadfast and Loyal

 

 

Just when I think the news cannot possibly get any worse and it’s gonna be hard for me to find something to talk about – we hit a new low. The U.S. Army is hiding a deserter — Bowe Bergdahl. We have Army Lieutenant Clint Lorance in prison for killing the enemy. And my Army finds a way to go even lower.

 

As reported by the Washington Post, “CPT. Mathew L. Golsteyn was leading a Special Forces team in Afghanistan in 2010 when an 80-man mission he assembled to hunt insurgent snipers went awry. One of the unit’s five vehicles sank in mud, a gunshot incapacitated an Afghan soldier fighting alongside the Americans, and insurgents maneuvered on them to rake the soggy fields with machine-gun fire.”

 

“Golsteyn, already a decorated Green Beret officer, responded with calm resolve and braved enemy fire repeatedly that day, according to an Army summary of his actions. He received the Silver Star for valor for his actions during a 2011 ceremony at Fort Bragg, N.C. Top Army officials later approved him for an upgrade to the prestigious Distinguished Service Cross, second only to the Medal of Honor in recognizing combat heroism by U.S. soldiers.”

 

But here’s the kicker.

 

The Post says the officer, a former member of the 3rd Special Forces Group and graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., was later investigated for an undisclosed violation of the military’s rules of engagement in combat for killing a known enemy fighter and bomb maker, according to officials familiar with the case.”

 

The investigation closed last year without Golsteyn’s being charged with a crime, but Army Secretary John M. McHugh decided not only to deny Golsteyn the Distinguished Service Cross, but also to revoke his Silver Star. McHugh cited a provision in Army regulations that if facts become known that would have prevented the awarding of a medal, the award can be revoked.”

 

Ok, here we go again. How does one “violate the rules of engagement in combat by killing a known enemy fighter and bomb maker?” What does Secretary of the Army McHugh recommend — sharing MRE recipes?

 

Now, unless Major Golsteyn killed this enemy fighter by dismembering his body while alive, I truly don’t give a doggone. Remember the Combat Restraint Medal that was once considered? Well, thankfully it was defeated by those combat veterans who made their voices heard. But what kind of Army do we have now when we revoke medals for heroic actions because the same fella killed an enemy fighter! Doggone Secretary McHugh, that is what happens in COMBAT! And this is what happens when we’ve turned these positions into nothing but political appointments.

 

I’m beginning to believe we should just eliminate the Military Service Secretariats — Army, Navy, Air Force. We should just keep the Secretary of Defense organization. Think about the cost savings in the defense budget.

 

But back to the story at hand, “The decision is still shrouded in mystery because of the secretive nature of the Army’s investigation into Golsteyn, who did extensive work with U.S. Marines in and around Marja in Helmand province. A spokesman for McHugh’s office, Lt. Col. Chris Kasker, declined to comment Wednesday, citing the administrative nature of the decision. But he released details of Golsteyn’s service record that show he no longer has a Silver Star and is not in Special Forces anymore. The major earned a Bronze Star and Army Commendation medal with “V” devices for heroism in earlier actions, Kasker said.”

 

“Golsteyn joined the Army in 2002. “The Army has been unable to present substantive evidence while an overwhelming number of first-person accounts provided to Army investigators uphold Matt’s record as a top-level operator,” said Hunter’s letter, which the congressman’s office released to The Post.”

 

I am still looking for something specific as to what Major Golsteyn did to violate ROE in killing the enemy. How is it that a decision can be made to revoke awards for the action for which he earned them? If there was an issue with Golsteyn, you don’t revoke something he’s earned, you suspend any positive actions for the Soldier. And it seems that there is nothing substantiated from the Army’s investigation, so why didn’t they reinstate his awards — and upgrade?

 

This is the Army — the America — in which we are now living.

 

But I wonder if Golsteyn’s critique of the Afghanistan mission in the past has anything to do with this kerfluffle. The Post says, “In the 2011 Bing West book “The Wrong War: Grit, Strategy and the Way Out of Afghanistan,” he is quoted as saying that the Americans were considered insurgents in Afghanistan who were “selling a poor product called the Kabul government.” West later wrote in a review of a book about another Special Forces soldier, Maj. Jim Gant, that the careers of Gant, Golsteyn and a third Green Beret, Dan McKone, were “terminated,” assessing that the Army failed them.”

 

A deserter named Bowe Bergdahl may walk with $300,000 in back pay. A Special Forces Green Beret officer who faced the enemy and killed them gets his awards for heroism revoked. So let me end this asking a simple question.

 

Secretary McHugh, whose side are you on?

 

And by the way, if you’d like a dose of heroism, here is the full account of what then CPT Golsteyn did:

 

Golsteyn’s Silver Star came for actions on Feb. 20, 2010. He assembled his unit after his base had come under sniper fire from an insurgent wielding a Dragunov rifle, according to an Army narrative of his actions. He directed his troops to launch an assault across 700 meters of open fields, but an armored truck known as a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle sank into mud under gunfire after about 175 meters. Under heavy machine-gun and sniper fire, Golsteyn ran about 150 meters to the trapped MRAP to retrieve a powerful 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle, an anti-tank weapon. While moving under gunfire, he coordinated a medical evacuation for the wounded Afghan soldier and then opened fire with the Carl Gustav, said the Army narrative, which was obtained by The Post. Captain Golsteyn was alone running in the open through enemy gun fire that had over 80 men pinned down, and from the crow’s nest on top of [Forward Operating Base] McQueary, it looked like Captain Golsteyn was alone fighting 30 enemy fighters out in the poppy fields,” the award narrative said. Enemy reinforcements continued to arrive on the battlefield, so Golsteyn organized airstrikes by both F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets and a Predator drone. No American or coalition troops were killed in the battle despite a barrage of enemy fire that lasted four hours, the narrative said.”

 

_______________________________

Obama Administration Disrespects War Hero

John R. Houk

© February 10, 2015

______________________________

Afghanistan War Hero Stripped of Silver Star

 

©2015 All Rights Reserved [Washington Free Beacon]

______________________________

Army revokes Green Beret’s Silver Star for killing known enemy and bomb-maker

 

Copyright @2014. AllenBWest.com, in association with Liberty Alliance. All rights reserved

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics Counterjihad
write a comment
February 8 2015 1 08 /02 /February /2015 14:53

 

Justin Smith highlights what the Mainstream Media has again failed to notify Americans of adequately. Iran is nuclear and is a heartbeat away from arming nuke missiles. The Appeaser-in-Chief does nothing but talk platitudes out the side of his used car salesman mouth.

 

JRH 2/8/15

*************************

Iran and Nuclear Terrorism

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 2/6/2015 5:43 PM

 

Feckless negotiating with Iran over the past decade, especially these past two years, have burned an image of a miserable Chamberlain-style failure in the minds of the American people, as President Obama and Secretary Kerry have allowed the greatest threat in the 21st century to become our reality. For all intents and practical purposes, Iran is now essentially a nuclear armed missile state, and rather than pursue more negotiations, the at risk nations, such as the United States, Britain, Germany, France and much of Europe and Israel, must seriously consider a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, before its weaponry can be perfected and mass produced. And even then, small nukes handed to Iran's proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, will remain a threat, as long as the Ayatollahs hold their iron grip on Iran.

 

All the political analysts have been speaking in terms of "if" Iran achieves a nuclear weapons program, when all the evidence suggests that Iran already has one. Long held Shahab-4 missiles with a 2500 mile range and the February 2, 2009 orbit of the Safir-2 Omid - "Hope" exhibits that Iran has an intercontinental delivery system. Iran also has received an A.Q. Khan warhead design from North Korea, as well as a Chinese warhead design, and it has a currently undetermined amount of near weapons grade uranium, due to its maintenance of a number of secret facilities.

 

Iran has acknowledged the existence of 19,000 centrifuges, with 9,000 currently operating. These 9,000 centrifuges can produce enough weapons grade plutonium to produce approximately three nuclear missiles in a year. If Iran reduces this number to 7,000 and keeps much of its uranium enriching technology, as John Kerry and others have suggested, experts warn that any reduction in centrifuge efficiency is reversible more quickly than a straight decrease in the number of centrifuges.

 

While Iran's President Hassan Rouhani claimed in his February 4th speech that Iran "neither covets nor aspires to acquire nuclear weapons", there remain many within the Ayatollah hierarchy who would refute this. Rouhani's opposition states fairly correctly that Sipah-e-Sahaba, an intensely anti-Shiite Islamofascist group, has close ties to Pakistan's military and intelligence establishment, which stokes Iranian fears of a nuclear first strike by Pakistan. They are also concerned that Riyadh has invested heavily in the Pakistan nuclear program and can get a nuclear weapon at will, which plays a large part in Iran's nuclear quest.

 

And, as an unrepentant sponsor of terrorism for thirty-five years, Tehran has made no secret of its desire to wipe Israel - "Little Satan" and America "Big Satan" - off the face of the earth, while it has systemized terror as a primary mechanism for accomplishing it goals and exporting its worldview and Islamist ideology. In this context, despite any security issues Iran may have with Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia, the United States must not allow Iran to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons, under any circumstances.

 

Over the past year the world has seen Iran use its Quds Force and Revolutionary Guard in Iraq and Hezbollah in Syria. We witnessed Iran trade arms and munitions for black-market oil with the Islamic State. And then, Iran threatened to send millions of jihadists to Gaza to fight in the "struggle" against Israel. The news from Iran is never good.

 

Since Iran already views itself as advancing the Islamic hegemon in the region, just think of the influence Iran will exert throughout the entire Middle East, once it is prepared to fully unveil its real nuclear capabilities. It is already exerting great influence through its finances and military, and in the aftermath of the Iranian backed Shiite Houthis taking control of Sana'a, Yemen, the Arabic media now refers to Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Sana'a as "the four capitals of Iran", which Iranian media calls a "victory for the [Islamic] revolution."

 

Does anyone believe that the Ayatollahs will not find a way to detonate a nuclear weapon in New York or Chicago, especially with the U.S's current porous border situation? - Or Tel Aviv?

 

Although Iran has previously launched several satellites on a south to north trajectory, in an attempt to elude U.S. Ballistic Early Warning Radar, Iran will seek "plausible deniability". As I wrote on November 30, 2013:

 

"Utilizing numerous deceptions, such as tramp steamers off the U.S. and European coasts or physically crossing porous borders, it would not be too difficult for Iran to target 29 critical sites in America and the West, identified numerous times by successive Iranian presidents." [Bold text added by Editor]

 

 

As Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spoke with Greta Van Susteren (Fox News) on January 27th, he observed:



"If we continue on the path we are with the Iranians, they'll wind up with a nuclear capability ... and one day have a [nuclear] bomb. He's about to make the biggest mistake of this presidency."

 

While Obama has previously stated that a nuclear armed Iran represents a "profound" national security threat to the U.S., his Chamberlain-style appeasement tactics have greatly alarmed opponents of Iran's nuclear program, especially considering that Olli Heinonen, former IAEA Deputy Director General, warned (Jan. 20, 2014) that Iran could build a nuclear weapon within two to three weeks. They see Iran on the cusp of a rapid nuclear break-out, while Obama gives Iran more time to stockpile more uranium, time that the world can ill-afford to give a rogue regime with so much blood on its hands.

 

With Iran's Ayatollahs stalling for time and possibly stockpiling an untold number of nuclear warheads (scores?) and Obama and Kerry legitimizing major pieces of Iran's nuclear program, this U.S. administration and world leaders are failing at a critical juncture of history that demands decisive action, not an unacceptable bad deal that leaves nuclear capabilities in Iran's hands. Decisive action is needed to stop a defiant Iran, protect U.S. interests and halt a rising Islamic dawn and an era of nuclear terrorism.

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad Politics
write a comment
February 7 2015 7 07 /02 /February /2015 18:59

 

Paul Sutliff reports on recent meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Both the MB central in Egypt and MB acolytes pretending to be Moderate peaceful Muslims in the USA. These meeting with the State Department and the big dog himself – President Barack Hussein Obama. Sutliff points out that items talked about are secret or at the very least with the nefarious appearance of clandestine high-level talks between the MB (and U.S. acolytes) and the POTUS.  

                                                                  

JRH 2/7/15

****************************

Obama meets the American Muslim Brotherhood but keeps the press away!

 

By Paul Sutliff

Link sent: 2/5/2015 10:35 AM

Original Date: Feb 5, 2015

Paul Sutliff LinkedIn Page

 

President Obama’s continual servitude to Islamists has never been more apparent than it is this week. This week alone, the president’s Press Secretary refused to call the Taliban terrorists and when asked for a stand on Jordan’s response to the execution of one of their own by the Islamic State, referred to the group as ISIL, a term created by the president. But that is not all that happened this week. The State Department invited Muslim Brotherhood leaders here, who have been declared terrorists by other countries to meet and talk. The White House lied about who paid to bring the terrorist representatives to the United States and who arranged it by originally claiming Georgetown University was involved.

 

Egypt has responded through their Ambassador in Washington DC. As have other countries who have named the ikhwan (the Muslim Brotherhood) terrorists. Today the President of the United States is meeting with the American leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood under the guise of calling the Muslim leaders of America.

 

Who is there and how they were selected to be present is under lock and key because the Press have been told to keep out. What kind of message does the President send when he meets with members of a group declared to be terrorists by ally nations and insists no one be there to record it?

 

Is this a secret planning session with Muslim Brotherhood?

 

Will affiliates in MPAC (the Muslim Public Affairs Council) like Haris Tarin a person who has already logged 72 meetings at the White House? His last meeting at the White House was this past Friday! He has met personally with the President, meeting him in the Rose Garden, the East Room, the South Lawn the Roosevelt Room and, the State Floor.

 

Will Jamal Barzinji, a leader of the International Institute of Islamic thought (IIIT) be present? A man reputed to be a Masul of the Muslim Brotherhood in America according to P. David Gaubatz, who has military intelligence in his background.

 

What about the ever present daughter of Yacob Mirza of IIIT, Asma Mirza? She became a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood front group ISNA (Islamic Society of North America). Her name appears over 900 times on the White House Visitor Logs! Asma has held a position with ISNA similar to what we call a member of the Board of Directors since she was 26.

 

Is there any way we cannot question if the president now takes the Islamist side and stands with them against America?

____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Paul Sutliff

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad
write a comment
February 7 2015 7 07 /02 /February /2015 13:51

 

John R. Houk

© January 7, 2015

 

Dajjal (in a nice way for my old online buddy) makes his case for his stand that Muslims should be obliterated since I somewhat disagreed with him in the post, “Save Western Civ. With Total Unconditional Victory”.

 

For clarity’s sake my stand was against obliteration and for a WWII style war until there is an Unconditional Surrender of Muslim dominated areas and then use a harsh form of despotism to retrain the minds of Muslims away from the Quranic teachings of Islamic Supremacism by any means. I should have gone further.

 

Muslim conquerors transformed the lands they conquered (primarily Christian and Hindu but others too) and forced the suppression of non-Muslim religions to amend their practice to not insult or contradict Islam. The penalty for refusing the rules of Islam for non-Muslims was death. Those that did submit were treated like scum with frequent humiliating and sometime violent circumstances to be endured. After hundreds of years in the conquered Christian areas, the former majority chose Islam rather than the debilitating life of a non-Muslim Christian.

 

My idea of despotism was the same treatment of Muslims that Muslim rulers and armies did to their conquered. I am certain the politically correct crowd would link my thoughts as almost as bad as Dajjal’s obliteration solution. I have reached the point of “I don’t care anymore”. The ideology spewed by the Quran, Hadith and Sira are inherently evil in respect to non-Muslims.

 

The Western World has developed a secularist mentality toward religion which appears to me to actively diminish the Christian faith. BUT my fellow Christians you should know this about Islam. The Islamic religion’s revered writings deny the centrality of your Christian faith. Specifically Islam denies Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that the Lord was Crucified and that He arose bodily after three days in a tomb to sit at the Right Hand of the Father. For that matter denies that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is ONE God manifested as three persons. We Christians call that the Trinity. Muslims call it polytheism. In a Muslim dominated nation if you stand up for Christianity being Truth, you would be guilty of blasphemy which could lead the State to sentence you to death. If a Muslim nation does not officially sanction the Quranic punishment for offending Islam with Christian truth it is likely the authorities will look the other way as Muslims take the law into their own hands and slay you for blasphemy.

 

Ergo, even if Islam were actually a religion of peace (which it isn’t) it would still be a specifically antichrist religion.

 

JRH 2/7/15

**************************

Dajjal Comments to: ‘Save Western Civ. With Total Unconditional Victory’

 

February 6, 2015 at 9:17 PM

 

This is why total victory must lead to total political authority even if political despotism is used harshly in unWestern-like ways.” -John R. Houk 2/6/15

 

The Crusaders made a fatal error: they neglected to eradicate Islam in the territory they conquered.

 

The US Navy made a fatal error in the Barbary Wars: they neglected to eradicate Islam from Libya & Morocco.

 

The colonizing powers made a fatal error in the lands they colonized: they neglected to eradicate Islam from them.

 

Shrub made a fatal error in Afghanistan & Iraq. Can you guess what it was?

 

In an existential conflict, victory consists of the total extinction of the aggressor. Anything short of total eradication is less than victory, ensuring eventual defeat.

 

When fighting a grass fire, you first suppress the fire, then you cool and rake the hot spots so there is no ignition source to rekindle the fire after you leave. The same strategy must be used in fighting Islam.

 

You cannot defeat Islam without destroying their Iman [***] or their lives. They must cease believing in Allah, his imperatives, threat and promise or they must cease drawing breath. A little fire left behind will rekindle and spread. Put it all out!

 

[***Blog Editor: I am never sure if Dajjal means “Iman” or “Iman” with this word. He did provide me an explanation once but sadly I don’t remember what that explanation was.

 

Most understand that an “Imam” is an Islamic religious leader.

 

I think though that Dajjal is actually referring to “Iman” in the context of this sentence. This is the meaning of “Iman” from what I could discover:

 

The Six articles of Islamic faith

 

Iman is generally outlined using the six articles of faith:

 

  1. Belief in Allah

 

  1. Belief in the Angels

 

  1. Belief in Divine Books

 

  1. Belief in the Prophets

 

  1. Belief in the Day of Judgment        

 

  1. Belief in Allah's predestination

 

Of these, the first five are mentioned together in the Qur'an[9] and by  Muhammad, while including a corollary of belief in Allah – the good and evil of fate ordained by God – has referred to all six together in the following manner in the Hadith of Gabriel:

 

"Iman is that you believe in God and His Angels and His Books and His Messengers and the Hereafter and the good and evil fate [ordained by your God]."[10]

 

Another similar narration ascribed to Muhammad is:

 

Ibn Abbas narrates that the Angel Jibril once asked the Prophet: "Tell me what is Iman?" The Prophet replied: "Iman is to believe in Allah, the Day of Judgment, His (Allah's) Angels, Books and Prophets and to believe in life after death; and to believe in Paradise and the Fire, and the setting up of the Mizan (scales) to weigh the deeds; and to believe in the Divine Decree, the good and the bad of it (all). Jibril then asked him: "If I do all this will I be with Iman?" The Prophet said: "When you have done all of this, you will be having Iman."[11]

 

It is also assumed that the essential Iman consists of the first 3 items (Belief in God, Prophets, and the Hereafter).[12] (The Six articles of Islamic faith; Wikipedia; This page was last modified on 31 January 2015, at 07:48)]

 

++++++++++

February 6, 2015 at 9:20 PM

 

In the case of Islam a little forced reformation is in order to change Mo’s ideology into something closer resembling a Judeo-Christian heritage.” –John R. Houk 2/6/15

 

“None can change his words.” “No change let there be…” Islam cannot be reformed internally or externally. Mission impossible!

 

++++++

February 6, 2015 at 9:43 PM

 

When in doubt about the meaning of any ayat, Corpus Quran offers several useful tools, including a word by word translation from the Arabic.

 

http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=13&verse=41

____________________________

Dajjal and I are both Politically Incorrect

John R. Houk

© January 7, 2015

_____________________________

Dajjal Comments to: ‘Save Western Civ. With Total Unconditional Victory’

 

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Dajjal

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad
write a comment
February 6 2015 6 06 /02 /February /2015 16:19

John R. Houk

© February 6, 2015

 

Allied Destruction of Nazi Germany’s city of Dresden during WWII is an example of winning a war at all costs. Think WWIII and what it takes to end Islamic aggression.

 

VIDEO: Brit newsreel Allied bombing of Dresden, Feb & Mar 1945

 

 

Dajjal has some harsh insights pertaining to Ari Bussel’s essay, “Farewell to Netanyahu”. Dajjal makes it very clear that his solution to the world’s Islam is problem is the extermination on all who call on Mohammed’s Allah.

 

There is an essence of logic to the eradication solution because of Islam’s revered writings that inherently call for eradication of all non-Muslims who do not submit to Islam. No matter what a Muslim tells you, it is the truth what their writings encourage. For Muslims who tell you differently they are lying, self-deceived and/or ignorant of the totality of their own writings.

 

I on the other hand refuse to call for the eradication solution. The primary reason is that I am a Christian. The Lord Jesus’ exhortation to all Believers is to go into all the world share the Good News that the Deliverance of Jesus Christ is available now to all who Believe on the Risen Savior. No matter how angry I may get at crazy Muslims, I trust the Lord Jesus will return at the darkest hour of Christianity.

 

That being said I fully concur with Dajjal that the Western World needs to wake up to the ultimate designs of Islam as currently advocated by Muslims who know their writings and choose to follow them to the dotted “i” and the crossed “t”. Please notice that the Muslims who claim to be peaceful Moderates fear to take on those the West calls Radicals.

 

I for one do not believe that the fear the so-called peaceful Moderate Muslims have is for the retribution of Radicals. Rather I believe – at least unconsciously for many – that their fear is related to the retribution from Allah for not obeying that deity’s commands particularly in the Quran in making the world submit to Allah and Islam. To speak or act against Allah’s commands is blasphemy. AND in case you not paid attention, Muslims have little tolerance for blasphemy against their deity, their prophet and their religion in general. The intolerance is especially visible in the Muslim controlled world, but the intolerance is beginning to be boldly demonstrated in the non-Muslim West. This is especially the case in Europe. (If Obama’s way stays on track – then coming soon to an American community near you.)

 

Because of this Muslim revered writings loyalty and the inevitable devotion of all Muslims, the West under the leadership of the USA MUST develop a military strategy that has a total and complete and unconditional surrender of Muslim nations to the political authority of the West. By the way, the total victory strategy is how the united front of Allies prosecuted and won WWII. Wholesale German and Japanese population centers were bombed out of existence and their military leadership concluded genocide was the only result of not meeting the Unconditional Surrender demands by the most powerful military Allies of WWII – USA, Britain and the then USSR.

 

Islamic terrorism will only cease under the total victory strategy.

 

Below is video footage of the aftermath of the bombing of Dresden. I am fairly certain portions are from Nazi clips showing the German populace the Allies are barbarous YET forgetting to tell the German populace their Nazi government exterminated about 6 MILLION Jews not to mention about another 6 MILLION undesirable people to the Nazi Aryan race superiority agenda. NOW think that compare the Nazi atrocities to the approximate 270 million killed by jihad in the conquest spreading of Islam. These Muslim perpetrated atrocities are continuing to this day! When Christian kings killed for Christ contrary to the Holy Scriptures, those number don’t even come close to Islamic butchery that occurred at the command of the Quran and the example of Mohammed.

 

VIDEO: bombing of dresden

 

 

This is where the eradication of all Muslim conceptualists will point out that total victory only slows down the intent of Islamic Political Theopolitical Ideology. Devotion to Islamic revered writings simply means the Islamic cancer will rise again to afflict the non-Muslim world.

 

This is why total victory must lead to total political authority even if political despotism is used harshly in unWestern-like ways. In the case of Islam a little forced reformation is in order to change Mo’s ideology into something closer resembling a Judeo-Christian heritage.

 

Now that I have added a little clarity to my thoughts on Islam (trust me, I could on), check out Dajjal’s thoughts that Israel needs an even more aggressive Prime Minister than Netanyahu in securing the Jewish State from the Islamic threat.

 

JRH 2/6/15

*****************************

Dajjal Comment to ‘Farewell to Netanyahu

January 31, 2015 at 6:34 PM

 

Israel’s politics are too finely divided with too many parties wrestling for too few seats of power. The Parliamentary system does not lend itself to strong, decisive leadership and stability.

 

Yes, we do need a foreign leader to wise us up about Iran ‘cuz we have no domestic leader able and willing to meet the need. If we had a leader in ’01, Iran would be a smoking ash heap, not a problem today.

 

The Iran problem has only one possible solution: extinction. Iran must be erased. The existence of a nation ruled by twelvers is not acceptable.

 

Unfortunately, Bibi lacks the SISU requisite to deliver that message. He will pull his punches, falling short of the goal. Congress will stand up and cheer, without passing meaningful sanctions legislation, which Obamination would veto.

 

Israel will be forced to take out Iran’s nuclear industry and needs to remove the leadership circle at the same time.

 

Bennett has no chance in the current election cycle and there is a chance that Obamination’s meddling will save Bibi’s bacon this time. That chance could be strengthened if Bibi campaigns on the issue.

 

Israel needs a bold leader with courage and SISU, one who will name the enemy and the enemy threat doctrine. Muslims are the enemy and Islam is the threat doctrine. Any and all who think that peace is possible while Muslims live within rocket range of Israel are damned fools, so stupid that they should be institutionalized, not walking about loose. What part of 7.167, 9.29. 9.123 & Sahih Bukhari 4.52.177 do they not comprehend???

 

No concession, negotiation, good will gesture or cessation of territory will stop Muslims from their quest for genocide & politicide, they will only whet the Muslims’s appetite for blood.

 

It’s Islam, Stupid! Bibi, step up to the plate and come out swinging: name the enemy and tell the world why peace is impossible while that enemy exists. In case you are unaware:

 

13:41. See they not that We gradually reduce the land (of disbelievers, by giving it to the believers, in war victories) from its outlying borders. And Allâh judges, there is none to put back His Judgement and He is Swift at reckoning.

 

[Blog Editor: I wasn’t certain of the English translation used by Dajjal so I looked it up. I suspect Dajjal used the version he believes is the closest to the original Arabic intent. So here are some comparative English translations of Quran 13:41 in case you are as curious as I:

 

Yusuf Ali: See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? (Where) God commands, there is none to put back His Command: and He is swift in calling to account.

 

Pickthal: See they not how we aim to the land, reducing it of its outlying parts? (When) Allah doometh there is none that can postpone His doom, and He is swift at reckoning.

 

Shakir: Do they not see that We are bringing destruction upon the land by curtailing it of its sides? And Allah pronounces a doom -- there is no repeller of His decree, and He is swift to take account.

 

Sher Ali: Do they not see that WE are visiting the land, reducing it from its outlying boarders? And ALLAH judges; there is none to reverse HIS judgment. And HE is Swift at reckoning.

 

Khalifa: Do they not see that every day on earth, brings them closer to the end, and that GOD decides their life span, irrevocably? He is the most efficient Reckoner.

 

Palmer: Did they not see that we come to the land and diminish the borders thereof? God judges, and there is none to reverse His judgment, and He is swift at reckoning up!

 

Sale: Do they not see that we come into [their] land, and straiten the borders thereof, [by the conquests of the true believers]? When God judgeth, there is none to reverse his judgement; and he [will be] swift in taking an account.

 

Rodwell: See they not that we come into their land and cut short its borders? God pronounceth a doom, and there is none to reverse his doom. And swift is He to take account.

 

"Progressive Muslims": Do they not see that We come to the land and reduce it from its ends? And God gives judgment and there is none to override His judgment. And He is quick to reckoning.

 

Transliteration: Awa lam yaraw anna na/tee al-arda nanqusuha min atrafiha waAllahu yahkumu la muAAaqqiba lihukmihi wahuwa sareeAAu alhisabi

 

Qur'an Text/Transliteration 13:41 (From: Qur'an Predicted Land Decreasing; WikiIslam; This page was last modified 03:23, 16 February 2014 by WikiIslam user Sahab.)]

 

What does Allah give the Muslims? How does he give it to them? Is the gift reversible? What did Israel do in ’48? What does that tell us about Allah? How can you expect Muslims to tolerate it???

 

In 638, Umar completed the Islamic conquest of the Levant. “None to put back his Judgment” means that the conquest is permanent. Israel’s recovery of stolen land in ’48 & ’67 proves Allah to be an impotent idol.

 

Israel won four out of four wars after Allah promised the Muslims victory. Get a clue. Tell the Muslims to go to Hell. Punch their tickets. Make peace by obtaining victory: Islamic extinction.

________________________________

Save Western Civ. With Total Unconditional Victory

John R. Houk

© February 6, 2015

_____________________________

Dajjal Comment to ‘Farewell to Netanyahu

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor

 

© Dajjal

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad Israel Politics
write a comment
February 5 2015 5 05 /02 /February /2015 13:31

Eddie Ray Routh - Left. Chris Kyle - Right.

Eddie Ray Routh murdered Chris Kyle of American Sniper fame and Chad Littlefield. The original story that is being reported by the Mainstream Media (MSM) is that Routh had a PTSD break and shot them to death.

 

With this original understanding, on a personal level I was willing to give Routh a pass with some serious time under psychiatric care in a place designed to help PTSD victims who have made others victims via crimes.

 

However there has been some suspicion of late that Routh’s murder crimes could be more related to Islamic conversion than Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

 

That which brought the suspicions to the surface was the lack of actual combat duty by then Marine Eddie Ray Routh while stationed in Iraq during 2007. Apparently Routh had a non-combat role in the Marines. The closest he came to potential threatening situations was in guard duty of captured Islamic terrorists in Iraq during that same year.

 

Leftists are mocking the Muslim terrorist theory for Routh’s murders. Beyond the lack of a stressful situation to cause PTSD, Counterjihad experts like Walid Shoebat look to Routh’s beard style that has evolved just prior to the murders through his incarceration awaiting trial. This is the point that Leftist rags and blogs begin their mocking of Counterjihad suspicions. But since most Leftists are in denial that Islam is a violent ideological-religion, Leftists can’t wrap their brains around a beard observation.

 

Further Reading:

 

Chris Kyle’s Alleged Killer Set to Go on Trial (Special-Ops.org)

 

BREAKING: Shocking Discovery About Chris Kyle’s Murderer Revealed (Conservative Tribune – 2/3/15)

 

Was Chris Kyle’s killer a converted Muslim? (AllenBWest.com – 2/2/15)

 

Expert: Chris Kyle’s Killer is Likely Muslim Jihadist (BuzzPo – 2/4/15)

 

JRH 2/5/15

************************

Evidence Surfaces That Chris Kyle's Killer Was Not Suffering From PTSD But May Have Been A Terrorist Sympathizer

 

By Yehuda Remer 

February 4, 2015

Truth Revolt

 

"No combat experience. Let me say that again, he NEVER SAW COMBAT or any aspect of traumatic events associated with a combat deployment."

 

 With his trial to start very soon, new facts have surfaced surrounding the man who shot and killed Chris Kyle.

 

The narrative until now has stated that Eddie Ray Routh was suffering from PTSD when Kyle took him under his wing, attempting to help a fellow veteran in need.  The new facts coming to light could show that Routh was not suffering from PTSD but a converted Muslim who sought out Kyle as retribution for the sniper's success in Iraq. 

 

Through the Freedom of Information Act, The Warfighter Foundation received Routh’s wartime record and made a startling discovery – Routh was never in combat or in any sort of traumatic experience. 

 

Posted to their Facebook page, they write:

 

Eddie Routh served one tour in Iraq in 2007, at Balad Air Base (the 2nd largest U.S. installation in Iraq), with no significant events. No combat experience. Let me say that again, he NEVER SAW COMBAT or any aspect of traumatic events associated with a combat deployment (i.e. incoming mortar or rocket fire). He never left the base, EVER.

 

He held a non-combat arms occupation of 2111 (Small Arms Repairer/ Technician or more commonly referred to as an Armorer). Balad Air Base had a Pizza Hut, 24 hour Buger (sic) King, Subway, Popeye's, Baskin Robbins, movie theater, and even a miniature golf course. It even had a strictly enforced 10-mile per hour speed limit! What a dangerous place...

 

His tour was comparable to being on a base in southern California, only with MANY more luxuries that were catered to the morale and welfare of the troops who occupied it. He was known to be a drug user and a below average performer while in the Marine Corps.

 

This has NOTHING to do with PTSD. He was an individual with psychological problems that were not associated with his service. So don't give me that bleeding heart bullshit that he was a veteran suffering from PTSD.

 

[Truth Revolt Facebook Copy and Paste of  Warfighter Foundation page:]

 

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-1/c3.0.64.64/p64x64/10941511_344642665730308_2490688228293100564_n.png?oh=200d67b78b98ca3258fa3c1490d730ae&oe=555F08F3&__gda__=1431240143_781919b951b4f2cc5f2c137616bf13a3

https://fbstatic-a.akamaihd.net/rsrc.php/v2/yB/r/Q0wEcBB7zDu.pngLike Page

The Warfighter Foundation

Charity Organization · 18,842 Likes

 · January 25 at 5:13pm · Edited · 

 

Okay, time to put an end to this whole discussion that Eddie Routh suffered from PTSD. For those of you who do not know, Eddie Routh is the murderer of US Navy SEAL Chris Kyle.

 

Eddie Routh served one tour in Iraq in 2007, at Balad Air Base (the 2nd largest U.S. installation in Iraq), with no significant events. No combat experience. Let me say that again, he NEVER SAW COMBAT or any aspect of traumatic events associated with a combat deployment (i.e. incoming mortar or rocket ...

See More

Share · 787126208

 

What is known, however, is that Routh, while never serving in combat, did work at the Bilad Airbase prison, guarding Muslim terrorists. 

 

Walid Shoebat, a former radicalized Muslim terrorist and member of the PLO who has since converted to Christianity, believes that because of his past and credentials, he is confident in his deduction that Eddie Routh was in fact becoming a radical Muslim, although there is no proof yet of the conversion.

 

Shoebat brings as one proof a phone call Routh had with his father where he expressed sympathy for the detainees he was guarding.

 

“During a phone call with his father, Routh expressed sympathy for the detainees and discontent over how the US was conducting the war as well as his reluctance to engage in combat” and “While working as a guard at Balad Air Base, Routh laments his [Muslim] prisoners’ poor living conditions.”

 

He continues, “It is a known fact that Routh’s family contacted Kyle about their son’s diminishing mental health. Routh was admitted to inpatient psychiatric treatment prior to the events at Rough Creek Ranch, according to a report from the Daily Mail.  Routh had been taken to a mental hospital twice in the past five months and told authorities that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, police records show.”

 

The second proof Shoebat brings is Routh's beard with a trimmed mustache.  Shoebat profiles Routh and writes, “In the story on Eddie Routh, who murdered Chris Kyle, there are signs of concern, especially the facial hair, it does match the profile of a convert.”

 

Notice the trimmed mustache in one picture but not the other.

 

“One main key in profiling a Muslim fundamentalist is that they usually trim the mustache,” Shoebat writes.  “Always remember, a Muslim fundamentalist is mandated by Islam to trim the mustache,” he adds.

 

Is it a stretch?  Was Eddie Routh sent on a covert mission for extremist Muslims hell-bent on killing “The Devil of Ramadi?”  It will be interesting to watch as the trial unfolds and more information comes out if Kyle’s killer was suffering from PTSD or if he had ties to Muslim extremists. 

_________________________

Truth Revolt – Our Mission page

 

The media win elections for the left. It’s not the left’s competence in office; leftists have demonstrated none. It’s not the left’s ideas; leftist ideas have failed everywhere they have been tried. The left wins for one simple reason: leftists control the information distribution system in the United States. And they use that system to pillory conservatives as heartless bigots intent on harming the poor and targeting minorities.

 

The media must be destroyed where they stand. That is our mission at Truth Revolt. The goal of TruthRevolt is simple: unmask leftists in the media for who they are, destroy their credibility with the American public, and devastate their funding bases.

 

TruthRevolt focuses on READ THE REST

 

© Copyright 2014, TruthRevolt.org

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad Politics
write a comment
February 4 2015 4 04 /02 /February /2015 19:14

 

Bill Lively cross posted a book review to “Christ, Muhammad, and I” as a comment to a post is by Morgan Brittany. Ms. Brittany’s post is about her displeasure of President Barack Hussein Obama’s do-nothing solution to Islamic terrorism with a big finger point to ISIS. This book review sheds more light on reasons I cross posted a petition entitled “Examine whether Islam is antithetical to Human Rights”. Sign that PETITION!

 

JRH 1/30/15

***********************

Lively’s Google Plus Comment about Islam

 

Bill Lively

1/30/15 11:51 AM

Comment to: “SlantRight 2.0: IT'S OFFICIAL! I'M EMBARRASSED FOR MY COUNTRY

 


President Mu'ammar al Qadhafi of Libya gave his permission to edit his book in English...Could this be another reason he was marked for Death by the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton..?

What kind of god would send a prophet like that?

 

Book Review: Christ, Muhammad, and I

Book author: Mohammad Al Ghazoli



Mohammad Al Ghazoli was raised a Muslim. But the more he read the ancient literature of Islam, the more convinced he became that Allah could not be the True God. And the more he studied the life of Muhammad, the more obvious it became that Muhammad was not God’s prophet. Then one day, someone placed a Bible in his hands and said, “Read.” Soon Ghazoli had found the True God, and forgiveness through His Son.

This book isn’t just Ghazoli’s testimony. It is much more than that. It contains the facts from the literature of Islam that shows why Allah can’t possibly be the True God. It gives proof from Islam itself that whenever Muhammad wanted more wives, or riches, or when he had a problem, Gabriel was always standing by, ready to give another “verse” to exempt Muhammad from the law and morality. How convenient!

Many of the stories in the book will be unfamiliar to the Western reader, but very familiar to Muslims. It is this “inside view” of things that makes the book so powerful as a witnessing tool for Muslims. Over and over again, Ghazoli asks, “Is this the behavior of a prophet who was sent by God? What kind of god would send a prophet like that?”

The arguments contained in this book will give you powerful evidence you can show to Muslims you may try to witness to. Because it is written by a respected Arab writer, who was an advisor to the Arab league and even to Libyan ruler Qhadaffi [one of many versions of this name], you can give the book to a Muslim and tell him, “Read.”

Learn about:


• The 220 contradictions in the Qur’an.
 

• Verses which reverse and replace prior verses. Did Allah make a mistake?
 

• The verses used to justify terrorism.
 

• Even the Qur’an admits Jesus was crucified! Then it denies it.
 

• Muhammad’s 23 marriages, including one to a little girl.

 

A note from the editor:

 
This book was so exciting! It held me speechless as I read. It was a storehouse of information! But more importantly, at every turn I saw Muhammad, "Gabriel" and Allah compared to our loving Saviour, Jesus Christ. You've got to experience this for yourselves!

That is why I couldn't wait to publish this book. Mohammad Al Ghazoli, former advisor to President Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi of Libya, gave permission to edit his book in understandable English... to help us Westerners understand the - who, what, when and where - of Islam's history, as well as why it is so important to us today....

Table of Contents

 

Introduction: The “I”
Chapter 1 Allah’s Messenger or Man with a Message? 
Chapter 2 Muhammad’s 23 Marriages 
Chapter 3 The Dictator, the King of Racism 
Chapter 4 Terrorism and Intimidation in Islam 
Chapter 5 Is the Qur’an God-Sent or Man-Made? 
Chapter 6 Christ vs. Muhammad 
Chapter 7 Christ in The Qur’an 
Chapter 8 The Cross and The Crucified 
Chapter 9 Was the Bible Altered? 
Chapter 10 How The Qur’an Distorts The Bible 
Chapter 11 Muslim Rituals 
Chapter 12 Suicide Bombers and Paradise

 
   Conclusion 
   Appendix A 
   Appendix B 

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets are by this blog’s Editor.

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad
write a comment

Overview

  • : ubiquitous8thoughts
  • ubiquitous8thoughts
  • : This is a Christian Right blog. This means there is religious freedom, free speech, Constitutional Original Intent, Pro-Israel, Anti-Islamist and a dose of Biblical Morality (Pro-Life & anti-homosexual agenda) content in this blog.
  • Contact

Search

Links