SNAKE HUNTERS

An Informative Weblog

Name:
Location: Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States

Eighty-nine year old fledgling Editor of Snake Hunters. Combat Veteran of WWII, 10th Mountain Division, Italy. AAU Swim Coach, 29 Palms, Yucca Valley, Calif. Mobile Park, Retail Furniture, Indian Gaming Casinos in San Diego County,Concessionaire/ CO + State Fair. This Editor is.Never "too busy" to confront enemies here at home, , or foreign enemies that hate our 1st Amendment Freedoms. IF YOU WOULD CHANGE THE WORLD... START BY READING THE VIOLENT HISTORY OF ISLAM... Read > Continuum Of WarA < in the Archives, dated March 25, 2010 - Then Print It, and pass along to folks you care about. Read great articles by Marshall Frank & Andrew C. McCarthy. Vigilance Is The PrIce We Must Pay To Save This Republic. Learn more about 'The Enemy Within'; Research 'Stealth Jihad' .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *** PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH - YOUR UNWAVERING VIGILANCE WILL SAVE THIS REPUBLIC ***

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

AMNESTY PAVES WAY FOR VOTERS LATER

by Marshall Frank

Amnesty now paves way for voters later

For every action, there is a reaction.

The recent flow of young immigrants from Central America is reminiscent of bygone days in Miami when Fidel Castro opened all his jails and mental institutions and dispatched children, the disabled and other unwanted citizens from the Mariel port so thousands could come to the United States.

While the softhearted press primarily focuses on the many thousands of youths who have been trekking through Mexico and over the Rio Grande, a significant number of these “children” are actually male gangster kids ages 13 to 17 whose contributions to American life will undoubtedly include a bloated crime rate wherever they land. That translates to many American victims.

Much like the coverage of bleeding little kids in Gaza, camera shots of small kids always touch the heartstrings, but it does not present the whole picture.

In 1980, while many good and decent people did arrive on the shores of South Florida during the infamous Mariel boat lift, the fact remains that the community was suddenly overwhelmed with a 120,000 new residents who had nowhere to go other than living under expressway bridges, parks and jails. The crime rate in Dade County tripled overnight. I know, because I was the captain of Homicide in those months and years. We all felt like Lucille Ball trying to keep up with the conveyor belt.

Bodies were turning up everywhere and could not be identified because we had no records of the victims. Rapes and other assaults doubled. Thefts, burglaries, vandalism and murder spiraled beyond the capacity of local resources to handle. The Medical Examiner’s Office had to rent a giant refrigerated trailer to store the accumulation of bodies. Fingerprints were not on file because all the victims and criminals came from another country.

President Jimmy Carter welcomed the refugees with open arms, but he had nothing to say to the victims of rape, assaults, thefts and murders left in the wake.

Many of the new immigrants were shipped to other states for “resettlement,” but that didn’t last long because most of the Cubans remigrated back to Miami, where they felt at home among their cultural peers.

The impact extended beyond criminal issues, as the infrastructure of state and local government was stressed beyond capacity. Schools, medical facilities, traffic, housing, personal necessities, courts, cops, jails and local budgets were unable to cope.

From all reports, the southwest United States, particularly Texas, can expect about 90,000 illegal immigrants this year, costing taxpayers $900 million. Reuters predicts the wave of youth immigration will reach above 130,000 in 2015, costing Americans $2 billion and more. Certainly, there are sad stories among the child immigrants. But rest assured, they are creating a wave of equally sad stories among American citizens and their families as well.

A quarter-million more people invading the United States is like a city larger than the population of Richmond, Virginia, being dumped in your backyard. It is naïve to think it won’t negatively impact the lives of American citizens, the people we are supposed to represent first and foremost.

And while our current administration has basically announced an amnesty pass to any immigrants under 18 who can find their way across our borders, what’s to stop the millions of Africans, Asians, middle-easterners and South Americans who are desperate for a better way of life? Where will this end?

Pardon my cynicism, but I seriously doubt the administration is supporting this influx of mass numbers because of bleeding hearts. They know that, 10 years from now, illegal immigrants who received entitlements will be most appreciative to those who paved the amnesty road to America. They are the future voters of our country. In essence, the political spectrum of America is being carved out for the 21st century. There’s the rub.

It is a clever ruse, indeed.

Monday, September 08, 2014

DESTROY THE
"ISLAMIC STATE"


By John R. Bolton


The recent military successes of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL, and the ongoing disintegration of Iraq’s “central” government have created a strategic crisis for the United States. Barack Obama’s belated, narrow authorization to use military force against the Islamic State does not constitute a coherent response, let alone a comprehensive one. The president seems curiously inactive, even as American influence in the region collapses and, not coincidentally, his political-approval ratings suffer. From the outset of the Islamic State’s campaign, his policies have been haphazard and confused, especially the halting, timid decision to intervene militarily. And, based on his record as president, there is no reason to believe a strategic vision of the Middle East’s future will ultimately emerge from his administration.

Approving U.S. military force against the Islamic State on August 7, Obama stressed two limited goals: protecting U.S. civilian and military personnel in Irbil, the Kurdish capital, which the Islamic State was rapidly nearing; and aiding refugees who had fled as the group advanced into Iraq from Syria. These are legitimate objectives, but they are far too constrained even in humanitarian terms, let alone against the serious regional and global strategic threats the Islamic State poses. The approximately 40,000 Yazidis were clearly in dire straits, but their plight had been preceded months earlier by the even greater number of fleeing Christian families. Obama stood by while the Islamic State butchered its way around Iraq.

Although the initial U.S. air strikes provided the refugees breathing space, the Islamic State still basically has the initiative. Ironically, Obama the multilateralist has not yet followed George H. W. Bush’s roadmap after the first Persian Gulf War in assembling an international coalition to achieve his humanitarian objectives. In April 1991, Kurdish refugees fled Saddam Hussein’s repression, and Bush persuaded the U.N. Security Council to adopt Resolution 688, declaring the refugee flows a threat to international peace and security. He then launched Operation Provide Comfort, later supplemented by aid to the Shiites in southern Iraq.
Today’s ongoing tragedy would have been entirely avoidable had Obama not withdrawn U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011. By so doing, he eliminated a considerable element of U.S. leverage in Baghdad, one that had significantly limited Iran’s ability to expand its influence inside Iraq. With substantial U.S. forces still present, Iraq’s various ethnic and confessional groups were more likely to make progress knitting together a sustainable national government and to lessen their profound, longstanding mistrust, which existed well before the Islamic State erupted from Syria.

We must now decide on U.S. strategic objectives in light of the dramatic, albeit still-tenuous, territorial gains by the Islamic State; the unfolding disarray in Iraq’s government; the grinding conflict in Syria; and the looming threats to stability in Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey. This will require some unpleasant choices, as well as recognition of the obvious reality that many policy options are simply unavailable until Obama leaves office in 2017.

America’s basic objective is clear: We must seek to destroy the Islamic State. It is simply not enough to block the group’s threat to the Kurds or other vulnerable minorities in the region. The risks of even a relatively small “state” (or “caliphate,” as they proclaim it) are chilling. Leaving the Islamic State in place and in control only of its current turf in Iraq and Syria (including northern-Iraqi hydrocarbon deposits and associated infrastructure) would make it viable economically and a fearsome refuge for terrorists of all sorts. Just as Afghanistan’s Taliban gave al-Qaeda a base of operations to launch terrorist attacks culminating in 9/11, a similar result could follow if the Islamic State successfully erased and then redrew existing boundaries.

But, many ask, how can the Islamic State be removed from the territory it now holds without U.S. combat forces’ being centrally involved? Aren’t we too “war weary” to do much of anything? Perhaps, but this is surely a debate worth having. And that debate’s central “organizing principle,” as Hillary Clinton might say, is this: The United States must prevent a new terrorist state from emerging in the Middle East. Period.

If there are American political leaders who are truly content to have this embodiment of evil consolidate its current position, let them say so unambiguously. The vast majority of Americans, however, will be profoundly concerned at the likely consequences for America, Europe, Israel, and our Arab friends in the region if we do nothing. After the Holocaust, we said “Never again,” not “Well, maybe a little.”

Moreover, U.S. forces are already involved, and will need to be involved more substantially until the Islamic State is defeated. But the primary ground combat can be handled by adequately armed and equipped Kurdish peshmerga fighters, Sunni tribal militias in Iraq, and whatever trustworthy, moderate anti-Assad Sunni forces remain. U.S. air power, supplies, and intelligence will be central, but we should seek all possible assistance, including financial support from our allies globally. The recent combined U.S., Kurdish, and Iraqi operations to retake the Mosul dam demonstrate how this could work in practice.

Assuming the Islamic State is decisively defeated (a heroic assumption, given Obama’s passivity), what happens next? In Syria, non-radical Sunni Arabs, while still hoping to oust Bashar al-Assad, are increasingly beleaguered, both by regime forces and by the Islamic State and other radicals. In Iraq, the attempted coup of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who until recently was backed solidly by Iran, has added to the disarray. His reluctant decision to step aside as prime minister, however, has only removed him from the stage; it has neither reduced Iran’s dominance nor changed the fundamental political disarray among Iraq’s factions. Maliki’s maltreatment of Iraq’s Sunnis aroused such opposition that tribal leaders and former Baathists initially joined with the Islamic State because of their common contempt for the national government. What outcome can we now achieve that would satisfy non-radical Sunnis, not to mention us?

Iraq’s future poses the starkest choice. Obama still clings to the idea of making the collapsing Baghdad government functional. At some much earlier point, conditioning anti–Islamic State aid on the requirement that Iraq’s badly divided factions cooperate might have worked, but no longer. In effect, Washington’s preference that a unified Iraq exist essentially within the international borders it inherited at its independence in 1932 ended with Obama’s 2011 withdrawal of American forces. Iraqi “unity” increasingly seems like a mirage in the foreseeable future and perhaps forever. Just as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia fragmented into their component parts two decades ago, that is likely what is now happening in Iraq.
Unavoidably, therefore, we must identify what is doable in Iraq rather than what is desirable. We are long past the point of debating “one Iraq” versus “three Iraqs,” because fierce animosities have already split Iraq de facto into Kurdistan and the predominantly Arab remainder. The only outstanding issue is whether the Arab lands will themselves break into two, one largely Sunni, the other largely Shiite.

As things stand, helping to create three Iraqs looks to be America’s best option. Our metric today, looking forward, is not whether the Platonic ideal of a unified, democratic Iraq might once have been achieved, or might yet be achieved unknowable years hence. Instead, we must proceed on the clear-eyed basis of what America’s interests are now, choosing among less-than-ideal options.

First, it is nearly impossible to envision any circumstances in which the Kurds would agree to meaningful participation in an Iraqi central government that attempted to assert real authority over them. The parliamentary charades now on display in Baghdad — where Kurds (and Sunnis as well) agree to divide political offices among Iraq’s factions and otherwise go through the motions of central government — do not constitute serious institution-building. Instead, they merely reflect the pragmatic Kurdish decision not to break de jure from Iraq until that necessity arrives. Behind the play-acting, the Kurds are in reality already independent, and there is no going back.

The real problem for “Kurdistan” is defining its broader boundaries beyond Iraq, given the Kurdish populations in Syria, Iran, and Turkey. Amalgamating the Kurds in Syria and Iraq will be easier than dealing with those in Turkey and Iran. Once a visibly independent Kurdish government exists, excruciatingly hard problems will arise. Kurds in Turkey and Iran will not remain quiescent for long, and Ankara and Tehran will not let them escape easily or painlessly.

Second, though perhaps less definitively than the Kurds, Iraq’s Sunni Arabs show no inclination to cooperate with a Baghdad government they see, correctly, as dominated by Iran. As long as Obama and others press them to pretend that there is a possibility of restitching a national government in Baghdad, the Sunnis may do so, but primarily only to obtain assistance necessary to fight the Islamic State. Obviously, Sunni opposition to the Islamic State is critical to its ultimate defeat.

Until we effectively counter Iran’s increasing dominance in Shiite Iraq — indeed, until we overthrow the ayatollahs in Tehran — we cannot ignore the reality that Iraq’s Sunnis simply will not tolerate domination by an “Iraqi” government Tehran controls in every material respect. Similarly, as with their opposition to al-Qaeda in Iraq during the 2006–07 “surge,” most Iraqi Sunnis have no desire to trade Iranian-backed repression for Islamic State repression.

Third, the Islamic State’s territorial conquests underscore the fragility of all the region’s existing boundaries. By hiving off parts of both Iraq and Syria to create a “caliphate,” the group is portending even more significant redrawing of boundaries, as an unambiguously independent Kurdistan would also do. While we must prevent the Islamic State from forming a new, independent terrorist state composed of Sunni Arabs, there is an acceptable alternative. In broad strokes, a transborder state carved out of Iraq’s and Syria’s current territory is far from undesirable, and is in any event increasingly likely. If rightly established and led by Sunnis acceptable to the United States and our regional allies, a new Sunni state is entirely realistic.

It would mean partitioning Syria, an outcome some have predicted, and leaving Assad with essentially an Alawite enclave in Syria’s western and coastal regions. A stable, “moderate” Sunni state with control over oil assets in northern Iraq equitably divided with the Kurds would also serve to protect Jordan’s eastern border. Northern areas with significant Kurdish populations could join Iraqi Kurds in their new state, and Sunni Arabs would have the rest.

Concededly, this is easier said than done, and drawing new boundaries will be arduous and perhaps ultimately futile. Moreover, creating a new Sunni state will not solve the problem of Iran’s continuing to dominate the regimes governing the rump portions of Syria and Iraq. These projections of Tehran’s power would still threaten those states’ neighbors and provide Iran much-needed allies. Unfortunately, however, Syria’s Assad dictatorship and Iraq’s successor to Maliki will remain relatively secure until the ayatollahs lose power in Tehran.
Regarding Syria, many who advocated aiding the anti-Assad opposition will now contend that, once the Islamic State is on the run, we should seize the moment to topple the dictatorship. The hard reality, however, is that for over three years the Syria conflict has been a strategic sideshow in the larger struggle against Iran. If a moderate, transborder Sunni state emerged, fighting an Assad regime confined to an Alawite enclave would not be worth the risks of Obama’s stumbling around simultaneously confronting Russia and Iran, which both back Assad. If Iran’s ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guards were to fall and be replaced by anything like a sensible government, Assad (not to mention Hezbollah and Hamas) would lose his biggest source of financial and military support. To be sure, Russia would still see Assad as an ally, but without Iran, even Moscow might recalibrate its stakes in Syria. And until Iran flips, as long as Assad retains Russian support, Obama cannot be trusted to face off competently against Moscow.

Any real opportunity to stitch the pieces of Iraq back together will come only when the mullahs next door are eliminated. Unfortunately, however, while most Iraqi Shiites oppose Iran’s domination, they have been ineffective in preventing it, and there is little prospect that this pattern will change.

Obviously, the central problem is not Iran’s surrogates, but Iran itself, America’s main regional adversary. And until the United States confronts the ever more pressing need for regime change in Tehran, we can hardly expect others in the region to have the strength or the will to arrange things to suit our interests. Obama’s obsession with securing a nuclear-weapons deal means the odds that he would support overthrowing the ayatollahs approach zero. The regime is determined to possess nuclear weapons, so appeasing it in Syria, as Obama has done, was never going to cause Tehran to modify its positions in the nuclear talks. Far better to concentrate on regime change in Iran by overtly and covertly supporting the widespread opposition and watch Assad fall as collateral damage thereafter.

These possible outcomes constitute working hypotheses for U.S. objectives flowing from the destruction of the Islamic State. They are not philosophical abstractions, but practical suggestions that could well change as regional circumstances change. What we must not do is take our eye off the critical first step of destroying the Islamic State. Nor can we let theories about the kinds of regimes we would like to see emerge in the region blind us to what may actually be achievable.

Perhaps most important of all, we simply must stop blundering around in the vacuum of strategic thinking Obama has created during his presidency. Real progress must obviously await Obama’s 2017 departure from office, but we should plan now to replace his failed policies.

— Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He is the author of Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad. This article appears in the September 8, 2014, issue of National Review.

Friday, September 05, 2014

'Embracing Crazy Town'

By: Erick Erickson

From Red State's "Silencing The Other"

In Rotherham, England, 1400 young girls were routinely raped over more than a decade while authorities turned a blind eye. Why did they turn a blind eye? The authorities were so concerned with multiculturalism they could not bring themselves to do anything about a systemic and widespread culture of rape gangs in the area.

The gangs were, if you read most press accounts, Pakistani men. In fact, there were Bangladeshi men, Afghani men, and others involved. But you will not find many references of the word “muslim” except in pieces warning about a possible backlash against the muslim community. This New York Times piece is a good example. The words “muslim” and “Islam” do not appear, just “[t]he victims identified in the report were all white, while the perpetrators were mostly of Pakistani heritage”.

Ironically, the British Home Secretary, Theresa May, said the monstrous crime went on so long because of “institutionalized political correctness.” People would not take action because they did not want to rock the multicultural boat. Anyone who dared do so would be labeled a racist. Even now, despite Theresa May’s statement, the press dares not use the “m” word.

We have not experienced such horrors in this country. I hope we will never. Bad things happen, but towns and cities being taken over by muslim rape gangs will hopefully not be one of those things. But the fears of “institutionalized political correctness” are real in the United States too at a different level.

The Huffington Post has hired Donte Stallworth as a “fellow”. He will cover national security. Mr. Stallworth, a former NFL player, is a 9/11 truther, believes a plane did not hit the Pentagon, believes Osama Bin Laden was not involved, and also is an anti-vaccine conspiracist who has bizarre theories on Mexicans and the H1N1 flu. Mr. Stallworth also killed a person.

He will now write for the Huffington Post.

I do not mean to compare his hire to the monstrous horrors of Rotherham, but the logic of political correctness running amuck leads to bizarre places.

Had Mr. Stallworth given money to Proposition 8 in California, been an advocate of traditional marriage, or suggested mankind’s involvement in climate change might be overstated, I have no doubt the Huffington Post would not have hired him.

But suggest conspiracies related to vaccines and 9/11 and he is golden. The paths of political correctness and conformity lead to terrible places in culture. Francis Schaeffer, the theologian, wrote a remarkable book called The God Who is There in 1968. In the book, Schaeffer posits that the United States lags Europe by about thirty years in cultural shifts and he predicted a thirty year or so lag in growing secularism and conformity in the United States.

We have already reached a point in this country where secular society will drive people from jobs based on their religious convictions and rejection of secularized-pseudoscientific bullying. We have a society where people can have wacko ideas, but so long as their values do not offend the ever more pervasive multicultural political correction of the age, they’re golden.

We see what is afoot in Europe. We see the disastrous consequences of shaming and silencing “the other” in Rotherham. And we see more secularized Americans shunning truth and embracing crazy town. Just how bad can we expect it to become?

Come Lord Jesus, quickly.

Tuesday, September 02, 2014

REMEMBERING MARGARET THATCHER'S BOLD POLICY


By Ralph Emerson Benn

CONSERVATIVE AND INDEPENDENT THINKERS ARE MISSING HER DYNAMIC LEADERSHIP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thatcher's Famous Quote: "If you just set out to be liked you would be prepared to compromise on anything, at any time, and you would achieve nothing. If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a conservative woman".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LONDON - Monday, Sept. 01, 2014 - 10:30 A.M. Eastern

On the floor of British Parliment, the Honorable Prime Minister David Cameron spoke
forcefully, taking the lead on the subject of radical Islam's latest threats in Syria & Iraq from Bakr Al Bagdadi Forces on recent success in spreading terror throughout the region with grim executions, mass killings and beheadings getting the momentary attention of a largely unaware and apathetic world.
>>
Summary: It would be comforting if the American voters suddenly came alive in November... sending Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid back to Searchlight, Nevada... and California
Representative Nancy Pelosi back to San Francisco to order a flowery parade, celebrating her return to civilian life... plus a few dozen progressive-democratic senators sent back to their home states? Just imagine the fallout!

* Andrew C. McCarthy replacing Eric Holder as U.S. Attorney General

* John Bolton replacing John Kerry as our Secretary of State

* Lt. General Tom McInerney replacing General Dempsey at Joint Chief of Staff

* Lastly, A Conservative, Business-Friendly Governance in the Oval Office in 2016... with independence from Saudi Arabian Oil... with $1.50 per gallon gasoline at the pump, plus cheap diesel fuel for the fleets of 18-wheelers traversing our nation's busy Interstate Highways.

We can ensure dynamic growth of our economy if we remove the odd and unhealthy regulations imposed on the Oil and Gas Industries, and renew our old friendship with our Canadian neighbors on that Keystone XL Pipeline from Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast. Read about Arctic National Wildlife Refuge {ANWR} in Snake Hunters Archives, dated February 1st and 12th of 2012 for Our Own Vast Untapped Oil Reserves!

All of the above will bring the economy back from the years of stagnation under Obama-Mania. Major investors will quickly spot the basic advantages to be found only in a nation founded in the belief in liberty, justice and open competition, and with the grand opportunities for aggressive small business ventures to grow prosperous in a clearly more friendly business environment. Aware voters can make it happen.

reb

Monday, September 01, 2014

Will America
Snap Out Of It In Time?‏

By Victor Davis Hanson

A nation became unhinged by trivialities like “hope and change.” It has now awakened.

The madness of 2008
America is suddenly angry at the laxity, incompetence, and polarizing politics of the Obama administration, the bad optics of the president putting about in his bright golf clothes while the world burns. Certainly, no recent president has failed on so many fronts — honesty, transparency, truthfulness, the economy, foreign policy, the duties of the commander-in-chief, executive responsibilities, and spiritual leadership.

For those who are “shocked” at the present meltdown, of a magnitude not seen since the annus horribilis of 1979, in their defense: Obama certainly did not campaign on a new health-care plan that would force Americans to give up the doctors they liked and their existing coverage, while raising premiums and deductibles, while giving exemptions for insiders and cronies, and while raising the deficit.

Nor did we hear on the campaign trail that Obama would push gay marriage, open borders, near-permanent zero interest rates, six consecutive $1 trillion deficits, and record food-stamp and Social Security disability payouts. He criticized Bush for relatively minor executive orders, suggesting that he would never rule by fiat — as he since has done in matters of Obamacare, immigration law, and environmental regulations. Remember the promise of ending the revolving door and stopping aides from cashing in — and then follow the post-administration careers of Obama’s closest advisers.

Obama promised to halve the deficit — not run up more red ink than almost all prior presidents combined. Indeed, he once as a senator voted against raising the debt limit and blasted Bush for borrowing from China. He once sermonized to us that the presidency is serious stuff, that it entails inordinate personal sacrifice and even a virtual absence of downtime and vacation — and then he became just the sort of president he was critiquing. But those deceptions were simply politics as usual, and it was logical for the hard leftist Barack Obama to try to appear to be a moderate, given that no Northern liberal had won the presidency in the half-century since John F. Kennedy.

The antidote to the great madness of 2008 would have been, instead of focusing on what Obama claimed or hedged, simply to recall what he had done before he ran for president and to notice what he did during the campaign. Had America done that, there would never have been a President Obama to surprise us now.

The racial animosity characterized by Obama’s editorializing about Skip Gates, Trayvon Martin, and, now, the Ferguson, Mo., hysteria, or his call to Latinos to “punish our enemies,” or the tenure of Eric Holder is simply a continuation of 2008’s “typical white person,” the clingers speech, Michelle Obama’s America as “just downright mean,” “They raise the bar,” and “For the first time . . . I’m really proud of my country” commentaries, and of Obama’s earlier boast that he never missed services at the Trinity Church of the hate-mongering and anti-Semitic Reverend Jeremiah Wright. If Obama had not proved to be a racial divider, we should have been surprised — given what we learned of his past in 2008. After all, it’s from Jeremiah Wright that Barack Obama got the title for his campaign brief, “The Audacity of Hope.”

We are now shocked at the current spate of alphabetic scandals — IRS, AP, NSA, VA. But why are we surprised, given that Obama never told the truth about his relationships with the old terrorist Bill Ayers and former PLO ad hoc spokesman Rashid Khalidi, or about the creepy land deal with the crook Tony Rezko? If the Obama White House demonized the Tea Party as tea-baggers, or compared the Republican House opposition to terrorists and arsonists, why should we be astonished, given how he was elected to the U.S. Senate? Quite mysteriously, his primary opponent, Blair Hull, and his general-election opponent, Jack Ryan, both of whom were favored to win, had their confidential divorce records leaked. Their campaigns subsequently imploded.

Obama has played fast and loose with ethical rules, from promoting crony capitalists to attending near-constant fundraisers among the pay-to-play 0.0001 percent. Again, why should we be surprised, given that he was the first presidential candidate who refused in a general election to accept federal campaign financing, with its accompanying rules curbing mega-fundraising? Obama was the largest recipient of Goldman Sachs donations in the company’s history, and raised more cash in 2008 and 2012 than any other presidential candidate in history.

We are terrified of the chaos that is spreading across the world: Egypt, Gaza, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Putin’s Russia, and the Chinese–Japanese tensions. But was there any evidence in 2008 that rookie senator Obama had any foreign-policy experience or even knowledge of the world beyond Chicago, other than as a boy in Indonesia or a teen on a jaunt with buddies to Pakistan? We knew in 2008 that his opportunistic trashing of Guantánamo, renditions, tribunals, drones, and preventive detention was permitted only by the fact that the Bush–Cheney protocols he was criticizing had prevented another 9/11-like attack — and thus gave him the leeway of easy second-guessing. If we are now worried about Obama’s equivocation, there was plenty of evidence, as Hillary Clinton pointed out in 2008, that Obama as a state legislator had voted “Present” as a matter of habit.

Polarization? Partisanship? The National Journal warned us in 2008 that Obama was the most partisan of the 100 U.S. senators. Did we assume that he would revert to something that he never had been?

Critics are angry that Obama seems disengaged, or that as a man of the people he is inordinately obsessed with golf, a sport that the Left used to despise as a fixation of the rich in their lime-green pants and bright pink polo shirts. But again, can we point to any landmark legislation that Obama accomplished as a state legislator or U.S. senator? Was not Obama golfing during the 2008 campaign?

Then there is the matter of the presidential untruths. The problem is not just that Barack Obama says things that are untrue but that he lies about what Barack Obama has said. He brags that he set red lines, but then he says it was the U.N. had set red lines. He boasts of pulling out every U.S. soldier from Iraq but then alleges that President Bush, the Iraqis, or Maliki did that. He claims that ISIS are Jayvees but then claims they are serious. But his prevarication too is habitual and was known in 2008 when it was discovered that he had simply misled the nation about his relationships with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. He had no desire, in the transparent manner of John Kerry, Al Gore, John McCain, or George W. Bush, to release his medical records or college transcripts. If Americans find their president ill-informed, there was no record that he was informed in 2008. His gaffes were far more frequent than those of Sarah Palin, who knew there were 50 states.

Historians will look back at 2008 as a time when the country became more or less collectively unhinged. There was an accompanying perfect storm of sorts: He was the first serious African-American candidate, whom condescending liberals like Harry Reid and Joe Biden heralded for being clean, light-skinned, and without a black patois; he was running in an orphaned election without an incumbent vice president or president on the other side’s ticket, a situation not seen since 1952; we had an unpopular lame-duck president and the Iraq war; the sudden financial meltdown in September 2008 caused a then-behind Obama to immediately surge ahead; the McCain campaign was lackluster; and the media became an advocate of the Obama effort.

Pundits vied for superlatives. On little evidence, Christopher Buckley assured us that Obama possessed “a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect.” For some, proof of Obama’s godhead became almost physical — a “perfectly creased pant” for David Brooks, a tingling leg for Chris Matthews. For Evan Thomas he was a “sort of God”; for one blue-chip historian he was the smartest man with the highest IQ ever running for the presidency. And on and on, as huge crowds acted as if they were watching Paul McCartney on tour in 1966. After the election, there was real apprehension that the country might not make it for the two and a half months until an elected Obama could take power.

Given that there was no evidence from Obama’s legislative career to justify such superlatives, we can only assume that our intellectual elites got caught up in the faux Greek columns, the Obama tutorials for fainting crowds about proper first aid, the teleprompted emphatics of “Let me be perfectly clear” and “Make no mistake about it,” the Latinate motto “Vero possumus” on the faux presidential seal on his campaign podiums, the boast that Obama & Co. were “the ones we’ve been waiting for,” the messianic promise to cool the planet and lower the seas, the Lincoln self-comparisons, and the other embarrassing childish banalities.

Obama, it is true, ran a brilliant campaign in 2008, hinting to the Other that as a non-white he shared both their racial bona fides and their frustrations, hinting to white elites that his own unique heritage would end racial hostilities and thus allow them to square the circle of living largely separate elite lives and not having to feel guilty about it. He dropped his g’s and went into Southern cadences among African Americans, and then back again into wonkish academese to mainstream whites. It was well known that in impromptu talks he stuttered and stumbled with uh’s in deer-in-the-headlights fashion, and used the pronouns I, me, my, and mine ad nauseam, but such unease was ignored given his teleprompted eloquence and the considerable elite investment in his symbolism.

In sum, in 2008 Obama gave America more than enough evidence to doubt that he was ready for the presidency, but when a nation becomes unhinged by trivialities like “hope and change,” there is not much one can do — until the patient wakes up from his trance and in embarrassment asks, “What exactly was all that nuttiness in 2008 about?”

We will be fathoming that strange madness of 2008 for decades to come.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institutionand the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.

Saturday, August 23, 2014

YOU ARE OFFICER DARREN WILSON, FERGUSON P.D.

by Marshall Frank

Imagine this.

You are a 28 year-old man with a bright future in law enforcement. You’re on the job in a small city outside of St. Louis, patrolling a predominantly black community for the last six years. You have received commendations for outstanding work and never disciplined for anything. You’re soft spoken, friendly to everyone and referred to in the highest terms of respect and honor by everyone who knows you.

You’re on routine patrol one day. A call that goes out about a strong-arm robbery at a convenience store. As you’re nearing the scene, you spot two black males walking in the street, one of whom is quite large. You do your job and order them to get off the roadway.

They ignore your order. You stop the patrol car. You are not expecting what follows. As you’re exiting the patrol car, the large male suddenly comes at you with a powerful punch to the face delivered by a humongous fist. In a split second, your whole world turns upside down. The large fellow starts walking away. He has just committed a felony. You’re stunned, in pain, confused, shaking. But you have to do something.

You reach for your pistol and order him to stop. He doesn’t. Instead he comes back at you, challenging. He’s already punched you in the face. He’s unarmed, but the mere size of a young man, 6’4”, 300 pounds, is intimidating enough to realize you’re no match, physically. You are suddenly scared to death, fearful of being pummeled by this behemoth of an angry young man. As he nears, you panic and start pulling the trigger in his direction, two, three, maybe six shots, whatever it takes to stop him from maiming or killing you.

The young man collapses. You don’t know he’s only eighteen years old. You don’t know he’s just committed a felony at a convenience store. All you know is that you’re shaking inside, injured and emotionally wracked because you just did something you hoped you would never do in your entire life.

This had nothing to do with the young man being white, black or purple. You were just doing your job by ordering two boys off the dangerous streets, and from there, it mushroomed into an incident. You did everything the right way.

But that doesn’t matter now.

Fast forward nearly two weeks later. You have been villainized as a racist by everyone in local, state and federal governments. Angry citizens by the thousands are chanting for vengeance, declaring you as a hater of black people. The media is on a frenzy, stoking the flames of disorder as you flee to an undisclosed location because of threats to kill you.

You are a symbol of the criminal justice system, but you see something else unfurling before your eyes as you read newspapers and watch television from your hiding place. You always thought the system was about evenness and fairness, where justice is determined in a court room where evidence is presented challenged and evaluated before judgment is reached.

But that’s not happening for you. You’re different. You’re a white cop. The dead kid is black. You’re guilty.

You are astounded at the responses by prominent individuals who seem to have already tried and convicted you, reaching conclusions before knowing the array of evidence.

Governor Jay Nixon: “A vigorous prosecution must now be pursued.”

Congressman Lacy Clay: “I have absolutely no confidence in the Ferguson Police or the County Prosecutor. I know we won’t get a fair shake.”

Captain Ron Johnson, Highway Patrol: “I wear this uniform and I should stand here and say ‘I’m sorry.’”

Al Sharpton: “Justice for Michael Brown and his family.”

Benjamin Crump, family attorney: “They tried it with Trayvon, now they’re trying it with Michael.”

Darrel Parks, Brown family spokesman: “The person who shot Michael should be on trial.”

Attorney General Eric Holder: “I understand the mistrust. I am Attorney General, but I am also a black man.”

You’re watching the purveyors of racial hatred signing petitions in a call for the removal of respected County Prosecutor from the case. Robert McCulloch has been elected four times in sixteen years by the predominantly black electorate with an impeccable record, including several successful prosecutions of police officers. But he’s not trusted because his father was killed by a black person fifty years ago.

You’re seeing the beginnings of a lynch mob, setting the ground for a vigorous hate-filled prosecution hell-bent on seeing you in prison, or else. And if you are not prosecuted and convicted, the communities will burn, just like they did in L.A. and Miami. Everyone is on edge.

And if you are not charged or fail to be convicted, the power of the federal government will step in by adding charges about violating civil rights. You’re going to prison, one way or another. Guilt or innocence is not an issue.

It’s all about revenge. You now realize you will pay the price for all those racist cops in America who abused black people over the last century.

You are sorry that you had to fire that weapon. You feel sorry for the family of Michael Brown. But no one is listening. You don’t matter. Everyone, from the top law enforcement officer of the nation to the street people, all declare the need for justice for Michael Brown. But justice doesn’t apply to you.

No national figures are coming to visit you. No celebrities, no whites, blacks or Asians. You are alone.

So you turn the channel to get your mind clear, and you see another issue stirring emotions from across the globe. An American journalist has had his head severed from his body by fanatics, though he is guilty of no crime.

Your heart skips a beat. You see what’s coming.

Welcome to America the beautiful

Friday, August 22, 2014

TIME TO STAND BEHIND THE POLICE

by Marshall Frank

I’m one former career police officer who is fed up with the likes of Al Sharpton and a sensation-hungry media rushing to judgment when a black person is shot and killed by a cop in a confrontation. It’s the same old script: Intimidation, threats, violence, looting, antagonism and racial divide.

And then the president and the attorney general weigh in on the federal level as though it’s a greater tragedy when a black person dies than a white person.

No cop enjoys shooting anyone. No cop anywhere decides to pull a trigger on another human being because they’re white, black or Asian. Not in this day and age. That’s a guarantee.

My thirty in law enforcement were in Miami-Dade, Florida. We had plenty of riots and disturbances. I watched from the inside out as hooligans seized opportunities to steal, rampage and do everything possible to egg on law enforcement into more confrontations. Once it starts, it becomes contagious. A few ignite the many. The outcry is always the same: Racism. And the media thrives. When the media thrives, it emboldens the rioters.

Race riots are scary. People get seriously injured and killed in horrible ways, as a few radical kids wait for the signal from a higher authority. They are criminals, not protesters.

Criticism of police for responding to the streets fully armed and protected is premature. The general public, nor the media, knows what threats are looming from behind the scenes. All that gear is for protection and prevention, because there are crazy people out there who seek excuses to kill cops.

Meanwhile, cops are men and women with families and private lives. They want these incidents like they want cancer. They hate the mere thought of shooting anyone. But sometimes it’s their job. Day in and day out, police officers put lives on the line to protect the very people who threaten, ambush, antagonize and hate them.

All the facts are not yet known about the Ferguson, Missouri shooting. An investigation is underway. But consider this: Cops work every day with a target on their backs, and they know it, their families know it. Training or no training, cops get scared too.

So let’s shift the focus a moment. At least 120 to 180 officers a year are killed in the line of duty. In 2014, the death toll is on track toward 130 dead officers. Half of those have been killed by gunfire. Most of those are killed because they are a cop. Why don’t we label that bigotry? Hate crime?

In July, in the one month prior to the August 9th shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, four American police officers were shot to death. They all had families. Where’s the outcry? Why aren’t the friends, families and outraged citizens of those communities in the streets burning, demonstrating, looting and threatening?

July 30th. Officer Scott Patrick, age 47, Mendota Heights P.D., Minnesota. Shot in the head and killed by a fugitive during a routine traffic stop. He’s survived by a wife and two teenage daughters. Killed because he was a cop. The suspect was a white male.

July 13th. Detective Melvin Santiago, 23, Jersey City P.D., New Jersey. Ambushed when responding to a robbery call. Killed because he was a cop. Suspect is a black male who was killed on the scene. The suspect’s wife said that more cops should have been killed.

July 6th. Officer Jeffery Westerfield, 47, Gary Police Department, Indiana. Responded to a domestic disturbance call. He was ambushed, shot in his patrol car as he arrived. Killed on his 47th birthday, he leaves behind four daughters. Another loyal, America officer… killed for being a cop. Suspect was a black male.

July 5th. Officer Perry Renn, 51, Indianapolis P.D., Indiana. Answered a call about shots being fired in the area. Shot as he arrived. Officer Renn was also an U.S. Army veteran. Killed because he was a cop. Suspect was a black male.

Many more officers will die this year and future years, killed by criminals of all races. But who’s paying attention? Who out there understands what it is like to be in the shoes of a police officer, especially when suddenly trapped in a life/death situation? Perhaps it’s the police who should start demonstrating.

Consider me in. Down with Al Sharpton and the racist pundits who seize every opportunity to cash in on seething bigotry against the bravest and most dedicated protectors of our society.

Why aren’t the likes of Al Sharpton, and the president doing something meaningful, like visiting the ghettos outside Chicago, L.A., Ferguson and other neighborhoods of violence where black kids are dying by the dozens at the hands of other black kids every day, every week and every month? What have they done to stem this terrible tide? I ask them, what difference have you made in the outrageous level of unemployment among young black males? What difference have you made in the pathetic rate of unmarried mothers and missing fathers, breeding more kids into the gangster world? What difference have you made in these and other horrific conditions that black youth live within?

Here’s the answer! Nothing! You’ve made no difference.

So leave the cops alone. They’re job is hard enough without racist rabble-rousers like you stoking the fires of violence.

Three cheers to law enforcement. May we all stand behind them.

Sunday, August 10, 2014

DESTROY ISIS IN IRAQ

by Marshall Frank

DESTROY ISIS IN IRAQ: THE TIME IS NOW

Radical Islam is a global threat; it is not just a middle-east quandary. Since writing my book “Militant Islam in America” in 2007, and starting this blog in 2008, I have buried my head in research and knowledge, so I could impart the truth concerning the clear and present threat to the western world. Scores of my articles have provided documentation of this impending danger. Now emboldened, these barbarians will not stop at Iraq, or the Kurds, or Syria and Lebanon. And they certainly will not stop at Israel. If ever there was a time to intercede, it is now.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has frequently warned that if Israel falls, the next step for radical Islamists is the western civilization. This is no empty threat, it is a part of their manifesto which is recorded into written documents, part of which states:

“The Ikhwan (brothers) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers (Muslims) so that it is eliminated and God’s religion (Allah) is made victorious over all other religions.”

That was signed off by the hierarchy of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1991.

The Islamist Jihadists are in the process of making their big move. So far, they are successful. While they invade and conquer Northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, Israel is being shelled from the Gaza strip by Hamas, who knows they will suffer immense civilization casualties. But they don’t care because Allah’s will is a higher priority in their mind, which is to destroy Israel.

The ISIS forces are menacing Kurds and moderate Muslims in Iraq, threatening to murder all infidels. They have now seized control of the Mosel Dam which is vital for electrical power to over a half million people.

The president is authorizing humanitarian aid to the displaced Kurds and other victims, permitting targeted strikes in order to achieve that mission. But, it’s not enough.

I have a good friend who lived and worked in the journalistic field for three decades in the middle east, knows the languages, knows the cultures and is proud to call many Muslims her friend. While she is an intellectual liberal and past supporter of Barack Obama, she is also a pragmatist who has issued dire warnings about the Muslim Brotherhood in the past, and voices her opinions in a recent communique to me. These are her words:

”I am absolutely crazy about what is going on up in northern Iraq. We absolutely must arm the peshmerga so they will be able to take on those fanatics that have declared a caliphate and are killing everyone in sight.

”How well I remember the Yazidis, walking the streets of Erbil, Sinjar, the whole lot–an unassuming, peaceful people who never looked to impinge on anyone. I wrote to Obama saying that this whole situation with ISIS is a clear and present danger for us. There are Americans, blast their souls, who are fighting alongside these fanatics. Yazidis are totally misunderstood because their religion is full of dark mysteries and secrets and they have always been discriminated against–but a genocide was not in place under Saddam Hussein and they have existed for centuries in what is now Iraq. ISIS has supposedly surrounded Mount Sinjar.

”Send in planes and bomb the hell out of the perimeter. Send in drones and pick out Al Baghdadi who has threatened America in the past and said he would be in NYC flying his black flag. If these lunatics blast the dam, the whole country will be paralyzed. We are whistling “Dixie” if we think they will sit down and talk things out. People who decapitate other people (Syrian soldiers) and then appear on television, grinning, while they display these heads by holding them by their hair need to be taken away from civilized people and never appear again.

”I don’t want us to go to war but we have friends, and the Kurds have proven themselves to be friends, who will go to war to protect themselves and their families. Why are we hesitating to send what they need to do this?

She’s right. We better wake up.

Time to set politics aside. This president better do his job. There’s more to fighting an enemy who has sworn to kill us all, than sending boxes of food and water to the people who are facing certain death.

President Obama: Take real action, now!

Click here: Mosul Dam: Why Control of a Terrifying Dam in Iraq Is Life or Death for Half Million People – ABC News

Click here: Jihadists Rout Kurds in North and Seize Strategic Iraqi Dam – NYTimes.com

Click here: ISIS: ‘We Will Raise The Flag Of Allah In The White House’ | The Daily Caller

Friday, August 01, 2014

CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION

CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD

by Marshall Frank

“Open Doors” is an organization which tracks Christian persecution on a global scale. They list the top fifty nations who are most notorious for anti-Christian activities and/or sentiments:

INDEX OF COUNTRIES IN WHICH IT IS MOST DIFFICULT TO BE A CHRISTIAN

2014 WORLD WATCH LIST: COUNTRY PROFILES

North Korea
Somalia
Syria
Iraq
Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia
Maldives
Pakistan
Iran
Yemen
Sudan
Eritrea
Libya
Nigeria
Uzbekistan
Central African Republic
Ethiopia
Vietnam
Qatar
Turkmenistan
Laos
Egypt
Burma/Myanmar
Brunei
Colombia
Jordan
Oman
India
Sri Lanka
Tunisia
Bhutan
Algeria
Mali
Palestinian Territories
United Arab Emirates
Mauritania
China
Kuwait
Kazakhstan
Malaysia
Bahrain
Comoros
Kenya
Morocco
Tajikistan
Djibouti
Indonesia
Bangladesh
Tanzania
Niger


Muslim majority countries dominate in eighteen of the top twenty that persecute Christians. (38 of the top 50) That’s seriously counter to the public comments Barack Obama has imparted about the subject:

“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” (really? public beheadings, hangings, mass murder and church burnings is tolerance?)

“…the Islamic faith which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world – including my own country.” (Hmm, what country is that?)

“Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism, it is an important problem in promoting peace.” (???)

“Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.” (huh?)

Who is he trying to snow? More curiously, what is the purpose of extolling such distortions?

There are many more examples of comments (see link below), but these four serve the purpose in exposing, not only the idiocy and the untruths, but the sheer audacity in attempting to sway the mindset of people from fact to falsehoods, all in the interest of loving Islam. This…from our alleged “Christian” president.

Meanwhile, our “Christian” president remains mute about the atrocities toward Christians at the behest of Islam around the world. For openers:

As this is written, the new Iraqi caliphate which recently terrorized and conquered the northern part of that country, has issued a fatwa to the existing Christians in and near Mosel; Convert, Pay a Special Tax, leave Iraq now or be prepared to die. That, by the way, is consistent with Quranic verses 9.5, 5.51 and 2.191.

Since Iraq has been “liberated” by American military operations, Christianity has been on the run. (Saddam Hussein protected Christians). Between 2003 and 2011, more than 60 churches have been targeted for bombings, thousands of Christians were murdered or displaced.

In Mali, a Christian leader is beheaded as hundreds flee. Systematic killings and displacements of Christians have become commonplace.

Nigeria: More than a thousand Christians were killed in 2012 for nothing other than being Christian. Since January this year, at least four Christian churches have been burned.

Somalia: There are few Christians remaining in Somalia since the crackdowns over the last several years. Still, the few who remain are facing persecution and/or death. In March of this year, a mother and her cousin were beheaded in the center of town for all villagers to watch, to see what happens when Christians refuse to convert.

Afghanistan: Christians are warned to convert to Islam or be killed. Beheadings of Christians have taken place in public places to warn non-Muslims of their fate.

Saudi Arabia: Conversion from Islam to Christianity is punishable by death. Christians who live and work in Saudi Arabia from foreign countries must conduct their worship within the confines of their house or in embassies. Carrying a Bible in public is illegal.

Egypt: During the Muslim Brotherhood uprisings of 2011-2012 (known as Arab Spring) Egypt lost nearly sixty churches to fires and desecrations while Christian Coptics ran for their lives, many of whom sought refuge outside the country. Bear in mind, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Morsi regime was supported by the Obama administration. Under President Mubarak, Christians had enjoyed full protections of the law. ((So did Jews)

We get the picture. The more that Muslims dominate in these nations, the less tolerance there is of any other religion. (Notice, there are no Jews allowed in the most extreme of these Islamic countries) Christians are under severe tyranny in these, and several other nations, while the world sits on their hands. The UN is impotent. And the leader of the free world, our president of the United States who says he’s a Christian, looks the other way. Not a peep.

Maybe he’s waiting to learn about it on the news. Maybe those fund raisers, golf games and vacations are just too important to pay heed to the world of INTOLERANCE by the religion that supposedly has such a great history of tolerance.

You don’t hear much about this in the news, so I thought it appropriate to provide the update. And by the way, I am not a Christian.


Click here: Barack Obama, in his own words, on Islam and Christianity

Click here: The Muslim Brotherhood’s War on Coptic Christians – The Daily Beast

Click here: Serving Persecuted Christians Worldwide – World Watch List – Open Doors UK & Ireland

Click here: List of Islamic Terror Attacks on Christians

Click here: Decade of Violence Threatens To Uproot Iraq’s Christians – Al-Monitor:

Click here: Christians flee from Islamists in northern Mali – CBS News

Click here: Militants Turn Nigeria into Christian Killing Field – World – CBN News –

Click here: Islamic Extremists in Somalia Behead Two Christians

Frank welcomes intelligent and insightful responses to commentary, especially from folks with contrary points of view and other insights to offer. Please keep comments pertinent to the title issue. Though some issues may draw passionate reactions, Frank insists on maintaining respectful decorum and will take the liberty of deleting foul language or an entire comment if it's deemed outrageously inappropriate. He would appreciate responders who leave their names, city of residence and, if possible, e-mail address.

Frank has been writing and publishing commentary since 1994. His articles have appeared in various newspapers in North Carolina and Florida, along with short stories in many magazines. True to his moniker "Frankly Speaking,"(the title of one of his books) Frank wastes no words in presenting his message as he hits sharp and hard but above the belt. No one would ever call him politically correct. His critics are hard pressed to pigeonhole him as a liberal or conservative, as his views vary depending on the issue. Because he is not running for office nor seeking a job, the muzzle is off. One critic said, "I don't always agree with Mr. Frank, but he sure makes you think."

Friday, July 18, 2014

ISRAEL VS HAMAS:
A NO BRAINER

by Marshall Frank

When is enough ever enough?

For nine years, Israeli citizens have been living a life much like the Londoners of 1940, awaiting the next air raid sirens and then making a dash to the nearest bunker within 30 seconds to avoid being bombed to smithereens. Nearly ten thousand rockets and missiles have be fired by Hamas from the Gaza strip, and some from Hezbollah in the north, all for the purpose of indiscriminately killing any Jew; man, woman or child, that happens to be in its path. Meanwhile the United Nations and the rest of the world, including the United States, sits impotently mute.

A sovereign nation is blatantly attacked in acts of war, and no one says crap. Because the victims are Jews, it’s all right. Business as usual. Ho hum.

Hamas is not only a deadly terrorist organization, they are a government unified with Fatah, with allies throughout the middle-east throngs of Jew-haters. Our president openly calls for Israel to retreat its boundaries back to the 1967 lines, music to the ears of terrorists. The president makes no mention of the rockets being fired into Israel since Ariel Sharon did, in fact, do just that IN 2005 – retreat from Gaza to give the Palestinians the land as a gesture of good will and peace. And what was the reward? Rockets and missiles and maimed and dead Israelis.

President Obama calls for both sides to make peace, but they are just words to appease critics. In fact, the president is never heard condemning Hamas for their murderous assault on our ally over the last nine years.

Israel has no interest in conquest of other lands, nor do they wish to annihilate any people, anywhere. They only wish to live in peace, but constantly must defend themselves. Constantly!

Now, the Israelis have had enough. World opinion be damned, they have taken the offense to finally put an end to the madness, to protect their people. Israel sends advance messages to Gaza residents forecasting their intent to fire missiles, giving fair warning to vacate the area to help save innocent life. Does Hamas send such warnings to the Israelis to save Jewish life? Israeli military is targeting missile launch sites, while Hamas situates their launchers in the middles of city streets and schools, using women and children as human shields. Of course, Gaza residents are going to be killed. It’s the intention of Hamas. And when that occurs, more cameras emerge to shoot videos than all the cameras at a Super Bowl game.

Not only does Hamas induce their own people into giving their lives to the cause, they use it as a propaganda tool, showing the world via media what those terrible Israelis are doing to poor innocent Gaza citizens. What’s even worse, is that the international media (including the U.S.) falls for it.

Stay tuned to CBS, NBC and Al Jazeera, and watch the unbelievable coverage, portraying Gaza as the victim of an “over reacting” Israel government. Easily, 90 percent of the news on those stations is pro-Palestinian. As though choreographed by Hamas, you will see the Palestinian women and children weeping, bodies carried on stretchers through city streets, and angry Muslim men pumping fists as though Israel had no right to defend themselves. Clearly, Israel is the bad guy, Hamas is the good guy. And some people – whose brains are made of mush — get sucked into the propaganda.

Israel is aiming to destroy the hundreds of tunnels that facilitate the import of rockets and missiles, plus enable Hamas terrorists surreptitious entry into the towns and streets of Israel. Those weapons are compliments of Iran. The origins of Hamas is compliments of the Muslim Brotherhood – whose agents have infiltrated our own government.

What should we do about it? Well, if we had a president with the chutzpah of Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy and Reagan, he would not merely be calling for peace, which is like yodeling alone from the top of the Alps. He’d get the attention of the radical Islamists and the United Nations. Yes, the U.S. has an extreme vital interest in this conflict, because when and if Israel falls, the embolded radicals will be coming after the west. And they don’t let up. ”First Saturday, then Sunday.” That’s been a standing promise. Here’s what we should consider:

Threaten to enter the war with American sea and air military might, if and when Israel asks for assistance in defense.
Take out Iranian munitions factories with drones and/or other air power
Put a stop to all foreign aid from America that is directed toward radical Islamic powers, including Hamas/Palestinians.
Call upon all our strongest international allies to openly condemn Hamas/Hezbollah and Iran for their roles in stirring war and mayhem against Israel.
Call upon the cowardly U.N. to act as a true peace-keeping force. Do something other than cower to the Arab bloc of 57 nations.
Our shameful news agencies should be doing the same. Peace-loving nations owe an enormous debt of gratitude for the contributions that a peaceful Israel has provided the entire planet. Meanwhile, radical Muslims have provided little other than reasons to bury innocent people and install trillions of dollars worth of security systems into aircrafts and airports throughout the entire globe.

Eighty-nine people were killed last week in another suicide bombing in Afghanistan. For what?

Oh yes…the Russians and the Ukraine? That’s another story

And the president says the world is a more tranquil place.

Dennis Prager sums it up better than anyone in this short video:


Click here: The Middle East Problem – Prager University

Another good summary of the current crisis:

Click here: 11 crucial facts to understand the Israel-Gaza crisis – Vox

Great article by Krauthammer:

Click here: Moral clarity in Gaza – The Washington Post

Click here: Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

U.S GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS TERROR

by Marshall Frank

There’s something wrong here.

We denounce Hamas as a terror organization, then give them a half-billion dollars a year in foreign aid. That’s right…according to Wikipedia, $457 million was provided to Hamas/Fatah in 2012, while they were firing missiles on top of missiles – by the thousands – into Israeli cities and neighborhoods for no other purpose than to kill Jewish men, women and children. They’ve been attacking Israel for years with thousands of deadly rockets. According to current information, the foreign aid to Hamas will be about the same in 2014. There’s no other way to describe it: The U.S. supports terror. We provide a terrorist state millions of our tax dollars!

Where is the outcry?

That aid ostensibly goes for humanitarian purposes. Nice concept. However, we all know that terror-supporting groups are not known for honesty. Once in their hands, funds can be appropriated however they see fit. Have no doubts, most of that food money is being converted into rocket shells. The bottom line is this: Hamas/Fatah never has and never will accept the right for Israel to exist. They have never backed away from their goal to see the utter destruction of Israel. No amount of peace talks will change that. Therefore, we must adopt a different attitude and new strategy…one that works.

To start with:

1. America must come first. We have our crises, including people who are starving in American cities, and other humongous budget problems, yet we send our tax dollars to terrorists?

2. We must stop squandering foreign aid to societies that practice gross violations of human rights, which includes enslaving, killing and torturing people because of their religion, politics, sexual orientation or gender.

3. We must stop sending foreign aid to any nation that engages in terror or supports terror in any form.

According to Wikipedia, nine of the top twelve nations receiving foreign aid from the United States taxpayers are Islamic majority countries. Here’s the list:

a. Afghanistan $12.8 billion

b. Israel 3.1 billion

c. Iraq 1.9 billion

d. Egypt 1.4 billion

e. Pakistan 1.2 billion

f. Jordan 1.1 billion

g. Ethiopia 870 million

h. Kenya 750 million

i Colombia 644 million

j. Haiti 510 million

g. West Bank/Gaza 457 million

h. Sudan 444 million

Believe it or not, Russia is 13th on the list, followed by Somalia.

Radical Islamists are responsible for ALL of the airline/airport security costs currently in force around the entire globe. Radical Islam is the core problem with 98 percent of terror in the world.

Radical Islamists are responsible for 9/11 and countless other acts of terror against the United States and many of our allies, particularly since the Iranian revolution in 1979.

Radical Islamists are responsible, not only for acts of terror, but for giving aid and comfort to terrorists in the form of housing, money, weapons and propaganda, around the world.

Among those aiding and abetting terror, are Gaza/West Bank, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan. And, there are questions about Kenya, Sudan and Ethiopia. Jordan and Egypt have honored their treaty with Israel.

If anyone endeavors to watch Al Jazeera television, 95 percent of the reporting about the Israeli/Hamas fighting is pathetically one-sided. They are unabashedly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and critical of Israel. The United States base for Al Jazeera was secured from Al Gore, who preferred selling to the Arab propaganda network rather than an American journalist, Glenn Beck. Yes, he’s very conservative, but he’s also American!

This is like sending aid to Germans, Japanese and Italians during WW II.

We just don’t get it.

Or…is there something we don’t know?


Click here: Bennett shows real rocket to Americans: “Imagine if hundreds of these hit your neighborhood” – YouTube

Click here: United States foreign aid – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click here: Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Friday, July 11, 2014

Fine G.O.P. CANDIDATES
FOR 2016



G.O.P. CANDIDATES FOR 2016

* MITT ROMNEY - Former Governor... with a very strong business history.

* RICK PERRY - Governor of Texas... with tough border security plans.

* MARCO RUBIO - Florida Senator - Eloquent - Has the Loyal Latino Vote!

* Lt. COL. ALLEN WEST - Great Military Background; An American Patriot.

* Dr. BEN CARSON - Soft-spoken, wise. Another fine, black g.o.p. candidate;
...has earned the respect from both democrat and republican voters.

After 8 years of Obama - Harry Reid - Nancy Pelosi - Eric Holder - Hillary Clinton
2016 might be a banner year for conservative, independent & tea-party folks.
>
This Time, Choose Carefully.... or just stay at home and watch pro-sports! - reb

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

Muslim Rape Culture
and Lara Logan


by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish

When Lara Logan traveled to Egypt to cover the Tahrir Square protests, she was unaware that she was going to be working in a country where sexual harassment rates of women and especially foreign women are so high as to be universal. In a politically correct profession, such truths are politically incorrect. And even now all of the coverage studiously avoids mentioning one dangerous word. Islam.


Muslim rape culture did not begin in Tahrir Square and it won't end there. Not when it actually began in the year 624 when Mohammed came up with an ingenious means of rewarding his followers. In addition to the trophies of war, he made it legal for them to capture and rape married women. Previously that would have been considered adultery. Now it was an incentive to become one of Islam's Holy Warriors. It doesn't take much to imagine how ugly and awful the camp of Mohammed's followers was for a woman. That's why the Burka was invented.

Muslim apologists insist that the Burka has something to do with female modesty. But the Koran spells out clearly the reason for it. "Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested." The Hijab was invented for similar reasons in 1970's Lebanon to mark out Shiite women so they wouldn't be molested by Muslim terrorists. The purpose of the Burka was closer to a cattle brand, separating women married to Muslim husbands, from slave women who were captured in war. The former were the property of their husbands and untouchable, the latter were fair game for everyone. To a Muslim, the Burka is a sign that says, 'only my husband may rape me' and the lack of a Burka means, 'everyone can rape me.'

When Australia's Grand Mufti Sheikh Hilaly justified a notorious series of gang rapes by comparing women to uncovered meat left out in the presence of a cat, he laid out the basis of Muslim rape culture. Women are always the guilty party, because they are women. If they refuse to defeminize themselves by putting on a Burka and becoming just another dark ghost haunting the streets of Cairo or Sydney with their lack of selfhood, then they are automatically guilty of their own rape.

In the West rape is a crime because it an assault on a human being. In Islam, it is only a crime because it is a sex act that takes place outside of marriage. In many Islamic countries, 'Zina' meaning adultery or immoral sexual conduct in general, is a charge that can be levied against both the rapist and his victim. Even in a case where Mohammed ordered the execution of a rapist, he first 'forgave' his victim for her part in it. To the extent that Islam criminalizes rape, it is as a property crime or a disruption of public order. And it imposes a high standard of proof that is unlikely to be met.

In Islam, women are objects, not subjects. Physically their entire bodies are considered 'Awrah', an Arabic word meaning 'nakedness', 'fault' or 'defect', terms that amply sum up the Islamic view of women. Even their voices are considered 'Awrah' meaning that even a fully covered up woman speaking is an immoral thing. A woman exists within Islam as an immoral object. And that gives Muslim men implicit permission to assault her, while holding her very nature accountable for tempting them to commit the act.

Islam does not consider rape to be a crime against a woman. It is a crime against their fathers and husbands. There is no crime involved in a husband raping his own wife. That is a ruling Muslim scholars continue to preach today. And the UK's Islam Channel was shut down for broadcasting that view. Under Islamic law, a husband is fully entitled to beat his wife if she refuses to service him until she finally consents. The woman has no control over her body. Only the men she belongs to do.

In a tribal society, rape is a crime against property and honor. To a father, his daughter's virginity is a valuable item that increases her market value. Marrying her off is way to build a relationship between two families. To a husband, his wife's chastity maintains the value of his property and insures that the offspring is his. To assault a woman is to commit a crime against the communal property of a family. But a woman herself has no rights over her body that any man is bound to respect. As Lara Logan discovered in Tahrir Square.

An unaccompanied woman is ownerless. A foreign woman is outside the protection of the tribal system which uses family vendettas to settle disputes. It's no wonder that the already stratospheric sexual harassment rates in Cairo climb to a universal value where foreign women are concerned.


The Burka placed responsibility on women to defeminize themselves and mark themselves as property. Centuries of Islamic jurisprudence put the burden of responsibility for any assault on a woman as the object that tempts men to sin. The circular reasoning of Islam says that if a man assaults a woman, it is because she tempted him. That femininity is inherently an object of temptation. The Burka and the Hijab began as a way of defeminizing women for their protection, but then became an indictment of women. Women were no longer being defeminized to protect them, but to protect men from them.

Why else do women have to be defeminized, their faces masked and their voices silenced, if there isn't some terrible mysterious force about femininity that causes men to act out? That is exactly what the first president of Iran claimed, when he said that, "Scientific research had shown that women's hair emitted rays that drove men insane." More recently an Iranian cleric explained that women who do not dress modestly corrupt men and cause earthquakes. The flight routes of Iranian planes had to be diverted from a stadium where women played soccer for fear that their hair rays might affect passengers in the planes above.

Behind this hair ray nonsense lurks an uglier notion, that women are unnatural creatures and that men are not responsible for their conduct around women. If a man rapes a woman, maybe her hair rays made him do it. If they can cause earthquakes, why not. Western legal culture says that men have more control over a situation with a woman. Islamic jurisprudence creates reasons why women do to exonerate their rapists.

How do you sell the notion of equal rights to people who view women as dangerous objects that have to be kept under lock and key?

Under Islam a woman can't say 'no' except passively by defeminizing herself. By remaining in Purdah at home or taking a mobile purdah along by covering up her entire body and face in a Burka, never meeting a man's eye or speaking to him. And even if she follows all those rules and is still assaulted, then maybe those hair rays can punch through stifling black cloth after all. There's no way for a woman to be innocent, except by never being born. As an object, she is always guilty of luring men on. The levels of guilt may vary. If the levels are low enough, then she may be 'forgiven' for causing immorality and her rapist may face punishment. And her family may still kill her anyway to bury the shame that she represents for them along with her body.

Like all social rules, they don't apply equally. The daughter of a wealthy and westernized urban family will enjoy an immunity from them, that the daughter of a poor family in a village will not. The wealthy daughter will attend the London School of Economics, use Twitter and serve as an example that her country and Islam are really very liberated. The poor daughter will be a second wife to some bored fat merchant and be considered lucky if he doesn't beat her to death when she loses her looks.

Meanwhile the young men will roam the streets bored and frustrated. They will steal anything not nailed down, join protests and sexually harass women. When Western reporters poured into Cairo to report on a pro-democracy movement, they surrounded themselves with what they thought were pro-democracy protesters. What they were actually doing was walking into one of the largest overcrowded cities in the world, where gangs of protesters had smashed the police, and created an open state of anarchy. Muslim rape culture did the rest.

As far as her attackers were concerned, Lara Logan had no rights they were bound to respect. She wasn't the wife or daughter of anyone they knew. She wasn't even a Muslim. They had no bond of kinship with her. Which meant that just like the uncovered in Mohammed's camp, she didn't belong to anyone. And that meant she was fair game.

In Muslim rape culture, a woman cannot actively decline a man. She can only passively demonstrate that she is off limits by defeminizing herself. Lara Logan hadn't done that. But even if she had, it wouldn't have done much good. Previous gang assaults on women in Cairo a few years back had targeted even those covered from head to toe. To add fuel to the fire, came the chants of, "Yahood, Yahood." "Jew, Jew". Mohammed's ruling had made it legal to capture and rape Jewish women. The association may not have been directly made, but indirectly it was there. Lara Logan had been marked as a member of an enemy tribe.


The reasoning is awkward, but Islamic jurisprudence is the product of such awkwardness. It derives from the will of Mohammed whose only consistent principle was to do whatever he wanted. As a prophet he frequently made and broke his own laws, and then made new ones. Four witnesses are required for an act of sexual immorality, because at one point three witnesses accused Mohammed's own wife of such an act. Prior to that Mohammed had taken action based only on a single witness.

Mohammed modified the law to allow him to marry his son's wife and to shift the turns of his own wives. After Mohammed had received another urgent 'revelation' allowing him to do as he sexually pleased, his wife Aisha said, "O Allah's Apostle I do not see but that your Lord hurries in pleasing you." There you find the whole of Islamic jurisprudence. It was a code that existed only to please Mohammed's sexual impulses.

If Allah existed only to enable women to sexually service Mohammed-- what agency can women have in Islam?

Muslim rape culture springs from that same code. A code that exists to please and flatter the Muslim male and demean the female as an inferior specimen, whose body is filth, whose form is corruption and who can only be good to the extent that she becomes a non-person. Remaining quiet and out of sight. It begins with the inferiority of women, and ends with a paradise filled with eternal virgins who can never say no. What do women get, some ask. But it doesn't matter. It was never intended for them.

Sunday, June 01, 2014

Pastors stand with CAIR

{ Open Letter: June 01, 2014 }

Dear Pastor Baker and Dr. Magruder,

When I learned that you will be speaking on behalf of the Council of American Islamic Relations (C.A.I.R.), I realized that you were undoubtedly not aware that C.A.I.R. is a derivative of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas, a designated terrorist organization known to the FBI. Their purpose is conquest of Western religions and cultures for the establishment of a global caliphate and implementation of Sharia, which is total control by fear, and includes slavery, floggings, amputations, stonings, female genital mutilation, forced marriages of prepubescent girls, beheadings, as well as severe enshrouding and subjugation of women.

Islam is responsible for the death of 270 million people over 14 centuries; the conversion of most of the Middle Eastern and African countries to Islam; the bombings of 9/11 that killed 3,000; more than 22,000 deadly jihad (holy war) attacks worldwide, incessant rocket fire on Israel, rampant rapes of European women, and the current rash of kidnappings, conversions, and sexual enslavement of the Nigerian school children. Whether they kill Christian school children in Chechnya or Nigeria, or bomb Israeli children on buses, the only differences are the Islamists’ attire and methods.


More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish
Inquisition combined.  

Much of the propagation of Islam is accomplished in large measure through religious dialogue, where these accomplished public relations strategists proselytize to their audience that all religions are alike, but that they are unfortunate victims of bias who need accusations of Islamophobia to control opinion and media reports. Be reminded that the Judeo-Christian God stands for peace and compassion, whereas the Islamic god demands, in 80% of the Koran, death of Jews, Christians, and all infidels.

When challenged about Sharia law, they’ve been known to claim it is no different than kosher slaughter, but Jews are more humane to animals for food than Muslims are to humans. Their absolute intolerance prohibits Jews and Christians from living peacefully in the Middle East, and prevents their entry to Mecca and Medina. Are you aware that the Christian population of Bethlehem has now been reduced from 80 to 15 percent (but that the Christian population is thriving in Israel)?

Gentlemen, please be perceptive that worldwide conflict exists where there are Muslims – the research may be done easily. And, if CAIR’s intentions were as innocent and honorable as those of previous immigrants to the United States, why the need for this management network to pave the way for their insinuation into Western culture? All previous immigrants adjusted, integrated, assimilated and became Americans without these extraordinary measures.

Islam is a seriously intolerant culture, preying on innocent multiculturalists. Please choose your positions wisely, as our lives and our country’s survival depend on people like you.


Thank you, and I welcome hearing from you.

Tabitha Korol
unsospiro@sbcglobal.net

Sunday, May 11, 2014

America May Never Recover
from EMP Attack

By Dr. Peter Vincent Pry

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is the Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security for the Congressional Caucus on EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) that endeavors to carry on the work of the EMP Commission. He is also the Director of the United States Nuclear Strategy Forum, an advisory body to Congress on policies to counter weapons of mass destruction.

Dr. Pry has served on the staffs of the EMP Commission, the Strategic Posture Commission, the Commission on the New Strategic Posture of the U.S., the House Armed Services Committee and the Central Intelligence Agency.

For those unfamiliar with what an EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) attack is, please view the segment on the topic from the Clarion Fund’s Iranium by clicking here.

The following is RadicalIslam.org’s national security analyst Ryan Mauro’s interview with Dr. Pry:

Ryan Mauro: How long will it take to get critical infrastructure back up and running after an EMP attack?

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry: Given the current state of U.S. unpreparedness, after a nuclear EMP attack that collapses the electric grid and other critical infrastructures, the U.S. might never recover. The Congressional EMP Commission--that investigated the EMP threat for nearly a decade and produced the most definitive analysis of the threat--estimated that within one year of a nuclear EMP attack, about two-thirds of the U.S. population, about 200 million Americans, would likely perish from starvation, disease and societal collapse. Iranian military writings openly describe making an EMP attack to eliminate the United States as an actor on the world stage.

Mauro: Have past nuclear tests in the air produced an EMP?

Pry: Past exoatmospheric nuclear tests have produced an EMP, such as the 1962 STARFISH PRIME nuclear test. The nuclear burst must occur at high altitude, above 30-40 kilometers, to produce the EMP effect. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union conducted high-altitude EMP tests over part of their own territory that collapsed electric grids. Fifty years of empirical data from nuclear tests and EMP simulators proves that an EMP attack would have catastrophic consequences.

Mauro: How could the U.S. government protect us from this threat? How much would it cost?

Pry: The Congressional EMP Commission produced a plan for protecting all U.S. critical infrastructures from nuclear and natural EMP (such as would be generated by a great geomagnetic storm, like the 1859 Carrington event) that could be implemented in 3-5 years at a cost of $10-20 billion. This would provide robust protection. At minimum, the 300 EHV transformers that service the biggest U.S. cities, where most of the population lives, could and should be protected, at a cost of $100-200 million, or about one dollar for every life that could be saved. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission estimates that the national electric grid could be protected from EMP at a cost to the average rate payer of 20 cents annually.

Mauro: How much dispute is there over the science behind the horrific scenario you depict? A skeptic once sent me a report by Oak Ridge National Laboratories/Metatech about “myths” regarding the EMP threat.

Pry: Among the numerous official Congressional and USG studies on nuclear EMP attack--that includes reports by the Congressional EMP Commission, the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the Department of Energy and National Electric Reliability Corporation and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (which includes the Metatech report), there is an official scientific and technical consensus that an EMP attack would have catastrophic consequences. Even the most optimistic "best case" scenario involving a nuclear EMP attack by a primitive low-yield nuclear weapon would be an unprecedented catastrophe and could collapse the national electric grid and other critical infrastructures that sustain modern society and the lives of millions.

Indeed, the entire purpose of Congressional Commissions is to, if possible, resolve controversy and achieve consensus on matters of national security concern. Two Congressional Commissions staffed by our nation's best experts and supported by the vast resources of the defense department, the intelligence community and the national nuclear weapons laboratories have independently arrived at the same consensus that a nuclear EMP attack would be catastrophic--so as a matter of public policy, the existential character of the nuclear EMP threat is not controversial, but an established fact.

There are some individuals, usually in academia, who claim the EMP threat is exaggerated. But these people are not EMP experts and are simply ignorant or politically motivated, as when the New York Times ganged up on Newt Gingrich for trying to warn about the EMP threat during his presidential bid. Nonetheless the press, uneducated about EMP itself, keeps quoting these non-experts.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I know well Dr. William Radasky, the team leader of the Oak Ridge/Metatech report, and he would certainly agree that a nuclear EMP attack on the U.S. would be an unprecedented catastrophe--and this is the conclusion of his report. If you read the report, it warns that an EMP event could collapse the electric grid and other critical infrastructures and require 4-10 years to recover. Can you imagine trying to survive for years in the aftermath of a nuclear EMP attack that deprives you and millions of your fellow citizens of food, water, transportation and other necessities for life? Sounds pretty catastrophic to me.

But it should not take a genius to realize that when a falling tree branch can cause the great northeast blackout of 2003, any nuclear EMP attack would certainly have catastrophic consequences. Iran, North Korea, China and Russia all certainly understand this, as reflected in their military writings.

Ryan Mauro: How far away is Iran and other enemies of the U.S. from having the capability to carry out this kind of attack? Some experts say that Iran would still need a year to construct an actual nuclear bomb after acquiring the necessary highly enriched uranium and would need years after that to develop a nuclear warhead that can fit onto a ballistic missile.

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry: Any state or group possessing any nuclear weapon and any missile capable of reaching an altitude over 30-40 kilometers can make an EMP attack. An ICBM is not necessary. An EMP attack can be delivered by a short-range missile launched from a ship, such as a commercial freighter, operating near U.S. shores. Iran has practiced such a delivery mode. Iran already has missiles, such as Scuds and its Shahab-III, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.

Officially, the Obama Administration claims that Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons. Personally, I have written several articles warning that Iran might already have the bomb. Our intelligence on Iran's nuclear weapons program is not good. Historically, our intelligence community has a bad record on predicting the advent of new nuclear weapon states and was taken by surprise by the development of nuclear weapons by Russia, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Supposedly, Iran has been trying to develop nuclear weapons for 20 years, yet during World War II, the U.S. Manhattan Project developed the world's first nuclear weapons using 1940’s era technology in just three years. Why should Iran, with access to the now declassified Manhattan Project papers and copious other U.S. documents on nuclear weapons design and helped by North Korea and others and equipped with modern technology, not be able to accomplish in 20 years what the U.S. accomplished during the 1940’s in just three?

The difficulty of miniaturizing a nuclear warhead for missile delivery is often exaggerated. Pakistan deployed nuclear warheads on its Ghauri missile just one year after its first nuclear test. Israel, according to the respected Wisconsin Project, has developed a sophisticated array of nuclear weapons, including thermonuclear warheads and weapons miniaturized for delivery by missiles and artillery--all without nuclear testing.