Tag Archives: justice

NEW POLITICAL PARTY

Join my new political party:
GOP SBBC
GRUMPY OLD PEOPLE
SUCCESSFUL BABY BOOMER CLAN
The enemy within may have worked covertly to take over our nation – while we worked hard and raised families; but the fluffy plump lady isn’t singing yet
in public (me).
WE OUTNUMBER THEM
IF WE ALL VOTE
AS A BLOCK
OF RIGHTEOUS CITIZENS.
Our numbers are so large that if they cheat this time – it will be obvious to every woman, man, and child on our nation.
Let us together take back our nation.
Beyond the election, Congress doesn’t want millions of Grumpy Old People to show up in DC in our RV’s to politely talk to them.
We started and ran the businesses and industries through the glory years of America. Not one more business should be lost on our watch. I wanna go to Heaven leaving our nation on solid ground.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

HOW SCHEISTERS IN WASHINGTON MISLEAD SO MANY AMERICANS

I copied the transcript of James B. Comey’s spoken statement regarding Hillary Clinton’s Personal Email usage a few days ago, and added my comments / explanations in bold italicized type . . .

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
Washington, D.C.
July 05, 2016
FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691
Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State. After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

[THE GRAND SETUP]
—————
This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways.
First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.
[ RATIONALIZING — False Pretext to satisfy our desires or interests. A rather childish ploy used on the American public – because they believe your intelligence level to be that of a pre-teen, and many are deceived by this statement. The statement challenges you to accept whatever they tell you, because why would they go out of their way to please public interest if they were liars.]
—————
Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.
[ MISPLACED BURDEN OF PROOF — Telling you their statements are not flawed because the FBI has not broken any perceived rules.]
—————
I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.
[ALSO MISPLACED BURDEN OF PROOF — The FBI’s employees are not to be on trial – Ms. Clinton is.]
—————
So, first, what we have done:
The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.
[A “referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General” — How interesting in that reading about the Intelligence Community Inspector General – who does not seem to have authority to do this with regards to The Secretary of State –  I perused his/her responsibilities which are very dry administrative crap (salaries, benefits, and such) and do cover several agencies, but not The Secretary of State. With John’s and my medical appointment blowing up lately, I don’t know when I will have the time to finish reading the very lengthy crap about this one position. In the early to middle part of the boring crap, it did list about 16 agencies it does have administrative review over – but, like I said, it made no mention of The Secretary of State.
Gee, I don’t know, common sense tells me that President Obama should have made the formal request, since he hired Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State.]
—————
Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
[“or in a grossly negligent way” – duh – that is the minimum of what was proven, and they said so.]
—————
Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.
I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.
For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.
FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
[He could have said all of this in a few sentences. Most of the information is not necessary, or repetitive.
contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
“upclassified” to keep us from reading them. Looks like she is guilty from this statement. If it were you or I, it wouldn’t have even gone this far before we would have seen the inside of a prison cell.]
—————
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
[“several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned ..” and “Some had been deleted over the years” which is not stated that the first were not turned over by Hillary Clinton, and the second is a direct violation of law”
AND finding emails on other employee’s servers that Hillary did not turn over, especially “including high-ranking officials at other agencies”  MEANS these were also deleted and a direct violation of law.
DO WE DETECT A BIT OF “DOWNPLAYING”? WHICH IS A RHETORICAL DEVICE.]
—————
This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.
[“Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.” THIS ALONE would have Nixon resigning and impeached!]
—————
With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”
[“have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.” 1. WHAT ABOUT THE ONES NOT YET FOUND? 2. My John has the highest classification of security clearance that existed in the 80’s, and his last duty station was in Washington as Non-Commissioned Officer In Charge of the Classified Files Division at Hdqtr. Marine Corp., and he will not even tell me the content of even one Secret. Other than secrets he took an oath to keep, John and I share everything. I cannot imagine anyone at the level of Secretary of State not required to be on level of secret keeping as my husband.]
—————
I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.
[More DOWNPLAYING. AND WEASELER RHETORIC – All of this is designed to protect claim from criticism by weakening it. This is dishonest at best.]
—————
It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.
[and More Downplaying and Weaseling!]
—————
The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.
[and More Downplaying and Weaseling! When will this stop?]
—————-
It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
[So, ‘we deleted all that had not been turned over to – er – um – well, make sure you could see that there are no more in existence for us to review.’ And, if one of us was in cahoots with whomever – and deleted some that should have been turned over that would have further proven her guilt -well, hahahahaha no one will ever know!!
At this point, it is important to point out all through this there is a certain APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: Trying to convince you that there is a lack of evidence against a claim, (even though they have already told you that there is evidence), hoping that you will believe the claim doesn’t get any positive points. And that is exactly what this person is trying to do in these statements upon similar statements.]
—————
We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.
[The RHETORIC is simply trying to persuade you to an unwarranted conclusion, rather than give you logical proof.
Also, “intentional” or not – when you and I break a law – “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, and we are prosecuted!
ALSO, SUCH AN IGNORAMUS WHO BROKE THE LAW WANTS US TO ELECT HER PRESIDENT? EITHER SHE IS AN IGNORAMUS – THEREFORE SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT;
OR –
SHE DID IT DELIBERATELY, AND IS A LIAR AND A CHEAT – THEREFORE SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT!]
—————
And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.
[MORE APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: Meaningless to John Public and Jane Public, since we do not get to know about any of it.]
—————
Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
[More blah, blah, blah to you the Citizen who deserve to know the details.]
—————
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
[Wow – pick your rhetorical device – this could be a GOUP THINK FALLACY, OR RATIONALIZING, OR WISHFUL THINKING, OR COMMON PRACTICE . . . but, either way you slice it – YOU – AMERICA – ARE BEING DELIBERATELY DECEIVED!)
—————
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
[This is actually an argument invoking PITY!! Of course she was smart enough as Secretary of State, and being a lawyer to know that what she did was flamboyantly ILLEGAL!!!!]
—————
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
[SO, SHE IS GUILTY!! (but we will soon ignore that fact.)]
—————
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
[So, we are back to the whole thing – either she is an ignoramus and should never hold public office, or she is a deliberate lying, cheat and should never hold public office.]
—————
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
[ARGUMENT OF COMMON PRACTICE – why everyone is committing the same crime, so what she knows she deliberately did just isn’t thaaaat baaaaad!]
—————
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
[ Whoa!!! This paragraph needs to be dissected . . .

1.       With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked.
THEY ARE TELLING YOU THAT THEY DIDN’T FIND ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE OF EVIL HACKERS . . . BUT!!!!
2. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.
THEY ADMIT THEY PROBABLY COULDN’T FIND ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE EVEN IF IT WERE THERE! MAKING #1 STATEMENT USELESS. #1 & #2 SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM THIS STATEMENT, BUT THEY USED IT AGAINST YOU AS A PERFECTIONIST FALLACY.

3. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.
THEY ADMIT THAT HER EMAIL ACCOUNT WAS HACKED BY WAY OF HER EMAIL ACTIVITY WITH OTHERS THAT WERE KNOWN TO BE HACKED. AND THEY ARE HOPING YOU WON’T NOTICE THIS SENTENCE AFTER THE LAST TWO SENTENCES THAT ARE USELESS SENTENCES BECAUSE THEY CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT.

4. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.
[GROUP THINK FALLACY – Identifying with a group takes the place of reason and deliberation on an issue.]

5. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.
[er – um – shouldn’t this make her guilty of something really, really bad????]

6. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
[So, why didn’t they use the word treason?]
—————
So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:
In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
[“In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.” If only it were true!]
—————
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
[OMGoodness!!!! Really????? She knew what she was doing was wrong.  Go back a page or two and this speech says she knew what she was doing, and she knew it was wrong. To say she did not is to say she is a blithering idiot. AND the bad guys hacked her through those she emailed.
—————
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
[Perhaps the person making this statement is the blithering idiot – for how – after identifying all of Hillary’s guilt earlier in this speech – how can he say “we do not see those things here?”]
—————
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
[So, this is clearly the SUBJECTIVISM FALLACY: An assumption that is true for one person, but not for another. So true for Hillary, but not for you and I – to be clear!!!]
—————
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
[PANTS ON FIRE!!! This man has deliberately deceived the American people, and is therefore an un-American citizen who should not be accepted by honest society. Period. It is about time for the good American people to shun snake oil salesmen in lawyer’s suits, who line their own pockets with riches paid to them for their lies and crimes against the American people.]
—————
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
[A BALD FACE LIE; AND IF YOU DON’T SEE IT, THEN YOU AREN’T BEING HONEST WITH YOURSELF, OR YOU ARE CONFUSED.]
—————
I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.
[Disgusting P O S!
I know a good citizen, a Police Officer, a Detective, who would call this person who delivered this speech a P O S – I added the disgusting for good measure. ]

Copyright © 2016 by Juanita Holloway-Walters, All Rights Reserved

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

END TIME PROPHECY – SIMPLE TO EXPLAIN

There have been a lot of good sermons delivered in the last few weeks, because those in political / societal control are turning the American ship further into deep destructive waters – destructive waters that most Americans are not brave enough to stand up against. Washington is a reflection of the majority in America. For truly, if millions of Americans were keeping Washington in line with God’s traditions and laws, our entire existence would change for the better almost overnight. America would be the nation she once was, when other nations worked to emulate the overall positive existence of the American people. Our government would once again tow the line of the majority of the people for fear of losing their jobs. Satan would crawl back under his familiar rock to hide for another season.  But, I can sum up the reality of all Biblical wisdom, and end time prophecy in one question:

Are YOU going to follow God’s traditions / laws – or man’s?

It is the age old pattern of Israel, and it is the pattern of Christianity, of history repeating itself every time mankind forgets who our Creator is, starts behaving as if men are gods, and forgets that we live for God’s glory. This question above is one that we each must come to terms with, and be prepared to not only live with the consequences, but are forcing our young to also live with the consequences of our individual choice.

It really is that simple to explain. I have recently been asked the age old questions that have been asked of every Christian who has studied the Bible for thousands of years:
1. Don’t all religions lead to salvation?
2. Where in Biblical history are we; isn’t the answer in Revelation?

I explain it like this. Milk Christians often go straight to reading Revelation to find answers. The answers aren’t just in one book of the Bible designed for Milk Christians. Salvation is through Jesus Christ, period. To study Revelation, you must go through every book of the entire (OT & NT) Bible to understand it – why Revelation is at the end. I encourage the masses who have not studied the Bible to do so. You will find answers to questions you didn’t even know you have. Only by studying the Bible will you receive the truth of Who actually wrote it. This is a truth that can only be obtained by your direct experience. I can tell you the truth all day long and give you fifty examples in short order to back it up – but – that will mean nothing to you. You must seek the truth to receive it.

There have been many “pre-tribulation” times throughout history. But, so far, each time, mankind turns the ship of earthly existence back toward living for God’s glory, and turns the ship away from the end times. One time, in the future, mankind will not wake up and turn the ship of all earthly existence back toward living for God’s glory. Only God knows which time that will be. For God lives outside of His creation (space/time continuum), and only He can see when that will happen.

Those of us who think of ourselves as the watchmen are absolutely saying, WOW, today does seem to be the season before the tribulation years – but, we do not know for sure. We are praying mankind wakes up one more time and strives to live for God’s glory. Yes, our nation (and most of the world) are being ruled by the Prince of Darkness – it says so in the Bible. His days are numbered. One day soon the end-time-prophecies will come true . . . or not, if mankind wakes up again. It all revolves around that one sentence – again:

Are YOU going to follow God’s traditions / laws – or man’s?

Copyright © 2016 by Juanita Holloway-Walters, All Rights Reserved

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

THE MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLE YOU WILL READ

Copied below my commentary is the most revealing and important article regarding what is happening in the world that I have read in thirteen years. I not only highly recommend, but I pray that you will read it twice and pass it along to many Americans. If we can get Americans to understand this article, we could change the world. It is necessarily longer than a five-minute read. I would be so ashamed of my fellow Americans if they did not read something important because they turned out to have the attention spans of a two-year old. The following article is derived from a 2006 lecture by John David Lewis (Foreign Policy, Defense, History, Religion) The Objective Standard, Volume 1, No. 4.

You all know I do not believe entering the workplace, the school, the community . . . my life, without my Christian values and principles. To leave them behind at any moment in my life is the same as becoming an empty shell that anyone can lead by the nose of any evil purpose. I also believe in freedom / liberty – which means that I cannot force my religion on you, and you cannot force your religion on me.

There is nothing in this article that contradicts my Christian beliefs. To over simplify this, we will just remind ourselves that we are to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to The Lord what is The Lords.

This article does address my understanding of the gross wrongs of our government under Bush’s Presidency. Our government under President Obama has not only repeated these same wrongs . . . but expanded and accelerated these wrongs like the Bush government on crack! Many believe they are watching the Islamization of America via the enemies within.

Why the American population does not peacefully rise up and overturn every elected official that is selling America out is beyond me. It may be that these things must come to pass for the Lord to return . . . but, even though I believe I know the season due to my diligent study of the end times, it does not mean I am to stop being who the Lord would have me be. I am to carry on until He comes for his Church. Having a wait and see attitude with my head in the sand is not what the Lord would have any of us to do.

“No Substitute for Victory”: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism by John David Lewis

Author’s note: This article was adapted from a lecture I presented at the Ayn Rand Institute’s OCON conference “The Jihad Against the West,” in Boston, MA, on October 21, 2006.

The Greek historian Thucydides, writing about the calamitous war that had destroyed his own world, made an important observation about the causes of historical events: Even though circumstances may change, human nature remains the same; and certain human elements—especially moral and psychological factors—are at the root of all wars. We can disagree with Thucydides about the identity of those factors, and reject his pessimistic view of human nature, but we will benefit from accepting his challenge to rise above particular circumstances and focus on the principles of human action that are common to all time. Differences in technology, politics, or economics will always remain secondary to the ideas that motivate aggressors to launch bloody attacks and that empower—or restrain—defenders opposing those attacks.

In that spirit, let us begin by considering an event of cataclysmic proportions, a deadly attack against Americans, and then examine two possible responses to it. This approach will show us that the crisis we face today—a series of highly motivated attacks against the heart of civilization—is not unique, can be understood, and can be ended—if we choose to understand and end it.

The attack under consideration kills thousands of Americans. Foreign governments, well known to us, have sponsored such attacks for years in their pursuit of a continental-scale totalitarian empire. The fire motivating the slaughter is a militaristic, religious-political ideology that values war as a demonstration of loyalty to a deity, demands obedience to its spokesmen, and imposes its edicts over millions of people. Thousands of individuals, indoctrinated as youths, are eager to engage in suicide attacks, and many more are willing to die through acquiescence and submission, should the state so demand. The enemy soldier is highly motivated, thoroughly brainwashed, and willing to die for his god and his cause. The enemy’s children and soldiers memorize words such as these:

The battlefield is where our army displays its true character, conquering whenever it attacks, winning whenever it engages in combat, in order to spread our deity’s reign far and wide, so that the enemy may look up in awe to his august virtues.1

They accept, as moral imperatives, ideas such as these:

[F]ight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and practice our way, then accept them. . . . You shall fight back against those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what God and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth.2

Millions of people embrace such injunctions as unquestioned commandments. Their suicidal attacks continue for years.

How should Americans respond to this attack? Under the pressures of a deadly emergency, American leaders must make important decisions, and the American people must decide whether they will support those decisions. Let us consider and evaluate two options, and ask which we should use.

To set course for one possible response, the President addresses the American people, and identifies the enemy nations involved. He asks for, and receives, a formal declaration of war from Congress. He pledges to achieve victory as quickly as possible, a goal which he defines as the unconditional surrender of the enemy regimes, and a fundamental repudiation of war by those involved.

Americans mount a vigorous offense against the center of the enemy’s power. Waves of bombers obliterate dozens of enemy cities. His food is choked off, his military is decimated, his industry is bombarded, his ships are sunk, his harbors are mined—his people are psychologically shattered. In a single night, a hundred thousand civilians die in a firestorm in his capital. Americans drop leaflets telling the enemy population which cities could be next. Civilians are immersed in propaganda from their government, telling them that they are winning the war—yet they cower defenselessly while American bombers level their homes.

One of our generals announces his personal goal: to “kill the bastards.” We name our final drive against the enemy, “Operation Downfall.” A force of overpowering magnitude amasses on the enemy’s borders, as thousands of American bombers pulverize his cities. The President and two foreign allies issue an ultimatum that includes these words:

The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the enemy armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the enemy homeland. . . .

The time has come for the enemy nation to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought them to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason. . . .

Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay. . . .

There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world. . . .
Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established. . . .

We call upon the enemy to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative is prompt and utter destruction.3

When the enemy balks at the ultimatum, atomic bombs are dropped on his cities. He surrenders, thus acknowledging the reality of his defeat and making a political decision to cease fighting. He orders his reluctant soldiers to lay down their arms. The American military occupies the defeated nation. We censor the media, impose reforms on schools, dismantle economic cartels, efface militaristic language from discourse at all levels, and write a political constitution which they are forced to accept. We tell them, pointedly and publicly, that they are defeated, and that we have no obligations to them. When they face starvation, we remind them that their miseries are their own fault. We charge them for many of the costs of the occupation. Not one dime of aid arrives until they demonstrate their complete surrender, in word and in action, including their repudiation of the militaristic ideology that motivated their attacks.

This principled, all-out merciless offense is one possible response to the sneak attack. Now let us consider a second, very different, response.

The President addresses the nation, identifies the enemy as the particular people involved in the attacks, and defines them by the tactics they used. He makes no declaration of war, but pledges to lead us to victory in the war he intends to wage, which, he says, will be long. He defines victory as democracy for the nations behind the attacks. A week later, he reminds us that those who practice the religion of the attackers “must feel comfortable” in America.4 Two months later, he invites leaders of the religion to the White House, for a prayer meeting.5

Our leaders realize that the particular attackers have bases in a poor, isolated country, so we invade that country, and drive its government into the surrounding mountains. We name our campaign “Operation Infinite Justice,” but when adherents of the attackers’ religion complain, we change it to “Operation Enduring Freedom.” We drop bombs, but they are precision-guided to avoid hitting civilians and religious buildings. Many of our bombers drop food. The enemy flees to a neighboring country, ruled by a nuclear-armed dictator whom we call an “ally” and whose borders we do not cross. Within this “ally’s” borders, schools train more attackers, who flood across the borders, cause more carnage, and kill more Americans.

In search of democracy, and following our desire to free foreign peoples from oppression, we attack and depose another dictator in the area. This secular thug, whom we had once armed, had fought a long war against a neighboring country founded upon the same hostile ideology as those who attacked us. The people we liberate from him establish a government based on that same hostile ideology—which we allow, since our goal was to enable them to vote—and they strengthen ties with other nations founded on this ideology. One of our generals states his own view of our goal: to foster the enemy’s “ability to compromise on their political goals, accommodate their sectarian differences and demonstrate to ordinary people that a democratic central government can serve their needs.”6 We name our campaign “Operation Freedom for Them.”

We act with great restraint, establishing rules of engagement that limit the use of force by our military. We apologize when we hurt civilians, prosecute our soldiers if they humiliate prisoners, assign correspondents to military units to monitor their actions, and send lawyers with our troops to ensure that they “follow the rules.” When captured Americans are beheaded on television, we do not close down the broadcasts or attack the governments financing them—we search for the particular killers. When the enemy acquires nuclear power plants, we refer to the country providing him with those plants as a “friend” and an “ally.” When the enemy uses banks to finance his war against us, we call on our lawyers to “freeze his assets,” but never call on our generals to destroy his capital. We remind the people in his nation incessantly that our war is not with them, but rather with “extremists” who have “hijacked a great religion.”

Now, which of these two responses—the all-out, merciless, military offense, or the restrained, diplomatic, semi-military approach, should we choose? Let us evaluate them, according to several ideas widely accepted today.

First, we are told today that only so-called “proportional” force is morally proper. We need to wage a “just war,” one founded on altruistic moral principles, using strictly limited force, for strictly limited ends, aimed at the good of others. The well-being of others—including the enemy’s people—must be our concern, and this requires severe self-restraint on our part. That the enemy does not act this way when he kills our people is of no concern. According to these moral views, we must hold the well-being of others as an absolute, regardless of the consequences; we must be willing to place our soldiers in mortal danger in order to protect enemy civilians—even though they often aid and abet enemy fighters. A military offense for our own self-protection would transgress the bounds of a “just war,” says the accepted wisdom.

This moral obligation to use our force only in limited degrees and always for the good of others raises two questions: What, in this view, is the right amount of limited force? And what constitutes the good of others? These two questions are answered by means of the methodology of pragmatism (i.e., doing what “works” for the moment) and the morality of altruism (i.e., the morality of “otherism”). We will use these two widely accepted philosophical positions to direct our response to those attacking us.

Following these principles, we will have to determine our policies and strategies on a case-by-case basis. Our actions must be pragmatic and adaptable, contingent on local circumstances and the consensus of others. The right amount of force is that which does not upset the enemy too much; if we use too much of our power, we will cause hard feelings and a desire for vengeance in the enemy, which will breed a new generation of enemy soldiers. We should, in this view, respond with compassion and understanding, engaging in “dialogue” with him, building power plants and digging toilets in his land rather than attacking him. This, we are told, will “win hearts and minds.” Based on these practical and moral considerations, the first option, the all-out offense, must be rejected; the restrained response is best.

Second, we are told that we must not declare war against a nation, only against its leadership or particular miscreants. Most people, we hear, do not want war; there is a “universal hunger for liberty,” and people will regale us with flowers if we “liberate” them from oppression. We are told that “freedom” is “God’s gift to all people,” and that our “calling” is to create the conditions by which others can embrace this gift. Their freedom—meaning, we are told, democracy—is the root of our security; and protecting their “right” to vote—not defeating them—must be our goal. We must grant them the freedom to establish any government they wish—even one akin to the regimes of our attackers—if it expresses their democratic desires. Again, the offensive response must be shunned; the restrained approach is our only choice.

Third, we are told that an overwhelming offense fails to respect the culture of a foreign nation. All cultures are equal, multiculturalism teaches us, and each must be equally respected. For us to claim a sense of superiority over other cultures would reveal a “Eurocentric bias” that fails to acknowledge “multi-variant” forms of logic, and the relativism of all values. According to altruism, this means that other cultures are due more respect than our own, since we must subordinate our own people and resources to their needs, even if those cultures actively oppose our own selfish interests. According to pragmatism, respecting their “right” to “self-determination” rather than defeating them will make them feel better and thus momentarily quell the violence. Our soldiers must be trained to respect the cultural differences between themselves and the enemy. When enemy soldiers are captured, for instance, they must be given books sympathetic to their own positions, and be allowed to practice their cultural-religious rituals.

(The same strategy, we hear, must be used inside America, against people of the same ideology as the enemy. An American police officer recently told me that he undergoes “sensitivity training” to “understand” and “respect” the cultural basis of rampant domestic violence in a neighborhood he patrols. He is cautioned to avoid “cultural imperialism” and “racism,” the sin of thinking that American culture is superior because it forbids the beating of wives. A man in Colorado, sentenced to jail for enslaving an Indonesian woman, said: “Your Honor, I am not here to apologize, for I cannot apologize for things I did not do and crimes I did not commit. The state has criminalized these basic [religious] behaviors.” The man said he treated the woman the way any family of his cultural convictions would treat a daughter: by locking her in the basement.7)

According to multiculturalism, a serious military offense would be anathema. We must allow peoples of other cultures to express their “cultural identities”—whether that involves eating falafels, chanting “Death to America,” or detonating their children in Israeli restaurants.

If one observes that all of this makes it impossible to develop a principled approach to an ever-deepening crisis, the philosophy of pragmatism has an explanation. The pragmatic world-view tells us that reality is messy and contradictory; to deal with a reality that is constantly shifting, we need flexibility, not firm principles. To be principled is to be an inflexible “ideologue.” To be practical is to shift with the “flux” that surrounds us, reacting on the range-of-the-moment, negotiating at every turn, compromising with anyone and everyone. We need to respond to each situation as a unique, particular event, without connection to other events. There are no lessons to be drawn from history; even the world of five years ago differs fundamentally from the world we face now. Politics is all trial and error.

Perhaps we should try “shuttle diplomacy”: appeasing one dictator here, buying off one over there, making deals with others, calling on allies to “put pressure on” another. The only absolute is that we must not engage in focused, principled military action toward a firm, self-interested, pro-American victory. The second, flexible, response is, again, the right choice—according to pragmatism.

Altruism leads to the same conclusion. To fight for our own benefit—to elevate our lives over those of our enemies—is almost universally condemned today as selfish and thus “immoral.” A moral war, according to altruism, is a war fought self-sacrificially, for the good of others, especially for the weak. It is only by a continuous policy of aiding others that we can rise to moral goodness. Even restrained, limited military action is wrong, if taken for our own benefit. In this view, a strong power is good only when it recognizes the moral claims of those in need—even enemies and their supporters. The route to peace is not through victory, since altruism (“otherism”) cannot abide the defeat of others. The “path to tomorrow” is through the sacrifice of our own wealth, values, and lives to the needs of others—even those who threaten us. Again, their freedom must be our goal—their prosperity must be our mission—if we wish to be “good.”

Pragmatism and altruism dictate American foreign policy today—as they have done for over fifty years. To be practical is to be pragmatic, and to be moral is to be altruistic—these are the accepted axioms of the modern day. An all-out offensive response, in this view, would be an utter disaster—pragmatically because it holds to principles in defiance of constantly shifting reality, and morally because it seeks the enemy’s defeat rather than his benefit. On the premises of pragmatism and altruism, the measured, proportional, restrained approach is our only option.

Students of history, of course, will recognize that the attack I posed—and the two responses—were not hypothetical. Such an attack has been launched against America twice in the past two generations, and both options have been tried. On the premises of pragmatism and altruism, the first response should have led to escalating hostilities and a new generation of war against America, and the second should have ended the attacks. The results, however, have been precisely the opposite. Let us proceed to see why.

On December 7, 1941, we were attacked by Japan, a country then governed by a militaristic, religious ideology, in pursuit of a divine empire, with indoctrinated soldiers who soon used suicide tactics. We chose the ruthless, offensive response. Three years and eight months later, the Japanese surrendered, their country in ruins, their people starving. Five years after the attacks, Japan had a constitution that included the following (from its famous Article 9): “[T]he Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation. . . . The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”

Sixty years after the U.S. ended two generations of aggressive Japanese warfare, Japan remains free, productive, and friendly to America. The Japanese have not abandoned their traditions—nor has anyone asked them to do so—but they no longer use them to kill and enslave others. Rather than seek our destruction, Japan has become a staunch political ally, a robust free-market competitor, and an invaluable economic producer. Rather than build bombs and fighter planes with which to attack us, the Japanese build cars and computers that contribute immensely to our own high standard of living.

In perfect contrast, the second option—the pragmatic, altruistic, limited-military response—has been the basic approach of the Bush Administration to the attacks of September 11, 2001. What are the results?

Afghanistan continues to be strafed by holy warriors trained in Pakistan—a nuclear-armed dictatorship that we have placed off-limits to our own forces. Iraq’s insurgency continues, with Shiite militias, no longer restrained either by Saddam Hussein or by us, growing to fill the political vacuum. Iran is emboldened, its fundamentalist leadership ever more vocal, its program of nuclear development open and expanding. Saudi Arabia—our alleged ally—funds religious schools that teach hatred of the West and train an endless stream of jihadists. We pay two-billion dollars a year in tribute to Egypt, so that they will refrain from attacking Israel. Sudan engages in genocide under theocratic rule, while Somalia, Nigeria, and other countries are following suit, their tribal clerics doling out Islamic law under trees. Syria—a second-generation thugocracy on the verge of collapse a few years ago—has been resurrected and emboldened. Hezbollah has taken over Southern Lebanon. The Gaza is a new terror enclave under the democratically elected terror-cult Hamas. The Muslim Brotherhood is winning elections in Egypt. Other anti-Western militant groups are winning elections and subverting Western values from Spain to Indonesia. Across the world—including Canada, England, and the U.S.—Muslim cells plot more attacks and plan political takeovers, all the while hiding behind constitutional protections that they have sworn to destroy. Anyone daring to renounce or criticize Islam may have to live forever underground, in fear of murder sanctioned by religious decree.

Five years to the month after 9/11, and in stark contrast to the situation in Japan five years after Pearl Harbor, an Islamic cleric, Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, a teacher at an Islamic school in Java, and a killer in the Bali bombing of 2002 who was released from prison in June 2006, now openly promotes a new constitution for Indonesia:

We demand an Islamic state, and not some form of Islamisation of society. We want the state to be Islamic, with Islamic leaders who have the courage and will to implement the Islamic law in total. . . .

We want an Islamic state where Islamic law is not just in the books but enforced, and enforced with determination. There is no space and no room for democratic consultation. The Islamic law is set and fixed, so why discuss it? Just implement it!

Right now we are drafting our own constitutional amendments for Indonesia, the framework for an Indonesian Islamic state where Islamic laws are enforced. Indonesians must understand that there is no Islamic state without the enforcement of Islamic laws.8

This is Islamic Totalitarianism—State Islam—rule by Islamic Law—and it is on the rise. While this cleric plots an Islamic State, people from countries where children are taught that Jews are born of pigs and monkeys, and that Israel is “occupied territory” and fair game for attack, rail against so-called anti-Muslim “prejudice.” Inside America, leaders of hostile countries give speeches to build “bridges of understanding” while building nuclear bombs overseas.9 Adherents of Islam claim to be victims of persecution, assertions they make on national television, from pulpits, and in tenured university positions.

Meanwhile, a state of siege is being more deeply entrenched inside America every day. We are losing the war by institutionalizing the loss of our freedoms, searching the sneakers of senior citizens in wheelchairs in order to avoid confronting bellicose dictatorships overseas. In the minds of many people, the Bush administration’s allegedly “offensive” strategy has discredited the very idea of genuinely offensive war for American self-interest, which it pledged to fight, and then betrayed to its core. Our soldiers come home maimed or dead, and military offense, rather than timidity, takes the blame. To compensate for our weakness overseas, we are building electric fences and security barriers to keep the world out, accepting the medieval ideal of walled towns under constant threat of attack, rather than destroying the source of such threats.

In short, the second, pragmatic, altruistic approach has failed. In the five years since 9/11, the motivations behind the Islamic attacks have not been suppressed—and this is the real failure of these policies. The number of particular attacks is not the measure of success or failure. The Islamic Totalitarians remain physically intact, spiritually committed, and politically empowered. The Islamic Totalitarian movement remains—distributed, without the strong central command Al Qaeda once had, but still energized—and it appears like hidden gushers, the jihad bursting forth in seemingly random places by internal pressure from an underground stream. Our acceptance of pragmatism, the policy of short-range trial and error that rejects principles on principle—and altruism, the morality of self-sacrifice—left no other result possible.

The reason for this failure is that every one of the ideas we used to evaluate our options is wrong. In every case, the opposite of today’s “conventional wisdom” is true.

  • A strong offense does not create new enemies; it defeats existing foes. Were this not so, we would be fighting German and Japanese suicide bombers today, while North Korea—undefeated by America—would be peaceful, prosperous, and free.
  • Poverty is not the “root cause” of wars. If it were, poor Mexicans would be attacking America, not begging for jobs at Wal-Mart.
  • Democracy is not a route to freedom—not for the Greeks who voted to kill Socrates, nor for the Romans who acclaimed Caesar, nor for the Germans who elected Hitler.
  • A culture of slavery and suicide is not equal to a culture of freedom and prosperity—not for those who value life.
  • The world is not a flux of contradictions, in which principles do not work. If it were, gravity would not hold, vaccinations would not work, and one would not have a right to one’s life.
  • Being moral does not mean sacrificing for others. It means accepting the American principle of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”—and living for one’s own sake.

History is clear: All-out force against fanatical killers is both practical and moral. It led us to our two most important foreign policy successes—the defeats of Germany and Japan in 1945—and to the permanent peace with those nations that we take for granted today. Such a course was practical and moral then, and it is practical and moral now—an affirmation, and a defense, of life and civilization.

Rights-respecting people, those who do not initiate force against others, have a right to defend themselves for their own sakes—because they have a right to live. To do this, they must approach their enemies in a principled, self-interested way. Ayn Rand, in her essay on the nature of government, observed a vital relationship between man’s right to life and his right to self-defense:

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.10

These words ring especially true in the war against Islamic Totalitarianism. The consequence of our failure to respond forthrightly to these attacks has been precisely to encourage and reward this movement. We have granted it a safe haven, allowed it to claim victory through continued existence, appealed to its apologists who spread anti-American venom, and emboldened those who wish to take up the fight against us. The solution is to renounce altruistic appeasement and pragmatic compromise, to recognize our own value, and to defend our lives by right. We mustdefeat these enemies, and we can.

Only after we understand that we should defeat these enemies, can we ask how. This point is vital, for the question of moral rightness is logically and psychologically prior to any question of strategy or tactics. If we do not understand that we should defeat them—if we think that we are as bad as they are, or that they have legitimate grievances that justify their attacks, or that we have created a situation that morally demands that we compensate them—then our lack of moral self-confidence will undercut our motivation to fight. But the facts do not warrant such a conclusion. We are morally right and the Islamic Totalitarians are evil—not merely in their methods, but, more fundamentally, in their values and goals. We have a moral responsibility to defeat them—if we want to live. We can and must approach this war with the moral self-confidence of those fighting for civilization itself—for the basic conditions on which human life depends—because that is precisely what is at stake.

Given that we should win, how then must our government confront Islamic Totalitarianism? Let us call again upon the defeat of Japan in 1945 as a valid, and vital, historical precedent.

These two conflicts have many political and military differences, and it would be an error to draw tactical lessons from 1945 and apply them directly to the present conflict. To name one such difference, Americans in 1941 did not have the military capacity to attack Japan directly and overwhelmingly (as they would a few years later); we were not able to bomb Japan, nor defeat its navy quickly. We were forced to use the kind of slow infantry tactics and “island hopping” that would not be necessary today. American ingenuity has created an explosion of technology, and the possibility of heretofore undreamed of tactics, which make it unnecessary for any American to be killed in the fight. That we have the overwhelming capacity to defeat the Islamic Totalitarians militarily is beyond doubt. Yet far from elevating technology to the key issue in winning a war, this illustrates the unequivocal importance of the moral self-confidence—the state of mind that proceeds from an awareness of one’s own moral goodness and efficacy—that is needed to use this weaponry. This is what enabled us to overcome serious material deficiencies and to drive victoriously over the Japanese in 1945. The question today is not whether we have the capacity to win; it is whether we have the self-confidence, and the will, to do so.

The basic similarities between the two conflicts begin with the ideas that motivated the attacks. The Japanese were motivated by a politicized religious ideology—Shintoism—that posited an all-powerful deity, indoctrinated their children, infected every aspect of their culture, and drove them to suicidal military actions that killed millions. An educational rescript of 1890—an Imperial decree, and one of the most influential documents in Japanese history—built this “mytho-religious ideology” into the classroom, making worship of the Emperor and duty to the State into the primary goals of education.11 Japanese people memorized its tenets, and were inculcated with what one Japanese scholar called “socialization for death.”12 A Japanese civilian remarked how, when she heard that the Emperor was going to address his people—an unprecedented event—the words she had memorized as a child rose in her mind: “Should any emergency arise, offer yourself courageously to the State.” Such ideas, deeply internalized and mandated by law, motivated suicide bombers—kamikaze—to throw themselves fanatically against superior U.S. forces, and gave them hope for a final battle over weak-willed Americans. This kamikaze fire was extinguished by the crushing American offensive of 1945.

The Islamic Totalitarian movement has a similar fire burning at its core—an authoritarian, state-centered religion, replete with state-funded educational indoctrination, a massive suicide cult on behalf of the deity and state, and hope for a final battle over the Americans. The key to extinguishing this fire, I submit—the sine qua non required to end the spiral of indoctrination, jihad, and suicidal attacks on the West—is to do what was done against Japan: to break thepolitical power of the state religion. State Islam—Totalitarian Islam—rule by Islamic Law—must be obliterated.

A vital point about politics and government must be remembered here. Government holds a legal monopoly on the use of force in a geographic area. Governments do not make suggestions—they pass and enforce laws. They must do this, in order to protect our freedom to think and speak—but within proper limits, defined by the principle of individual rights and codified in a constitution that is the nation’s fundamental law. The purpose of a proper government is to protect the rights of its citizens—each citizen’s freedom to think and act on his own judgment—by using retaliatory force as necessary against criminals and foreign invaders.

A government that turns its force against its own citizens, especially to impose an ideological doctrine on them, subordinates the rights of individuals to the demands of the State. This is statism—the elevation of the State over the individual, and the inversion of the very purpose of government. Statism is the greatest killer in history—dwarfing all attacks by criminals—precisely because it is motivated by some form of mystical political ideology. Because statists claim an authority that is above the rights of man—whether the Fuehrer’s master race, the communists’ dialectic, or the theocrat’s God—they do not recognize the principle of individual rights or the self-ownership of men on earth; rather, they claim the right to rule men, and to kill with impunity anyone who disobeys the ideology or regime.

What the aforementioned Indonesians—and all of us—must understand is that there is no recognition of individual rights, no legitimate constitution, and thus no freedom, under religious law in any form. The all-encompassing, totalitarian nature of Islamic Law—its claims to divine origin, its commitment to uphold “Allah’s” will, and its ultimate goal of making everyone on earth submit to it—leaves no room for individual rights or freedom. This code is barbaric and tribal, frozen in time for over a thousand years, not open to rational scrutiny but only to unquestioned obedience (as the Indonesian cleric emphasized). To impose this primitive code by force is to inject religion into every aspect of human thought and action—which is the ultimate goal of Islamic Totalitarianism.

To begin to enshrine the inviolability of individual rights as the central principle of government, clerics of all kinds must be stripped of political power. There can be no freedom of thought and speech if those with claims to mystically derived ideas can enforce them coercively. Only by breaking the link between state power and religious belief can the state become a protector of each person’s right to worship or not worship as he wishes; only complete separation of religion and government can enable the government to serve its proper function: to protect each person’s right to think, speak, and act as he chooses.

Given this understanding of the issue, how should we begin to confront Totalitarian Islam? Again, there is precedent in history. The basic principles of a rational policy towards Islamic Totalitarianism—with clear strategic implications—were revealed in a striking telegram sent by the U.S. Secretary of State James Byrnes to General Douglas MacArthur, the American commander in Japan, in October, 1945. The telegram established the basic U.S. policy goals towards Shintoism, and laid out, for MacArthur and his subordinates, the basic principles by which those goals were to be achieved:

Shintoism, insofar as it is a religion of individual Japanese, is not to be interfered with. Shintoism, however, insofar as it is directed by the Japanese government, and as a measure enforced from above by the government, is to be done away with. People would not be taxed to support National Shinto and there will be no place for Shintoism in the schools. Shintoism as a state religion—National Shinto, that is—will go . . . Our policy on this goes beyond Shinto . . . The dissemination of Japanese militaristic and ultra-nationalistic ideology in any form will be completely suppressed.

And the Japanese Government will be required to cease financial and other support of Shinto establishments.

The telegram is clear about the need for separation between religion and state—between an individual’s right to follow Shinto and the government’s power to enforce it. This requirement applies to Islam today (and to Christianity and Judaism) as strongly as it did to Shinto. In regard to Japan, the job involved breaking the link between Shinto and state; in regard to Islamic Totalitarianism the task involves breaking the link between Islam and state. This is the central political issue we face: the complete lack of any conceptual or institutional separation between church and state in Islam, both historically and in the totalitarian movement today.

As for what we should do about this, the 1945 telegram is direct. Here is its opening, rewritten to substitute Islam for Shinto:

Islam, as it is a religion of individuals, is not to be interfered with. Islam, however, insofar as it is directed by governments, and as a measure enforced from above by any government, is to be done away with.

There is no question here about religious freedom. Individual religious belief is to be left alone—as is all freedom to think and to speak by one’s own judgment—but state religion must be eliminated. It is vital that this principle be understood, stated clearly, and enforced—for this is a precondition of the thorough and permanent defeat of America’s current enemy.

Totalitarian Islam, an ideology that merges state power with religious belief, must go.

But proponents of Islamic Totalitarianism have political power, to some extent, in dozens of nations. Should we attack them all, immediately? No. We need to aim for the political, economic, and ideological center of this movement—the core that embodies its naked essence and that fuels it worldwide. This does not mean finding the particular people who organized the 9/11 attacks. The question is: In which state is Islam most solidly linked with political power, dedicated to the violent spread of Islamic rule, and infused with hatred of America? What state is founded on these ideas, and their practice, as a matter of principle? There is a clear answer, which is known, admittedly or not, by almost everyone today. The political centerpiece of Islamic Totalitarianism today—the state in which Islam is most militantly welded to political power and contempt for America and the West—the world leader in the violent spread of Islam—is Iran.

The Iranian Islamic State was born in an act of war against America—the seizure of the American embassy in 1979—and has chanted “Death to America” ever since. Even Muslims at odds with Iran for sectarian reasons, such as many followers of Osama Bin Laden, draw inspiration from it as they engage in their own jihads against the West. Bin Laden’s most important effect in this regard has been to energize and empower radical Muslims to rise above the petty squabbles between Persian and Arab, and between Sunni and Shiite, to join Iran against the “Great Satan”: America. Hezbollah, Hamas, and company are dependent on Iran for ideological, political, and economic strength. It is Iran that addresses the U.N. as a world leader; it is Iran that is openly committed to acquiring the weapons needed to take control of the Middle East; it is Iran that poses as the defender of Muslims against the West (for instance, through loyal clerics in Iraq); and it is Iran that has gained power since the U.S. removed its strongest regional opponent in Iraq.

The conclusion is inescapable. The road to the defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism begins in Tehran. America, acting alone and with overwhelming force, must destroy the Iranian Islamic State now. It must do so openly, and indeed spectacularly, for the entire world to see, for this is the only way to demonstrate the spectacular failure and incompetence of the Islamic fundamentalist movement as a whole.

This demonstration must embody the virtue of integrity—the unity of principles and practice. Intellectually, we must state our intentions and reasons openly, without hiding behind timid diplomatic-speak. Physically, we must act decisively, and with all the force we deem necessary, to eliminate the Iranian regime as quickly as possible, and with the least risk to American soldiers. Only when the world sees this demonstration of American resolve will America begin to see peace and security.

It is vital that Americans take this action for the right moral reasons, openly stated. We must not seek legitimacy for the removal of the Iranian Islamic State beyond the principle of our right to defend ourselves. To pretend that something more than this principle is needed would be to deny the sufficiency of the principle. To base our reasons on the alleged good of others, especially on any alleged benefits to the people of the Middle East, would be to accept a position of moral dhimmitude: the moral subordination of our right to life and self-defense to an allegedly higher principle. It would be to subordinate our lives to the lives of the ayatollahs—who would become our masters. If we cannot stand on the principle of our right to life and liberty against the Islamic Totalitarians’ claim that we must submit to the will of “Allah,” then we cannot claim the right to exist. America’s “weakness of will” is the jihadists’ great hope—as it was the hope of Japanese warriors—but it is something they cannot impose on us. Their only prayer is that we will accept it voluntarily. The price for doing so is our lives and the lives of our children. We must not submit.

To remove this cancerous Islamic State loudly and forthrightly will have immediate benefits. We would avenge the thousands of American terror victims since the 1960s. We would reverse the pitiful image we projected when Iranians stormed our embassy in 1979, and when we fled from Mogadishu and from Lebanon—actions that the Islamic Totalitarians claimed as evidence of our weakness. We could even reverse a tremendous injustice by un-nationalizing the oil companies in Iran—stolen from their owners in 1951—and placing them back into private hands, under government protection. Certainly guarding those facilities from a surrounding civil war—a legitimate protection of private property, backed by a credible threat of crushing force—would be a far better use of our troops than guarding a few blocks in downtown Baghdad from its own residents. The pipeline of money into Islamic jihad would be cut.

Most importantly, by ousting the regime in Iran, we would send a clear message to the world:Political Islam is finished. Weaker states and groups would cringe in terror—as they did briefly after 9/11—and would literally retreat into holes in the ground. Anti-totalitarian forces across the world would be emboldened by the sight of a real defense of life and liberty. Allies we never knew existed would raise their heads with confidence and join the cause of freedom. The land of the free—rejuvenated as the home of the brave—would rejoice as the nation of the secure. We would truly be on the road to victory, freedom, and peace. By affirming the efficacy of reason and individual rights over incompetent dark-age theocracy, America could once again claim its place as a real world leader, and become a beacon for those who understand, and value, freedom.

Once this central task is complete, further intransigent policies toward Islamic Totalitarianism will be necessary. One pertains to state economic support for Islam, another to state-sponsorededucation. The 1945 telegram—again, with Islam replacing Shinto—addresses both of these points:

Islam, however, insofar as it is directed by governments, and as a measure enforced from above by the government, is to be done away with. People [will] not be taxed to support Islam and there will be no place for Islam in the schools.

The Muslim world must be made to understand that any government that provides economic support to jihadists will be summarily destroyed. In order for this policy to be taken seriously, we must demonstrate its truth—by destroying the Iranian regime and stating why we have done so. Only the clear threat that “you will be next” can break the entangled network of Islamic economic support for jihad that masquerades as “economic development.” There can be no more playing games with Saudi apologists who speak smooth English and describe their work as “charity.” In 2003, the International Islamic Relief Organization, a Saudi charity, claimed to have dug 1,615 wells throughout the Middle East—but it also established 4,400 mosques and distributed millions of Islamic books and pamphlets. The result has been the display, on television, of young children as “True Muslims,” trained to see Jews as pigs and apes, screaming “Allahu Akbar” and dedicating themselves to jihad.13 Such “charity” means raising money to spread the ideas, and tactics, of Totalitarian Islam. It must end.

Ending this state economic support cannot occur without confronting one of Islam’s five pillars:alms. By separating church and state, alms can become something that it has never been in Islam: truly private charity. In the primitive society in which Mohammed lived, there was no concept of the separation of church and state. The religious leaders were the political leaders, and the payment of alms was a state-imposed taxation as much as a religious duty. Since then, nothing has changed within Islam. It is high time that all government involvement in so-called “charities” be ended. All states known to have sponsored terrorism against the West must be forbidden to impose taxes or provide funding on behalf of Islam.

Regarding education, the adapted 1945 telegram ends as follows:

Islam as a state religion—National Islam, that is—will go . . . Our policy on this goes beyond Islam . . . The dissemination of Islamic militaristic ideology in any form will be completely suppressed. Middle Eastern Governments will be required to cease financial and other support of Islamic establishments.

One of the strongest parallels between Japanese Shintoism and Islamic Totalitarianism is the deep inculcation of theological militarism in children—a philosophical ideology centered on military service to a divinely sanctioned state—and the suicidal “socialization for death” that results. In each case, the central purpose of the educational system is to train children to obey a divine presence by inculcating in them a sense of submission and insignificance married to violence. Japanese children memorized the calls to duty by the Emperor; indoctrinated Islamic children memorize sword verses in the Koran. Japanese children bowed to the Emperor and obeyed his generals; Islamic children bow to Allah and obey his clerics. The grip of Islam over education has to be broken, as was the grip of Shinto over the schools in Japan.

After the regime in Iran is destroyed, the leadership in countries sponsoring such state training in Islamic jihad—especially Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt—must choose: Close the state-funded schools, or face the Iranian alternative. Until the U.S. demonstrates the nature of that choice, by serious retaliation against Iran, unambiguously connecting principled words to practical actions, there is no reason for any Middle Eastern leader to expect serious consequences. Until then, they are right to regard us as a paper tiger. Only the forthright destruction of the Iranian Islamic State can demonstrate the resolve needed for this task.

As the telegram makes clear, the dissemination of militarism is broader than the schools; it encompasses the media. Ending Japan as a threat, and reforming the society in a long-lasting way, required the strict suppression of militaristic education, publications, and broadcasts. This is also necessary in the case of Totalitarian Islam.

America needs a Commander-in-Chief today who can understand and state this simple truth: In war, there is no “right” to free speech on behalf of an enemy. The string of obviously false, contrived, and manipulated “news” by the supporters of jihad—the staging of civilians crying when a home is destroyed, and the throwing about of children’s dolls when a terrorist’s safe house is wrecked—are all part of the enemy’s war effort. In war, the psychological disarmament of the enemy, including the inculcation of terror through vicious propaganda, is part of the fight. American unwillingness to quash such propaganda is seen, by our enemies, not as respect for freedom of speech, but rather as a lack of will and as evidence of weakness. In the present situation, Americans must forcibly prohibit the dissemination of militaristic ideology and propaganda anywhere it rises. To make the point clear, Al-Jazeera—the fountainhead of Muslim taqiyya, or deception—must be shut down.

In summary, Political Islam, Militant Islam, rule by Islamic Law—and all the economic and intellectual support associated with it—must go. This means that Iran must go.

The removal of Islamic political states will not be the end of the task; many intellectual battles will have to be waged. Most importantly, Western intellectuals must present not only a negative—a repudiation of the Totalitarian Universe—but also a positive—a clear explanation to the world that the moral purpose of a government is to protect its citizens’ rights to think and act on the judgment of their own minds, free from coercion by church, mosque, or state. But such battles cannot be fought by pretending that those who make death threats instead of arguments are offering anything but clubs in place of syllogisms.

This is not a clash between civilizations; it is a clash between civilization and barbarism. Until civilized people assert themselves with a depth of moral confidence exceeding that projected by those who submit to the “will of Allah,” America will remain permanently on the defensive, in a state of moral dhimmitude, and the war will continue to its logical conclusion: a mushroom cloud over America.

Is it possible for a “moderate” form of Islam to become an alternative to the totalitarian world-view infecting so many Muslims? Perhaps, but let us be clear about what this would mean. This would mean an Islam that is explicitly separated from political power. It would mean an Islam whose clerics renounce all attempts to impose its law by force. It would mean an Islam that (like modern Christianity) is open to critical self-reflection, whose thinkers examine the Koran as a set of stories, compiled and interpreted by men—and not the infallible word of God to be spread by the sword. It would mean an Islam that allows apostates to make their own decisions, and that tolerates no death threats against them. It would mean the explicit rejection—by Muslims—of State Islam, Islamic Law, and the pursuit of jihad. Such “moderate” Muslims will support the obliteration of Totalitarian Islam. The rest must witness the defeat of this poisonous ideology, and grasp the hopelessness of supporting it.

To achieve this goal requires us to be confident in our positions; certain of our own rightness; and forthright in our commitment to freedom and the defense of individual rights. Hiding the truth behind allegedly “prudent” language designed to obfuscate our intentions is of no use against an ideology with the directness of Islam. We cannot out-taqiyya the Islamic Totalitarians. We must state our end goal openly and clearly; we must identify the principled means of achieving it; and we must become people of integrity—people who act in accordance with their values and convictions. There is no substitute for integrity, and that means no substitute for victory.

There was a time when this was understood in America. In 1945, Americans knew that there was truly “no substitute for victory,” as General MacArthur said in his farewell speech to Congress. In 1945, Americans also knew the meaning of “victory.” It was not a mere word, empty of content. It named a specific task, and a precise goal. To say that our aim today is “to attain victory” can be as empty and futile as urging a college student to “do well,” or a businessman to “succeed.” What constitutes “doing well”? What is “success”? How will we know when we have achieved “victory”? The question is: What is it that we really need from the enemy?

History offers yet another example. The words proclaimed by Franklin

Delano Roosevelt, which defined the terms of victory, and which he held intransigently for over two years, are “Unconditional Surrender.” Bringing long-term peace to the world, said FDR,

involves the simple formula of placing the objective of this war in terms of an unconditional surrender. . . . Unconditional surrender means not the destruction of the . . . Japanese populace, but does mean the destruction of a philosophy . . . which is based on the conquest and subjugation of other peoples.

In other words, continued FDR:

We have learned that if we do not pull the fangs of the predatory animals of the world, they will multiply and grow in strength . . . [they] must be disarmed and kept disarmed, and they must abandon the philosophy which has brought so much suffering to the world.14

The term “Unconditional Surrender” has been closely linked to Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant, who demanded “no terms except unconditional and immediate surrender” from his southern foe at Fort Donelson, Kentucky. For this victory, Grant was heroized as “Unconditional Surrender” Grant. To Americans of the time, “U. S.” stood for Ulysses S. Grant, for the United States, and for Unconditional Surrender. Americans demanded nothing less than victory, and equated victory with their own identity as a nation.

This is what we must regain today: the sense of ourselves as right to drive victoriously over a viciously evil enemy. We must demand the unconditional surrender of the Islamic State in Iran—and of every other Islamic Totalitarian State on earth—to the legitimate laws of man, the laws that protect individual rights. Every Islamic cleric must renounce the goal of inciting his audience to jihad; he must proclaim, loudly and openly, his repudiation of Islamic law; he must state his intention to live under the laws of men in accordance with the requirements of man’s life on earth. Every Muslim intellectual must denounce the Islamic State as an aberration and a monstrosity, as being contrary to the requirements of life on earth. Immediate, personal destruction can be the only alternative.

If it is true that the majority of Middle Eastern people want a decent free life for themselves—as the vast majority of Japanese did after August, 1945—then they will rejoice over the excision of Totalitarian Islam from their midst. They will cheer for the freedom to make their own decisions about their own lives. They will react as the Japanese did—by embracing a constitutional government that renounces war, by purging state religion from the schools, by excising militarism from the media, and by building corporations rather than suicide cults. But if they do not, the unconditional surrender of Islamic Totalitarianism must be taken to mean its political defeat: There will be no negotiations over the place of Islam in government, for it has no such place.

Americans, and all lovers of civilization, must realize something: We can do this. This is not some Platonic ideal, good in theory but unattainable in practice. We Americans can—and must—re-establish our integrity by re-uniting our ideals and our actions. History is on our side here. In relative terms, the physical forces facing America and her allies in 1941 were far more formidable than those we face today, and America then was far weaker militarily. In our own day, the technological and industrial superiority of the U.S. over the Middle East is staggering. Islamic warriors can shoot an AK-47, but they cannot build one; all of the arms possessed by Islamic countries come from outside those countries. They are pathetically weak; the American army ended the regime of Saddam Hussein in three weeks, after Iran could not beat him in eight years. Our overwhelming material advantage, however, will be of no help if we lack the will to drop a bomb—or if we use our forces to strengthen our enemies. As it was for Germany and Japan in the 1930s, so it is today: The power of the Islamic Totalitarians grows every day that we wait. The strategic balance will shift—the Islamic Totalitarians will have the capacity as well as the will to bring about the nuclear Armageddon that they so deeply crave—if Iran acquires nuclear bombs. It is not a kindness to wait, knowing that our response will have to be even more lethal after a mushroom cloud rises over American soil. To wait, in light of that knowledge, is irrational—criminally irrational.

The need to understand the gravity of this situation—and our capacity to prevent a catastrophe—is particularly urgent at this moment in time. It is obvious that the defeat of the Republicans in the 2006 mid-term elections was a repudiation of President Bush’s policies in this war. But it is more important to understand that President Bush has not mounted an offensive strategy, and that an offensive strategy is not the reason why American troops are dying in Iraq. There has been no drive to victory, only a string of casualties and the progressive discouragement of the American people. As a result, our primary enemy has been strengthened, and allowed to address the world as a leader just a few blocks from Ground Zero in New York City. (Imagine Hitler being granted this privilege.) Bush’s war strategy of non-war has resulted in a functional paralysis caused by our self-imposed failure to identify and confront open and avowed enemies.

What has been demonstrably repudiated by the actions of the Bush administration is not the first of the options I presented, but the second. What has been tried and has failed are the altruistic, pragmatic policies of an administration that is as desperate to appear tough as it is to avoid being tough. The Democrats—the party that won World War II by dropping two atomic bombs—have an opportunity to regain a position of moral stature before the American people. Should they not do so—should they choose to retreat—then their unwillingness to value the lives of American citizens over the lives of foreign enemies will be made clear, and the Democrats will be seen as no better, no more principled, no more courageous, and no more American than the Republicans.

Our military capacities are not in doubt today. It is our moral self-confidence that is in question. What was it that stopped us from confronting Iran in 1979, except a lack of confidence in our own rightness, and an unwillingness to defend ourselves for our own sakes? Had we removed the Iranian regime in 1979, thousands of Americans would have been saved, and children across the world would not have grown up with sword verses rising in their minds as they give their lives to jihad. Consider the Japanese—and ask whether it would have been in our interest to have left the regime of 1945 in power, to continue preaching religious militarism and training kamikaze. The best thing Americans did for themselves (and, incidentally, the kindest thing for the Japanese) was to burn that regime to the ground. So it is today. The Islamic State—Totalitarian Islam—must go. And it is the moral responsibility of every American to demand it.

Endnotes

1 Senjinkun, or the Japanese Field Service Code, substituting “our deity” for “the Emperor.” In John Dower, Embracing Defeat (New York: Norton, 1999), p. 277.

2 Koran 9.5, 29.

3 The Potsdam Declaration, July 26, 1945, adapted to remove references to Japan, http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/documents/potsdam.htm.

4 Remarks at the Islamic Center, Washington, September 17, 2001, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html.

5 November 19, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/19/rec.bush.ramadan/index.html.

6 Associated Press, “Zilmer: U.S. ‘Stifling’ Iraq Insurgency,” New York Times, September 12, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iraq-Anbar.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.

7 Associated Press, August 31, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Slavery-Charges.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.

8 Quote from Middle East Media Reports Special Dispatch #1285, September 8, 2006, from Al-Jazeera.net, August 21, 2006. Story at “Profile: Abu Bakar Ba’asyir,” BBC News, June 14, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2339693.stm.

9 President Bush may have condoned the visit of Mohammad Khatami, former president of Iran: “WSJ: Bush Personally Signed Off on Khatami Visit to U.S.,” Reuters, September 9, 2006.

10 Ayn Rand, “The Nature of Government,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (New York: Signet, 1986) p. 331.

11 Dower, Embracing Defeat, pp. 33–34. On the educational rescript and post-1945 reforms, see Takemae Eiji, The Allied Occupation of Japan (New York: Continuum, 2003), pp. 347–371; William P. Woodard, The Allied Occupation of Japan 1945–1952 and Japanese Religions (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), chapter seventeen.

12 Tsurumi Kazuko, cited by Dower, Embracing Defeat, p. 87.

13 Kenneth R. Timmerman, “Saudi Wealth Fuels Global Jihadism,” Insight on the News, Nov. 11, 2003, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1009661/posts. The Middle East Media Report Institute, report of May 7, 2002, has an IQRAA television clip of a young girl, calling Jews “pigs and apes” and a commentator praising her as a “true Muslim,” http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=924wmv&ak=null.

14 Ann Armstrong, Unconditional Surrender (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1961), pp. 12, 18, emphasis added.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BEEN A WHILE SINCE I HAD SOMETHING NEW TO SAY . . .

 

Earlier – these were my thoughts on someone else’s FB post –
and then I had one of those darn epiphany . . .
For some reason the Lord decided I would be the most minority type of personality in our time (Searcher). One of the things I learned in my mid 30’s when I sought help to understand why I invited so much hurt into my life . . . OMG the first thing my good psychologist friend taught me is that hardly anyone on the planet woke up each day in the world I live in! Sadly I thought everyone lived in the world I envision. I remember my best friend’s Mama picking me up by my shoulders when I was 15 and telling me I was so gullible, I would be dead by 21! I live in a black and white world, and almost everyone else lives in the gray world. I absolutely love, and have zero capacity to hate or be mad at anyone for more than a few hours. (However, I have learned to let people drop out of my forward motion life.)
The problem with that gray world is that as the pendulum has been swinging on its leftward path, the bar of what is good and true and acceptable has been sliding ever faster toward the reality that has changed our very defined world to a world where anything goes . . . good becomes bad . . . bad becomes good . . . an upside down world (like in the dark ages) – and that pendulum swings left and right over a couple a hundred years – over and over again each time reaching further left and further right. Some of us were born with a strong sense of what is true and right for a healthy and moral people celebrating life and our Creator – – – in the opposite world man becomes a more self-righteous anti-life people who justify in their own minds every bad thing they do. (Abortion, Anti-Bill of Rights. and such) The advice I received was to continue my life with my view of the world. Some will fall in and be close to me, and some will fall out. Those that fall out – let them go easily. That is better than betraying who I am to myself and my Creator.
Two hundred years ago, my views were in sync. Learning about how others think also helped my career skyrocket. I understood those whose work lives were in my care – and understanding others better, I was able to be less rigid in those areas where it was not detrimental to anyone or the corporation, and remain rigid where it made a positive change for all concerned. Life isn’t easy – just good.

The Epiphany:
The Lord didn’t make me this way because I am better than any other human being in general. In my late twenties, I would go home and pray because people kept coming to me to make the decisions. That took some getting used to. Now that it is finished . . . He just made me this way to be an example of truly living. Some hated me and made me cry; but in my stubbornness of right and wrong, I would cling to what I knew was right. When I made a mistake, I owned it and paid the price and tried to learn from it. From two hundred years ago when most Americans were like me – where I believed I belonged – – – unto today when relatively few are like me – – – there had to be thousands of us who, even with all our human failings, will stand to the end and say with conviction, this is right and that is wrong – and know beyond any doubt of what we believe.

We believe that God, our Creator exists, and when we embrace that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was totally possible for God, and our belief and relationship with Him is central to knowing what is right and what is wrong, our success is not recognized by many. That is because it is not measured in the prizes of this world. Sadly, when it is convenient for others to use people like me, we usually don’t see it coming . . . and in the end, is the amazing epiphany that it really didn’t matter one whit. In the end, I am still who I am, spiritually unscathed and among the beloved of my Lord.
Even though the pendulum is far left, there are millions of us of strong belief in the here and now to help everyone remember – what the truth of our Creation is – what is really important in living – what justice is – and that the truth of any matter, large or small, is supremely important. No, we are not better than anyone . . . just more fortunate. Being truth seekers, we simply refuse to live the CONVENIENT lies that so many accept without question. Yes, I cry when I am deceived. Yes, I cry when someone hurts me. And then I simply let them go their way knowing I did all I could, in my flawed humanity, to be an example of one who loves the Lord and truth – and everything else in life pales small in the comparison.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

HATS OFF TO MR CAVUTO AT FOX:

Mr. Cavuto’s Commentary – BRAVO MR. CAVUTO:
” Obama’s henchman, Senator Harry Reid, and Senate Democrats have not passed a budget in four years. The Senate’s obstructionist, do-nothing policy has refused every attempt of the House to make reasonable changes to the Un-Affordable Health Care Act that would be approved by the people. Changes need to be made such as giving the same waivers to the people as given to the large corporations, Congressional members, and federal workers.

This Administration has refused to keep the National Parks open, resulting in tremendous loss of revenue to lodging and restaurants within the park and ruining the vacations of thousands of tourists; barricaded the World War II Memorial to shut out Honor Tours of WWII veterans; and threatened Veteran’s Administration funding, among many others. Then we have establishment Republicans like Senators Peter King, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and others viciously attacking Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul and Congressman Louie Gohmert, who have been bold enough to stand their ground and serving as the voice of the people who elected them to the Senate and elected the House majority. When have we ever seen the Democrats shoot their own? It doesn’t happen!

It is despicable that 79 senators, including Texas Senator John Cornyn, voted YES on cloture, giving Harry Reid what he wanted! Conservative PACs and the RNC need to run hard-hitting TV ads on the mainstream media late night shows like Leno and Letterman explaining to the people which Party is destroying America if the out-of-control spending is not reined in before the debt limit ceiling is voted.

If not now, when? If not led by the Republicans, who, and why not? Read below what Neil Cavuto told the President.

Neal Cavuto of Fox News explained to President Obama why he, Barack Obama, not Fox News, is responsible for the problems with Obamacare and the debt..

Obama is blaming Fox News for 2/3 of the country disliking Obamacare. Here’s Neil Cavuto’s explanation, and it is great. If you don’t understand what is bad about ObamaCare, please read his comments, and you will understand.

Mr. President, Fox News isn’t what’s making Americans sick about your healthcare law. Your healthcare law is. Welcome, everybody, I’m Neil Cavuto. And excuse this departure from form. But I think this is just poor form. So, it’s time we set some things straight.

Mr. President, we at Fox News are not the problem. I hate to break it to you, sir. You are. Your words are. Your promises are. We didn’t sell this healthcare law. Sir, you did. Remember this?

President Barack Obama:  “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period.”

Mr. President, tell that to tens of thousands of retirees at IBM and Time Warner and dozens of others, who’ve been dumped from their coverage and told to find their own coverage. Fox News didn’t break that news to them, Mr. President. Their companies did.

Fox News didn’t push more of those firms to hire part-time workers. Your healthcare law did. Fox News didn’t incentivize fast food restaurants to scale back their benefits. Your healthcare law did. Fox News didn’t make doctors want to opt out. Your healthcare law did. Fox News didn’t make insurance premiums sky rocket. Your healthcare law did. Just like Fox News didn’t grant hundreds of exemptions to companies that needed them. You did. And Fox News didn’t delay one key provision after another, including online enrollment for those small business exchanges. You did.

Just like it wasn’t Fox News that said we had to pass this to see what was in this. You did. Or was that Nancy Pelosi? Sometimes I’m confused. But of this I am not. Fox News didn’t re-do basic math. Sir, you did. Fox News didn’t say you can cover 30 million more Americans and not see a hit in premiums. You did. Fox News didn’t say you could throw in those with pre-existing conditions and not have to pay for it. You did. Fox News didn’t all but say you could get something for nothing. You did. Fox News didn’t come back years later and say, oh yea, we did raise some taxes. You did.

Here’s where you are right about Fox News, however, Mr. President. We can do math. And did. You cannot. And did not. We said it, and proved it. You didn’t. And we’re all suffering for it. Take it from the numbers guy at Fox. Numbers don’t lie. The number of Americans working part-time and nervous. The number of retirees days away from being dumped on exchanges and anxious. The number of company bosses with any news to pass along on those exchanges, but still clueless. The number of doctors who want out. The number of congressmen now opting out. No, Mr. President, none of those numbers lie.

But with all due respect sir, I can only conclude you do know; I know, I know you hate us at Fox. But please take a look in a mirror, and fast. You think we’re the skunk at your picnic. But that doesn’t mean we’re the ones that stink. Because that smell isn’t coming from the folks reporting on your law. Mr. President, that smell is your law.”

Tagged , , , , , ,

IN THESE TROUBLING TIMES OF LIES AND TURMOIL IN OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT . . .

I write of faith, honor, personal responsibility, and good vs. evil. I pray America reads Christian commentators, and rekindles our flame for the truth – and one by one The Sleeping Giant of the American people Wake Up. The Sleeping Giant of America was never her government, but the engine behind the government, We the People! Helloooooo? Are you there?

Do not be deceived. The enemy within and outward does not live by our code of honor, truth, and justice. You must never be deceived by the hordes of those who care not for your life, or the lives of your children. Oh Lord, help my nation see God’s Truth and Justice. In life and in death I shall love my God, my Creator, who created me in His Image, in His Truth, in His Commandments of Law. Yes and Amen.

No matter who has invaded the realm of our United States Constitution, we, God’s children will raise His standard once again . . . for our children. Throw off the chains of false money that is a lie. You work for yourselves and your families, and your local communities – this is what has been forgotten. They hope you will become hordes of anger and violence, so they can finally totally control you. Should the unthinkable harms come to America from our own government, you must remain peaceful, faithful, and of sound thought and planning to survive. In the meantime, turn off any media that offends our Christian values and the futures of our children — in violence for the sake of violence — sex for the sake of robbing our children and our marriages of goodness — and “news” designed to trigger your button to destructive anarchy. If anyone moves to encourage you to being brainwashed, tell them that the medias crossed the line of art and / or truth a long, long time ago.

Not to become self-pious as the pretenders of the Faith did many times before. (Inquisition, witch trials, and such in history.) But instead to live in faith, love, and personal charity as our grandparents did as the “greatest generation.” Together, we must re-build our industry / endeavor in America, remembering that we are still the “land of the free, and home of the brave.” We must reject those that come to break our laws openly, and invite those who come here legally. We can improve our immigration laws, but we must reject those who come to take our jobs, and remain loyal to another nation. Those nations all have very strict immigration laws, but shred ours to pieces – We Must Reject such one-sided thinking.

Our Christian strength must grow in our common Christian faith, and not be mired down in man-made denominational and secular curriculum. There will always be Christian denominations before Christ’s return, but they must not divide us as an American Christian Nation.

There are certain aspects of the Bible that we can all understand together. When Jesus walked the Earth in Biblical times, He was a Jew, and His original disciples were Jewish, and preached to the Jewish people. The Old Testament is the story Creation, and of why, who, when, and how Israel began, and its Jewish Biblical history. The New Testament holds the history of the prophecies being fulfilled regarding our Jewish King / Messiah. Because they knew not who Jesus was, God blinded Israel regarding Jesus until the age of the Gentiles / Christians was completed. The New Testament introduces one disciple for the Gentile, Paul. The Pauline Epistles in the New Testament were written for the Christian. The end of the New Testament is primarily written for Israel whom will experience the tribulation. The entire Bible was written for the Jew and the Christian for their learning and understanding of God, Jesus (God come to man on Earth as our Savior and our King), and the Holy Spirit (our connection to Jesus once he left Earth after His resurrection.)

Those are grounds we can meet on and delve into the deeper meanings from that common platform. It is interesting to note that today Jews are becoming believers in Jesus Christ as their personal savior. The entire Holy Bible is a message to man from God that has captured the hearts and minds of men for thousands of years.

The enemy wants you to deny your personal relationship with God, in favor of their group relationship with their false god(s). The enemy is preaching about a combined salvation of their group of political people in lies and treachery. The enemy places human life at the bottom of importance on Earth. They resemble Earth worshipers in their faith. They belittle you and desire to destroy you if you “cling to your Bibles.” The anti- Christian / anti-life enemy is the greatest destroyer of men and women – with their destructive agendas that they paint in pretty pictures that never happen. Their War on Poverty has managed to enslave millions into being dependent on the state, thus robbing them of full lives of good endeavor; and more often robbing them of a personal relationship with the Lord.

May I remind you of the scriptures regarding the “Whole Armour of God”:
“Ephesians 6:10-20 King James Version (KJV)
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. [I implore you to understand exactly what this is saying.]
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.”

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GARDEN OF YOUR GOOD OR EVIL MIND?

I prefer to break issues down to their lowest common denominators . . . Snowden . . . NSA . . . cracking PERSONAL encrypted information . . .
Think about all of this in the following two different aspects —

It isn’t proper to say, “I have nothing to hide.”

ONE ASPECT.
Whereas, I do not mind God seeing and hearing all of my private thoughts, correspondence, and pictures – I DO MIND Satan looking at them and twisting them in any way except how I intended.  That word intended doesn’t help you at all when Satan decides to read into your private thoughts, correspondence, and pictures from his really evil view. It is important to remember that Satan has rule over the Earth temporarily.

SECOND ASPECT.
Have you had a friend or spouse who read something different than what you meant into things you have said or written? Have you had a friend or spouse that pestered you for your opinion on something, then immediately took issue with whatever you said that they forced out of you? Do you think strangers would be more interested in your actual meaning, or applying their own prejudices to whatever you write or say?

FISA COURTS are anti-constitutional and have every opportunity to destroy our U.S. Constitutional Bill of Rights by the very nature of being secretive in their actions against whomever they please. We have a right to public trial, and to know exactly who our accusers are, and what we are being accused of. WE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY by a preponderance of evidence in a legal trial before a jury of our peers. No GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY has the right to our private thoughts, correspondences, and pictures. Should there be a need to our personal information for a specific legal trial in an American court, those kinds of issues are resolved via the Judge issuing a warrant for specific information during such a trial. All diligent care must be afforded American citizens for such warrants to only be granted the right to specific information regarding a trial – and not a fishing expedition.

By common sense reasoning of the above two aspects, I do not trust any person or entity (especially government persons or entities) to read my personal thoughts and correspondences – or to view or edit my pictures. It is reasonable to expect others, especially strangers, to impose their prejudices upon my personal information.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What my dad said . . .

Patriot Act, secret courts, new data collection in Utah, the lies upon lies from those we elect and those appointed, IRS, NSA, antagonizing the ignorant into false racial frenzy, and perhaps false flags . . . My dad and I talked government and religion in detail . . . This goes back to the conversations I had with my dad – he said said the absolute best government is that of a TRULY BENEVOLENT AND JUST KING. More and more, i see the wisdom of his words – for we have a self appointed King that is not just or benevolent, and our Congress doesn’t merely border on ridiculous, and judges are merely Minions.
What I believe is etched in my heart and soul. My allegiance is to the U.S. Constitution. My only King is Jesus.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

WHO’S IN CHARGE?

  1. Benghazi – our Ambassador, 2 ex-seals, one other person died – AND requests BEGGING for help were ignored – AND why was the Ambassador at Benghazi without protection (arms running).
  2. A/P, Fox, CBS – phones tapped without so much as a court order.
  3. Fast & Furious – Arms given to Drug Cartels in Mexico.
  4. IRS Commissioner visited White House 118 times, harassed Tea Party and Religious groups.

    Barack Obama, as your President states he knew nothing.

Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State states she knew nothing .

Eric Holder, as Department of Justice states he knew nothing.

WHY?

Those responsible for knowing report directly to the President.

If the President and his appointed posts knew nothing, what are they doing?
I know Mr. Obama plays a lot of golf, goes on a lot of vacations, and entertains.
I do not begrudge Mr. Obama of what he believes are normal Presidential activities.
BUT,

–          WHO is running the U. S. Government, if not the President?

–          WHO is running the Department of Justice, if not Eric Holder and the President?

–          WHO was taking care of threats we received regarding 9/11 and Benghazi in our State Department  – A Day that does live in infamy – and threats would be naturally heightened and important to pay attention to, if not Hillary Clinton and the President?

–          WHO has been shamed and fired for crimes against the American citizens?

WHY HASN’T CONGRESS IMPEACHED THESE PEOPLE?

  • AT THE VERY LEAST THEY ARE IMPOSTERS.
  • SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE ROAD, THEY ARE INCOMPETENT.
  • AT THE VERY WORST THEY HAVE COMMITTED TREASON.

No matter which way you slice this, it is bad for the American People.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,