Misnomer of the Day

Of lately, the political buzz phrase that has
captured the attention of the MSM, is Unintended Consequences. This
misnomer is contrived to deceive the naive who walk among us. Politicians to
frequently use it as a get out of jail free card, which they cast out as a smug
way of saying they are sorry for the inherent bad consequences surrounding
their failure to craft good policy with poor judgment.

It is a phrase tailored for pragmatists who make
arbitrary decisions based on subjective whims for immediate gratification. All
actions have consequences. Good consequences are always intended and are readily
claimed by those responsible. Unintended consequences are bad consequences
period. Pleading ignorance and calling a bad consequence unintended doesn’t
mitigate the damage, yet that is exactly how the phrase has been manipulated by
the American politic. Those bureaucrats and politicians’ who lack critical
thinking skills (assessing various outcomes based on reality, over a period of
time) should be held accountable for the havoc they reap.

This exemplifies America’s pragmatic foreign policy
failures over the last fifty years. Libya is a sterling example; whereby a
president circumvented congress to kill a dictator and topple a regime, while pleading
humanitarian sympathy. Dropping bombs on a sovereign country is an act of war
which compounded the humanitarian crisis. Toppling a dictator in the name of
democracy empowered a mob of terrorist whom promptly declared Sharia the law of
the land. Terrorists whom now fly an al-Qaida flag over Benghazi, while
smuggling thousands of handheld surface to air missiles to Hamas. This is not the
work of critical thinking. This is our state department at its finest.

Oooops! Who would have thought this could happen? We
are reminded, “This is the unintended consequence of democracy.” The Third Reich
was also the unintended consequence of democracy.


Where are the Arabs?

Where are the Arabs, these so called rebels, who are fighting for freedom in Libya? It has been days since American forces bombed Libyan air defenses establishing a no fly zone. So where are these rebels, and why aren’t they fighting Gaddafi loyalists to retake the ground previously lost in battle? Who are these rebels and what faction of Islam do they represent?

 According to the CIA, the rebel opposition in Libya is mujahideen and El-Qaeda, the same ragtag Islamic ideologues and terrorist who support the Jihad and fought the soviets in Afghanistan back in the 1980s. Back then, the American government armed the rebels with weapons and intelligence, and after the soviets abandoned Afghanistan, the same rebels turned the weapons on each other in feudal civil war. Later, many of these armaments were turned against the west in numerous acts of aggression and terror.

 If we have learned anything: Arab Muslims can’t be trusted. Take the Arab League of Nations for example; they implored the international community, United Nations, and the United States to implement a no fly zone over Libya, then, once the bombs started dropping, they rushed to condemn the Unites States for attacking the Libyan military with air strikes. Where are these Arabs? Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, these countries have militaries and should be leading the charge in Libya.

 It seems these shiftless Arabs are waiting for an Iraqi solution, one where the United States bound by a foreign policy predicated on (Just War Theory), do all the heavy lifting, capturing or killing Gaddafi, paving the way for the next Islamic totalitarian theocracy to be ushered into power under the hoax of democracy. Maybe, if the war is protracted enough, Obama can rebuild the power grid and infrastructure of Libya, redistributing more of America’s wealth and blood in the process. We all know how the Obama administration hates to squander a good crisis.

Let’s Not Forget Iran

When contemplating war in the Middle East it is essential to identify the enemy. Before assigning American treasure and blood to attacking sovereign nations with cruise missiles, one should have good reason for declaring war. Choosing sides in a civil war is not in the best interests of the United States, nor its people. Now that the damage is done, this pragmatic administration scrambles to rationalize its illogical behavior, we are told this is a humanitarian mission to protect the citizenry (Islamic Koran waving Arabs), in Libya from dictatorial oppression. We are also reminded to the point of redundancy that Muammar Gaddafi has committed acts of terrorism in the past, and that somehow, this is payback. This indecisive act of war is so wrong, for so many reasons a deaf, blind, mute could lecture on the unforeseen consequences of this blunder.

 Let us not forget the true enemy is, and always has been Iran. While Gaddafi was committing acts of terror against Americans, Theocratic Iran was committing acts of war against the United States. If one juxtaposes the two hostiles we discover Gaddafi bombed a commercial jet liner over Lockerby Scotland killing civilians (an act of terrorism), meanwhile Iran was seizing an American embassy taking diplomat hostages (an act of war). While Gaddafi was bombing a nightclub in Berlin (an act of terrorism) Iran was bombing an army barracks in Beirut killing American soldiers (an act of war). While Libya was abandoning its nuclear ambitions, Iran was escalated theirs, vowing to use nuclear weapons on Israel and the West.

 While Libya was forsaking its terrorist ways, Iran was sponsoring terrorism around the world, and to this day supplies the opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan with intelligence and weaponry that kill American soldiers on two battle fronts (a blatant act of war against the United States). Yet, the Obama administration chooses to declare war on Libya for “humanitarian reasons”, abdicating America’s constitution and sovereignty to the whims of the United Nations.

 This is wrong (not to mention unconstitutional), for America to choose sides in a civil war, that has nothing to do with American national security or prosperity. We have no financial interest in Libya with the exception of squandering American fortune and blood.

 This is just another attempt at nation building which happens to be an American foreign policy mandate, one Obama has recently relegated to the United Nations for their disposal. This raises a serious question: with so much civil strife in the world, who is next? Why not commit American forces to the Sudan, the Congo, Serbia or Chechnya. Let us not forget, Iran commits these same human rights atrocities with impunity, killing those who oppose the theocracy.

 Iran is the enemy that threatens the world, promoting their brutal, medieval theocracy of totalitarian oppression, threatening to destroy civilization as we know it. The Obama administration continues to bury its head in the sand, unwilling to identify the true enemy in our midst while continuing its perverted social experiment, redistributing American wealth in a futile attempt to liberate a hostile, feudal society, consecrated in violent mysticism, a feudal society that demonizes freedom, individual rights and capitalism as the vices of infidels.

Enter the Theocrats

Democrats and republicans alike are culpable for America’s failed foreign policy in the Middle East. Now they are trying (with their media accomplices) to project the uprising in Egypt as a plea for freedom by the Egyptian people crying out for democracy. The people of Egypt know not freedom or democracy; they do however, know religious zealotry. Egypt is governed by a supposed president and parliament under the pretense of a republic complete with a constitution. In reality it is an oligarchy which resembles dictatorial totalitarianism.

The civil unrest in the streets of Cairo is fueled by Islamic totalitarianism, seeking to over through a socialist dictatorial regime and replace it with theocratic socialist regime. In actuality, we are witnessing the evolution of totalitarianism, whereby warring factions fight for control of the state, and like a street fight, the victor will be the one who escalates the violence, and in this case it will most likely be the Islamic Brotherhood or an offshoot thereof.

 This begs the question why have we propped up a dictator for thirty years with taxpayer dollars; why do we, asupposed free nation, support totalitarian regimes with taxpayer dollars. Eventually all dictatorships fail; socialism begets more socialism, the cast of characters change but the outcome is always the same: violence, corruption, despotism, and political oppression, these are the byproducts of a police state; these are the tools of socialism.

The real criminality is watching America’s political leaders compound our failed foreign policy, with more foreign policy failures, claiming Mubarak was not a dictator, portraying the rioters as freedom fighters, extolling the virtues of Al Jazeera Media. Claiming Islam is a peaceful religion, claiming the terrorists are isolated fanatics acting at random, apart from Islamic ideology. And the pathological lie of the day: that the civil unrest in Egypt is caused by people seeking freedom and democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 It is so disingenuous for politicians and the liberal media to advocate that we are witnessing freedom and democracy in action. It is America’s foreign policy failures that empower our enemies; spreading democracy in the Middle East has delivered us Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic socialism in Iran. In Iraq we toppled a dictator only to replace him with a parliament of Islamic fundamentalists.

 Egypt is a politically vacuous nation awaiting a succession of socialist, ushered into office under the guise of freedom and democracy; it will undoubtedly be heralded by American politicians as a triumph of the human spirit, another victory for freedom.

The Referendum Against Pragmatism

November 2nd has been touted as a referendum against President Obama, the democratic congress, and senate. Peel the onion back a little more and one will discover the true referendum was against pragmatism. It is pragmatic deceit perpetrated by a ruling class of liberals that Americans oppose; it is pragmatism with its antithetical view of reality, and associated consequences, that Americans fear as dangerous.

 Most Americans find moral guidance through religious doctrine, yet many remain philosophically bereft. They know something is dreadfully wrong in Washington, but they struggle to diagnose the political maelstrom that afflicts this nation.

 Consider this example of pragmatism; upon leaving her position as house speaker, Nancy (we have to first pass the bill to find out what’s in it) Pelosi, touted her liberal accomplishments as meritorious: passage of Obama Care, Don’t ask Don’t tell, and the ratification of START, all of which are fraught with hazard and opposed by a majority of Americans who are already straddled with insurmountable government debt, and 9.8% unemployment. But to a pragmatic Pelosi, her unpopular accomplishments moved this nation one step closer to the liberal goal of socialist utopia.

 Pragmatism with its essential tools: prudence, practicality, and political expediency, is immoral; it leads to capricious subjectivism. Show me any individual who lacks philosophical moral guidance, and I will show you a pragmatist; someone who believes reality is malleable and subject to their whimsical logic. For example, one may rob a liquor store at gunpoint. For the gunman, the practical thing to do is kill the clerk, rather than have that person pick them out of a police line up at a later date. In reality, one human being has killed another because it was the prudent thing to do at the time; the causality is someone has lost a loved one to violence, and the ramifications of this act will impact many lives indefinitely.

 Here is another illustration. A financial planner seeking wealth, power and lifestyle, devises a Ponzi scheme to swindle clients and acquaintances. It is both prudent and expedient for them to amass as much wealth as possible, stash it off shore, live lavishly in the moment, and should they get caught, do the time and emerge from prison a millionaire. In reality they have stolen fortune from businesses and families, leaving some bankrupt and destitute, leaving others to contemplate suicide, and the causation of this pragmatic act, cascades forward for generations.

 In the political realm, pragmatism is much more pernicious. Pragmatic politicians have buried our nation with insurmountable debt, brought economic destruction on the private sector, demolished our foreign policy and replaced liberty with socialist tyranny. They create class warfare and institutionalize divisive racism.  They lavish, favor on one special interest group while looting another, placing political expediency over objective reality. The moral implications of political pragmatism are the tangible lost of our republic and civilization as we know it.

Politically Correct Psychosis

In the high profile trial of Brian David Mitchell, Elizabeth Smart gave startling testimony about how her abductor evaded capture in Salt Lake City, Utah. Apparently, a homicide detective happened across two veiled women outside a public restroom at a library. When the detective instructed Ms. Smart to drop her vale, Mitchell intervened rebuking the officer on the grounds of religious freedom.

 Mitchell had hidden his hostage’s identity behind a veil of cloth, which enabled him to parade her in plain sight. The officer, obviously intimidated by political correctness, let Mitchell and his accomplice leave unmolested with Elizabeth Smart their captive. It’s troubling how a dangerous criminal can evoke religious freedom and abscond from justice in this country. This example is particularly disturbing considering Mitchell’s convoluted idea that religion involves kidnapping, rape, and torture, basically the utter destruction of someone else’s individual rights. Mitchell’s perverse religious ideology shares a common theme predominant in all religion; that is mysticism is superior to reason.

 Like the police officer who abandoned reason and logic, subjugating his mind to the superiority of a criminal’s mysticism. The cultural elitist of our country have elevated mysticism over the superiority of mans mind. They bludgeon our intellect with the politically correct doctrine of tolerance. Tolerance we are instructed is the moral ideal of our time. Tolerance commands we abort reason for we dare not identify the evil amongst us. It commands we suspend all judgment and refrain from conceptualizing right from wrong, for a belief in mysticism, no matter how illogical, corrupt, or vile, takes precedence over mans rational mind.

 One should be reminded of the war of civilizations being waged against us and the world by the radical nation of Islam. Time and time again the politically correct remind us that denouncing a religion that enslaves women and children which negates mans rights while simultaneously putting all non-conformist to death is not in our best interest.

 Nowhere is this irrational mindset more prevalent than on the battle fields of the Middle East. The politically correct have perverted democracy to enhance Islamic totalitarianism. There the word freedom is used synonymously with jihad. Murder and oppression are elevated to a virtue in the name of religion, in the name of mysticism.

 Here in the free world people who harbor fugitives are brought to trial and punished. If you are cognizant of a murder and don’t report it, you may stand trial for conspiracy. Should you give a murderer safe harbor you are guilty of aiding and abetting. However, on the battle fields of Afghanistan aiding and abetting go unpunished. Civilians provide safe harbor for our enemies with impunity. Over there you can bear arms against American forces one minute, then drop your gun and walk away a civilian the next. And should one loose their life while aiding and abetting the enemy they are considered civilian casualties of war, victims in the eyes of the world. Over there the enemy is free use their mosques to stock pile weapons and perpetrate acts of terror with impunity, all in the name of religious zealotry, all in the name of mysticism.

 It should be noted that a benevolent religion doesn’t kill those opposed to their brand of mysticism. A benevolent religion is one that promotes the individual rights of man. A benevolent religion doesn’t enslave mans mind, or claim self sacrifice as a moral ideal.

 Whether it is a church of one, as is in Brain David Mitchell’s case or a congregation of millions. Any form of mysticism that negates mans rights, negates mans rational mind, and elevates the promise of sacrifice and death as virtuous is no religion. It is nothing more than a cult of death, and takes no precedence over man’s intellect.

The Moral War

In order to examine American foreign policy, it is imperative to examine the morality of war. A moral war is one fought in self-defense. This could be to defend our national sovereignty, or to protect the citizens of the United States from foreign aggressions. These aforementioned conditions include threats of aggression from hostile regimes, in which case, preemption would be a moral option for self-defense. A moral war is one that holds victory its primary objective.

 The last moral war this government fought was with feudal Japan during World War II. Destroying Nazi Germany’s quest for world domination, ethnic cleansing and eugenic tampering, was indeed a moral endeavor; however, Japan is the perfect example of how to fight and win a moral war.

 Back then we had the intellectual capacity to identify the enemy, its strengths and weaknesses, along with its enabling enemy population that not only supported the regime, but spread the ideology of imperialism. Back then we knew the key to victory was the total destruction of the aggressor nation, its political structure, its infrastructure, and the will of the enabling masses that supported the ideology of imperialism. Back then, we fought to win.

 We bombed temples, schools, and hospitals, we allowed no safe haven. This aggressive campaign destroyed their country, crushing the will of the people to fight and support their hostile ideology. And when the Japanese wanted a conditional surrender, our foreign policy advisors realized that would result in a long and bloody protracted war on foreign soil, costing thousands of American military lives, and quiet possibly, end in a resurgence of the regime, inevitably handing us defeat. So we did the morally expedient thing; we dropped two atomic bombs. This saved the lives of thousands of American servicemen and women. This remains a sterling example of how to fight and win a war based on the moral prerogative of self preservation.

 Today we are engaged in an immoral war with battle lines drawn in Iraq and Afghanistan. This war is immoral because we do not seek victory. This administration has yet to even identify the enemy. We are told by today’s leaders, the enemy is al-Qaida and the Taliban, granted these are enemy factions; they are just splinter groups, tentacles of a much larger monster. The real enemy, our leaders fail to identify is the radical nation of Islam, or Islamic Totalitarianism. The Nations that harbor this monster, train and arm militias and fund terrorism around the world, spreading the Islamic ideology of Jihad, is Iran and Saudi Arabia.

 The Iraq war is immoral because we invaded a country not to defend our freedom, not to ensure safety for America and its people, but to spread democracy. Our service men and women have died in Iraq so the Muslim people of Iraq could vote themselves Islamic Fundamentalism. We have taken radical Islam out of the shadows and alley ways and empowered them in the new parliamentary government of Iraq. This act of democracy has legitimized radical Islam, emboldening the terrorists that threaten the foundation of our civilization.

 This war is immoral. Instead of defeating the enemy we have elevated them with rights and privileges which is the corner stone of America’s Just War Theory. It is this failed intellectual strategy that now dominates our nations foreign policy. Observe the three navy seals now facing court-martial for capturing the murdering terrorist Ahmed Hasham Abed, who incidentally busted his lip during apprehension and cried foul. This spurred the state department into action, condemning our own servicemen over the perceived rights of the enemy. Or more recently, the Christmas Day air line bomber who was Mirandized and allowed to lawyer up, halting our efforts to gain valuable intelligence of impending attacks, thwarting our ability to keep Americans safe. Imagine for a moment, you’re a soldier on the battlefield, but you are apprehensive to use your weapon, for to kill or injure the enemy may buy you a life sentence in Leavenworth back in the states. This is the immorality of American foreign policy today.

 Instead of killing the enemy we are building them roads and power grids, hospitals and schools. We are squandering our nation’s fortune, impoverishing future generations to lift a tribal people (who despise us) out of poverty. We do this with the arcane hope that if enough sacrifice is made, if enough American blood is spilled and enough fortune squanderd, these thugs who danced in the streets on 9/11 will embrace us and abandon their religious fervor for conquest. This is the immoral war we wage with the same ineptitude in Afghanistan.

 This war is immoral because victory is not, nor was it ever the goal. The goal was to improve the lives of the Iraqi citizens based on the neoconservative ideology of Just War Theory. This Social Service War is founded on a creed of altruism and self sacrifice. This war with its various front lines is not only unwinnable, but will eventually end in Americas defeat at a price paid in American blood and fortune.

 End notes:

1 Winning the Unwinnable War (Elan Journo)