Political correctness is in the air, and fear of the truth is everywhere. In the aftermath of the recent attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, President Obama went out of his way not to use the word “terrorism” to describe the massacre. And for good reason, the fantasy that there is no “war on terror” is one of the quintessential cogs in the left’s governing apparatus. Without which, all the other gears in their machine will not turn. It shall be interesting to watch the president and his administration scramble to blame the military and the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for this incident. They will blame everyone…except those responsible.

In fact, the Fort Hood shooting is the first successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11. But Obama, his hands soiled with the responsibility of dis-assembling Bush era protections against such attacks, is attempting make it look like a run-of-the-mill maniac with a gun shooting. The politicization of the massacre was swift and sure as the FBI, within hours of the shootings, decried that this was not terrorist related even before FBI agents arrived at the scene.

Ever the loyal sycophants, the media too has been downplaying any relationship to the attacker, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, to organized terror groups. But alas, not only do such connections exist, they are damning:

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother’s funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations. -The London Telegraph

It is a shame that one has to consult foreign journalists to get an honest assessment of such critical elements of this story. This man was a follower of the same Imam as several of the 9/11 attackers. Some would say this alone qualifies as a reason to look for a possible terrorist link. Yet, as always, there is more:

Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree. As investigators look at Hasan’s motives and mindset, his attendance at the mosque could be an important piece of the jigsaw. Al-Awlaki moved to Dar al-Hijrah as imam in January, 2001, from the west coast, and three months later the September 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour began attending his services. A third hijacker attended his services in California.

Hasan was praying at Dar al-Hijrah at about the same time, and the FBI will now want to investigate whether he met the two terrorists. Charles Allen, a former under-secretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, has described al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, as an “al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers… who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen”.

Last night Hasan remained in a coma under guard at a military hospital in San Antonio, Texas, and was said to be in a “stable” condition. Born in America to a Palestinian family, Hasan, 39, was an army psychiatrist who had chosen to sign up for the US military against his parents’ wishes. But he turned into an angry critic of the wars America was waging in Iraq and Afghanistan and had tried in vain to negotiate his discharge.

He counselled soldiers returning from the front line and told relatives that he was horrified at the prospect of a deployment to Afghanistan later this year – his first time in a combat zone. Whether due to his personal convictions, his stress over his deployment or other reasons, Hasan is alleged to have snapped and gone on a murderous rampage with a powerful semi-automatic handgun after shouting “Allahu Akhbar” (“God is great”), according to survivors. He had earlier given away copies of the Koran to neighbours. -The London Telegraph

Major Nidal Malik Hasan screamed “Allahu Akhbar” and began a shooting massacre that killed 13 soldiers and wounded 30 more. The fact that he acted alone would not make him any less of a terrorist. Lone suicide bombers are the norm in most Islamic terrorist attacks. That Hasan was a trained soldier would certainly make the use of firearms a somewhat more reasonable method of operation. The difference between a stressed out or delusional psychopath and a terrorist is political motivation and the political motivation is certain. Also certain is the unfortunate fact that Major Hasan had been communicating recently with his former Imam, Anwar al-Awlahi who currently resides in Yemen and acts as a recruiter for…Al-Qaeda!

His “Allahu Akhbar” declarations would certainly indicate that he was motivated by the Islamic fanatacism that Obama and his media bootlickers are bending over backwards to deny. This, of course, recalls President Clinton’s deliberate and misleading response to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Like all democrats, he viewed the bombing as a merely a crime, promising to find those guilty and punish them, rather than to attack the international groups that funded and enabled them. We have come full circle to the delusional world of leftist fools who act as though 9/11 never happened. Which, of course, only guarantees something equally disastrous will happen again.

Many people, including myself, have lamented and warned that the the weakening of Bush administration anti-terrorist policies would leave us vulnerable to be attacked again. Now it has happened and our president, fully believing that the only enemy to the United States is the American people, is doing everything he can to delegitimize the terrorist threat in order keep his domestic political agenda front and center. Depriving Americans of their liberties through the confiscation of the health care system and redistributing U.S. sovereignty and wealth through a fraudulent carbon-tax scheme supercedes defending the nation and its antiquated constitution in his eyes.

Lets face it, when the U.S. military is targeted within our own borders, our enemies do NOT fear us. As certainly as the October 12, 2000 attack on the USS Cole was a warning that our Islamic enemies were not impressed with America’s ability to thwart their actions, so too is Major Hasan’s attack on Fort Hood a precursor to an even greater and imminent attack. They our watching our for our response. What will it be?

The soldiers killed in this vicious attack were murdered by the president and his follower’s allegiance to the myths of tolerance, diversity and political correctness. As I have documented in previous writings, many of our soldiers are killed by people masquerading as their friends and allies. It is perhaps an unavoidable reality when an Iraqi soldier who goes into battle with Americans suddenly reveals his true allegiance by turning and firing on our soldiers. You cannot tell who is a jihadist just by looking at them. Al Qaeda has long encouraged infiltration into the foolishly politically correct West. However, this killer was no surprise:

In the months leading to Thursday’s shooting spree that left 13 people dead and 29 others wounded, Hasan raised eyebrows with comments that the war on terror was “a war on Islam” and wrestled with what to tell fellow Muslim solders who had their doubts about fighting in Islamic countries. “The system is not doing what it’s supposed to do,” said Dr. Val Finnell, who complained to administrators at a military university about what he considered Hasan’s “anti-American” rants. “He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out.”

Finnell studied with Hasan from 2007-2008 in the master’s program in public health at the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., where Hasan persistently complained about perceived anti-Muslim sentiment in the military and injected his politics into courses where they had no place. “In retrospect, I’m not surprised he did it,” Finnell said of the shootings. “I had real questions about what his priorities were, what his beliefs were.” -Associated Press

It’s called “discrimination,” and it is exactly what was called for here. Too many people hold onto foolish ideas of tolerance and political correctness and those are the very things that led to this massacre. The saddest part of this story is the revelation that many soldiers who heard the rantings of this Islamic supremacist dared not report what they knew in fear of being labeled a bigot and accused of discrimination. Even worse the Secretary of the Army had this to say after the tragedy:

“I’m concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that. There are about 3,000 Muslims on active duty military service or in the National Guard or reserve forces, They remain a small minority within the U.S. military.” -General George Casey

WHAT!!!!! A fully indoctrinated Islamic supremacist infiltrates the United States Army and kills American soldiers and the army’s top general goes on every major Sunday news show to say he fears a “backlash” against the one thousand Muslim soldiers who currently serve? If there is one group of people who have shown they can keep a level head in these situations it is those serving in our military. We need to stick to the issue at hand instead of fabricating a “backlash” that has not and will not happen. In fact, we need to act in a way that will protect our soldiers from the “backlashes” of future turncoats.

In WW II our ancestors had the wisdom to disallow American’s of Japanese descent from serving in the Japanese theater, and even went so far as to imprison many until their backgrounds could be investigated during the early stages of the war. Obama and his ilk look down on these decisions as discriminatory and bigoted, yet it was entirely reasonable given the suddenness of the Japanese attack and the problems inherent with diverse and multicultural societies.

I tell you we are NOT better than our ancestors. We are weakened by political correctness because we haven’t had the courage to question Muslims in our society…and we are paying for it. It may be true that not every Muslim is a terrorist in waiting, and many are perfectly loyal Americans. But Major Hasan wasn’t, and it doesn’t take a psychological degree to see that he was a threat. What more could he have done to draw attention to himself? Declare war on America? Obama has done that!

Major Hasan was definitely wrong about one thing. Presidents Bush and Obama have gone out of their way to make it clear that the “War on Terror” was NOT a war on Islam. That is why it is doomed to fail. Too many ignorant people inflate their opinion of themselves and their intellect by accepting a foolish moral equivalency of Islam with other religions, particularly Christianity. It is a fool’s lie. Islam is at war with us and has been for 1200 years. It only understands dominance and submission. Tolerance to Islam is dangerous. Thanks to Nadal Hasan, we have learned that lesson yet again. Therefore, what we need is an open declaration of “War on Islam.” Political correctness be damned! Islam is not compatible with Western Civilization. Muslims know this, why do we insist on accepting tolerance, diversity, equality and political correctness mythology? They are all false gods.

“Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what [Hasan] has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.” -Anwar al-Awlaki’s response to the massacre

Discrimination. Its what people do…when they KNOW better. How long does it take for some people to learn?

And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” [John 8:32].

There is a belief that permeates our legal system. It is the idea that the truth is an absolute defense in all things. Well, it turns out this old judicial truth may not be true after all. “The times they are a changin,” and not for the better! The greatest test Western Civilization will face is happening now in the Netherlands as the truth is actually on trial. The mere fact that this trial is happening is a great victory for all those who oppose freedom, let alone what the consequences will be for the outcome…

Islam film Dutch MP to be charged (BBC News)
A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements. Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
“In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to… draw a clear line,” the court in Amsterdam said.

Mr Wilders said the judgement was an “attack on the freedom of expression. Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted,” he said. Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the “Islamisation” of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned. “Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?” he added.

Who indeed? In March of 2008 Geert Wilders posted a short film that he made called “Fitna.” Fitna is an Islamic term meaning “strife.” Predictably this film was called an abomination and an offense to Islam even though there is not one false statement presented. The film featured quotes from the Qu’ran dubbed over video of actual scenes of these verses being brought to their full and violent fruition. Mr Wilders even had the audacity to compare the Qu’ran to Hitler’s famous book “Mein Kampf” and likened Islam to Nazism. Gee, I wonder where he got that idea…

“Muslims responded to the call of Muslim leaders and joined our side because of their hatred of our joint Jewish-English-Bolshevik enemies, and because of their belief and respect for, above all — Our Fuehrer.” - Heinrich Himmler

“…a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” - Adolf Hitler

That truth stuff sure does get in the way of a good hate crimes prosecution doesn’t it? One might even call it…”inconvenient!” The two leading Nazi’s of the Third Reich are not only endorsing Islam with all of its Jew-hating consistencies with their own regime, but also, as clearly pointed out by Himmler, noting the fact that Islamic nations did ally themselves with the Nazi cause. So how are they going to prosecute Mr. Wilders for telling the truth? Well, obviously there has to be a higher authority. Something, or someone, whose interests outweigh the value of spreading TRUE information throughout a society. Reckon what that could be?

The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders’s “one-sided generalisations…which can amount to inciting hatred” against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians. The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs.”
The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders,” it added.

“This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism - Gerard Spong, lawyer

So there you have it. “Offensive” speech is now a prosecutable offense. Never mind that the offending speech is all true or the offended are all guilty. The complaint alleges it is “one sided,” and of course, it just happens to be the provably true side. Nevertheless Muslims have been offended and everything must be done to ease their inability to handle the truth. Offensive speech a.k.a. “hate speech” is the natural and necessary by-product of the foolish concept known as a hate crime. The idea of punishing people for “insulting” religious beliefs is exactly what Islamic countries have been practicing within their own societies and have long been clamouring for similar laws in the West. They desire that Western nations adopt blasphemy laws and stop the “defamation” of Islam. Defamation being defined as saying anything they decide they don’t like, which can and often does, include the simple act of repeating their own words.

There are, of course, limits to free speech, such as calls for violence but one doesn’t have to agree with Mr. Wilders to realize that he hasn’t even approached that line. In fact, he is only guilty of reporting the violent actions of Muslims. Some Muslims say they are outraged by his statements, but why are they not equally outraged by the violence done in the name of Islam? It seems their outrage would be better spent persecuting the actions of their own people rather than wasting it on the righteous condemnation of those act by others. They make a controversial issue about the speech while ignoring the action that is the subject of that speech. Nonetheless, if freedom of speech has any meaning, it must apply to the freedom of controversial speech. Non-controversial speech needs no protection. Without the right of free speech, all the other freedoms we cherish will soon perish.

For his part, Geert Wilders is convinced he has already been convicted and will go to prison:

“The decision of the court today was so strong that there is a real chance unfortunately that there will be a guilty verdict. In fact, it was so bluntly motivated that it already looks like a verdict instead of just ordering the public prosecutor to start a trial. I lost my freedom already four and a half years ago in October 2004, when my 24-hour police protection started because of threats by Muslims in Holland and abroad to kill me. So of course I don’t want to go to jail as a criminal, but I don’t fear losing my freedom since I already lost my freedom in 2004.” - Geert Wilders

And yet, this is not an isolated incident:

Vienna - Austrian far-right parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted Thursday of incitement because of her anti-Muslim statements, including the claim that Islam’s prophet Mohammed was a paedophile. A court in Winter’s home town of Graz also found the 51-year-old politician guilty of humiliating a religion. She was sentenced to a fine of 24,000 euros (31,000 dollars) euros and a suspended prison term of three months, Austrian news agency APA reported.

The politician, who took a seat in parliament last fall for the Freedom Party (FPOe), made the anti-Islamic remarks in January 2008. She also proposed in a discussion with students that Muslim men should commit bestiality rather than making “indecent advances” on girls. The politician had pleaded innocent Thursday, claiming that she “did not want to insult anyone, but only to point out problems.” The verdict is not yet legally binding.

Once again the truth was not allowed to be a defense. Muhammad’s consummation of his marriage with his wife Aisha is in the Hadith collection, Bukhari, several times. Of course you will remember that the girl was NINE YEARS OLD at the time of this consummation. Muslims consider Muhammad to be their “perfect example” and take emulating his behavior very seriously. How seriously you ask? Well consider the case of the infamous Ayatollah Khomeini. The leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran married a ten year old girl when he was twenty eight. Of course he didn’t call it pedophilia. No, he referred to it as a “Divine Blessing.”

“Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” - Ayatolla Khomeini

It will probably come as no surprise to learn that the the legal age for marriage in Iran is nine for girls and fourteen for boys. Where do you suppose that magic number of nine years old came from? One could call Iran a pedophiles paradise. Certainly a Westerner speaking in a Western country should not be convicted of “incitement” for pointing out that the values of Islamic civilization are in conflict with the values of our own, especially when the “incitement” consists of citing examples from Islam’s own accepted traditional writings. Yet here it stands as another example of Western culture bending over and grabbing our ankles while the ever uncompromising ambassadors of Islam proudly mount us saying: “who’s your daddy?” Is our only response always going to be the infamous Kevin Bacon line from the Animal House movie? (Thank you sir, may I have another)

You are probably thinking to yourselves that this could never happen here. Perhaps President Obama would even be willing to grant Geert Wilders political asylum in America. After all, do we in America not have an absolute right to free speech as granted by the first amendment to the Constitution? Well don’t be so sure about that. Our new president is a “sensitive” sort of fellow to the feelings of certain groups of people, particularly those who like to fabricate the illusion of their own victim-hood, as is evidenced by the official White House website:

President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section.

Uh oh. There are those words again. Hate Crimes. As if there are any other kind. This is the kind of nonsense that leads to “incitement” laws prohibiting offensive speech. Slowly but surely, every group of people who perceives themselves as having been aggrieved by someone else seeks to have themselves added to the list of those “protected” classes of citizens who shall not be offended. You might as well call them “blasphemy laws” because Muslims will use them to stifle all criticism of their religion just as surely as the homosexuals will use them to repulse the condemnation of their deviant lifestyle. However you can be certain that speech offending Christians and Jews will somehow find a way to be excluded from such protections. We wouldn’t want to stifle all the “artistic creativity” in Hollywood now would we? Their freedom to mock all things decent, traditional and Judeo-Christian must not be infringed!

How is it you can be charged with offending someone’s beliefs, even as those very beliefs insult you and everything you stand for? Whenever we hear the words ‘human rights’ in connection with Islam, we are repeatedly confronted with ugly opportunism that spits in the face of real and genuine human rights and insults everyone’s intelligence. They get away with saying one thing to us while saying something entirely different and considerably more unsavory amongst themselves. We should not be expected to respect an ideology that doesn’t respect us. Be very clear about this: Islam respects nobody. It claims the right to dominate. Our portion is OBEDIANCE. They have not been shy about making that clear:

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth” - Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations)

It could be fairly said that I have a somewhat biased view on the issues of free/hate speech. After all, I am guilty of exactly the same crime as Geert Wilders. The Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD essentially does the same thing as Mr. Wilders movie Fitna. There are direct quotes from Muslims and the Qu’ran and an intentional linking of Muslim words to violent Muslim actions. I even went as far as to construct the lyrics of one song, God Given Right, entirely out of very offensive statements made by very offensive Muslims. However if Fitna or BMO’s “Axis Of Evil” are to be considered “hate speech” and guilty of the crime of “incitement,” might the same also be said of the Qu’ran itself or Muslim clerics like Omar Ahmed? Isn’t it amusing how much you can get away with if you simply claim yourself to be oppressed?

It does worry me that the first major interview our new President has done was with Al Arabiya, where he went out of his way to pacify the sensitivities of the Islamic world. It makes me wonder how far he is willing to go to placate them. These are dark days for the West if we don’t stand against Islam’s desire to remain beyond criticism. “Tolerance” and “multiculturalism” may seem like noble pursuits to some people but there is one group of people who have never and will never acquiesce to such ideas…Muslims. They can’t. Although the very act of saying that may soon be a prosecutable offense here too! Incitement crimes are coming to America! Still don’t believe me? Observe this:

The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill. The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations”.

Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse. Many credible forecasters have predicted riots and rebellions in America that will dwarf those already witnessed in countries like Iceland and Greece.

With active duty military personnel already being stationed inside the U.S. under Northcom, partly for purposes of “crowd control,” fears that Americans could be incarcerated in detainment camps are all too real. (PrisonPlanet.com)

There is coming a time when Americans will be locking away people who say things that incite others in the name of “crowd control.” Freedom of speech is a dying principle. Such “emergency centers” are an ideal place to locate the incorrigible dissenters who fail to quietly follow the edicts of this, or any, administration. Dissent, which we were told was patriotic when Bush was President can now be seen as “incitement.” A wonderful method for making sure that everyone accedes to the will of the new Socialist Godhead that is Messiah Obama. It begins by failing to uphold the right of someone to offend someone else with simple words. It ends with the incarceration, or worse, of all those who dare oppose the all powerful state. What is happening to Geert Wilders in The Netherlands is going to come here.

Perhaps there is a place being prepared for me in one of President Obama’s new gulags. Guantonemo Bay may not be closed down after all. We will just change the kind of people we incarcerate there! If we do not act to restrain the coming speech codes soon, there are going to be a lot of you in there with me. But hey, at least we will get to meet Rush Limbaugh! The President has actually went so far as mentioning him by name. How long will it be before he decides he has to do something about all of us who won’t go along with his social engineering ideas. Hate speech and incitement laws are a fine way to get rid of us.

There has, of late, been a glut of left leaning writers and speakers condemning the “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive war as an immoral, if not illegal, act. Many have even gone so far as to demand that articles of impeachment be initiated against him for “war crimes” for attacking Iraq under what they claim were “false pretenses.” Not the least of the president’s critics is Senator Barack Obama, the presidential nominee for the democratic party. Senator Obama claims that he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Fortunately for him, Illinois state legislatures don’t actually get to vote on such matters and therefore he didn’t actually have to take his position on record. If he had, one wonders if he would have opposed it the same as he did the recent FISA bill. Which is to say he opposed it right up until the point that he voted in favor of it. His recent rhetoric on Iraq suggests he will say whatever you want him to say.

The war in Iraq was initiated for several reasons. Failure to abide by the treaty that ended the first Gulf War, in and of itself, was a valid justification to go in and finish off the regime of Saddam Hussein, let alone the matter of 17 violations of United Nation mandates. After all, President Clinton wasn’t flinging cruise missiles into Iraq late in his administration for no reason now was he? However the opponents of the Iraq war have always focused on President Bush’s belief that the regime of Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, as well as an intent to use them. This is the reason most people believe the U.S. attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq in a preemptive war, to prevent any possibility of future Iraqi aggression.

You can argue whether or not the basis for the president’s decision was justified. He had many sources of information claiming that Hussein possessed these weapons, even though the treaty that he signed at the end of the first gulf war forbade him to have them. Not only did our own Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) believe that it was a “slam dunk” (their actual words) that he had them, but also the intelligence agencies from several other countries corroborated this information. These included countries such as France and Russia who opposed the idea of the United States taking military action. This combined with the fact that Saddam Hussein had previously used chemical weapons against his own citizens in 1988 rightly convinced President Bush that in a post 9/11 world, military action was required.

It is true that no “working” weapons of mass destruction were found. It is also true that 500 tons of yellow cake uranium, the kind used to make such weapons, were found. So arguments can be made to justify or criticize the president’s actions. Yet the question of the morality of a preemptive war still haunts many of our countrymen. There is a certainty among many that it is never right for the United States to strike first. However, in a world confronted with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, this is a matter of judgement…a very important attribute for a president. Consider these words from Barack Obama:

“When people talk about experience, what they really want to know is: does he have good judgment? You would hope that if someone has more experience it gives them better judgment. But everyone knows many 50-, 60-, and 70-year olds who don’t have good judgment because they keep making the same mistakes over and over again. What we want to talk about is judgement, common sense, and how we get stuff done.” 08/22/07

Ahh, judgement. It appears Mr. Obama has a lot of faith in his own judgement. But should we have faith in his judgement, or in the judgement of anyone who would question the current president’s wisdom in his choice of action for a preemptive war? For as you shall see, such wisdom, fortitude and judgement will be required again, and soon. Allow me to introduce you to the “Doomsday Machine” known as the Electromagnetic Pulse Weapon. Or, as the Iranian’s call it, “change you can believe in:

“WASHINGTON — Iran is not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, it is already testing ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America’s technical infrastructure, effectively neutralizing the world’s lone superpower, say U.S. intelligence sources, top scientists and western missile industry experts.

The radical Shiite regime has conducted successful tests to determine if its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight.

Scientists, including President Reagan’s top science adviser, William R. Graham, say there is no other explanation for such tests than preparation for the deployment of electromagnetic pulse weapons - even one of which could knock out America’s critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years. (World Net daily)

You better read that paragraph over again to make sure you understand the ramifications of what it is saying. Many people often refer to the United States as a superpower that can bomb someone else into the “stone age.” Well, you have just been told that the same can be done to us. Let that sink in.

What is an electromagnetic pulse weapon? It is important that you understand this weapon and the implications of having such a weapon used against you. William R. Graham, chairman of the “Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States From Electromagnetic Pulse Attack” described electromagnetic pulse weapons thusly:

“A single nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude above the United States will interact with the Earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetic field to produce electromagnetic pulse (EMP) radiation down to the Earth and additionally create electrical currents in the Earth. EMP effects are both direct and indirect. The former are due to electrical systems, and the latter arise from the damage that ’shocked’ - upset, damaged and destroyed - electronics controls then inflict on the systems in which they are embedded. The indirect effects can be even more severe than the direct effects.”

“The major impact of EMP weapons is on electronics, so pervasive in all aspects of our society and military, coupled through critical infrastructures. Their effects on systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity and electronics could be sufficiently ruinous as to qualify as catastrophic to the nation.”

The purpose of an electromagnetic pulse attack is not to kill people, at least not immediately. The initial attack will wipe out electricity, fry electrical circuit boards and destroy communications apparatus over the target area. The higher the altitude of the detonation the greater will be the affected area. The cascading effects on our society would be dramatic to say the least. The financial system would instantly be ruined, making even the simplest of transactions impossible. Food water and fuel would become scarce. Why? Lack of electricity will mean a lack of refrigeration, which would leave food rotting in warehouses. The inability of water treatment facilities to sanitize and distribute water would threaten public health. The lack of electricity would likewise make it impossible to refuel vehicles as the fuel cannot be dispensed from gas stations without the electricity. Fuel unavailability would lead to vehicles being stranded when they run out of gas. This will result in severely limiting transportation capability, and the increasing chaos would result in a rapid breakdown of social order.

No one will know what has happened, and know one would be able to tell anyone if they did. Realistically there will be no one coming to anyone’s aid. No government or civilian services will exist. This is a catastrophe of the highest magnitude. If this country is deprived of it’s electricity it immediately will become function-less. Our extreme dependence on electricity and electronics has created an “Achilles Heel” that our enemies are now seeking to exploit. Once disabled by an electromagnetic pulse attack, it will take from months to years to repair the damage. What will become of us in the meantime? Will the world come to the aid of the United States, or will our enemies pounce on us while we are down? Imagine the chaos and lawlessness witnessed in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Will we descend into a sub-civilization and become our own worst enemy? Do you really want to find out?

The EMP threat is not a new one. The Soviet Union also had the capacity to deliver such a blow to the United States. However certain military and government facilities can be hardened and protected against the effects of an electromagnetic pulse attack. Therefore preserving the ability of the United States to retaliate with our own strategic nuclear forces. This was a deterrent to a nation state like the old Soviet Union as it is to most nation states. However this is not a deterrent to a rogue state like Iran which is governed by a lunatic who believes his messiah (The 12th Imam) will only return due to an apocalyptic event. Such a man can, and will, initiate the apocalyptic event himself. Nor is the threat of a catastrophic counter attack much of a deterrent to terrorist groups that have no state identity. Who are you going to attack? In the aftermath of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center it was quickly ascertained who was responsible, yet with the United States electrical systems shut down and most electronics fried, how will we even be able to accurately determine which terrorist group is the aggressor?

This is a relatively inexpensive way to destroy us. The Iranian government may be trumpeting their success at detonating their Shahab 3 ballistic missiles by remote control, but a the missile itself need not be that sophisticated. A nuclear weapon detonated on a simple scud missile will produce the same results. And there is a glut of such missiles in the world. We also know that al-Qaeda has access to upwards of 80 ships from which such a missile could be launched. Considering Iran’s relationships with not only al-Qaeda but also other terrorist groups such as their proxies Hezbollah, it becomes more imperative that they not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons or the technology to develop them.

I know some of you out there are thinking about our ABM (anti-ballistic missile) weapons. Won’t they offer us some protection? It is true that we have successfully tested and deployed some of these weapons for exactly this reason. However, lets be honest here, these weapons are not necessarily that dependable. We have managed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles under test conditions where we knew when, and from where they were coming. In the event of a real attack the response time will be severely shortened as we will not know when, or from where the attack is coming. Therefore we will not know how effective these counter measures are until they are tested under the real world conditions of an attack. That is quite a risk to take, especially if there is an alternative.

It is interesting to note that President Bush has made deploying an ABM system in Europe a major part of his foreign policy. His argument being the same as the justification for deploying such defenses in the United States, to protect against rogue states launching weapons of mass destruction. Just this week, Poland agreed to accept an anti-ballistic missile defense system on its territory. Vladmir Putin, Prime Minister and de facto ruler of Russia, has strongly opposed deployment of such a system in eastern Europe and has threatened Poland with an attack in the event such a system is installed. All the while he has been providing “technical assistance” to the Iranians in developing their “peaceful” nuclear program. Coincidence? Considering the recent Russian invasion of Georgia, do we dare to contemplate the potential for a Moscow-Tehran alliance?

Now ask yourself if a man can make the following statement and still consider himself qualified to be president of the United States:

“I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. You know, Iran, they spend one one-hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.”

Who would say such a thing? Why Mr. “Judgement” himself, Senator Barack Obama. As a United States Senator he is privileged to have all the information I have presented thus far, and yet he has the “audacity” to make such a foolish statement. Why? Because he is aware that MOST Americans do NOT know the extreme threat that Iran poses to our nation. As you can see, it is a far greater threat than Iraq ever presented. He is counting on the public’s ignorance, and its impatience with the Iraq occupation, to drive public opinion away from the use of force to actively defend our nation. Unfortunately many, if not most, Americans seem to agree with him. There is an arrogance that comes with extended periods of safety that blinds us to the constant threat to survival that has always been part of the human experience. The most vulnerable society is the one that fails to perceive its own weaknesses. You would think that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center would have awakened us to this ever constant danger. But once again, we see ourselves turning towards distractions, that are far less important than our survival.

But the question remains. What should we do about Iran? Should we use the military option and destroy Iran’s nuclear program? Certainly a regime as dangerous as theirs that consistently threatens the annihilation of both the United States and Israel should not be allowed to ever get possession of such weapons. Israel rightly views a nuclear armed Iran as an existential threat to them but, as we have seen, it is likewise an existential threat to us as well.

There are those who would suggest that we should let Israel attack Iran, essentially letting them do the dirty work for us. This however is very foolish. For starters, Israel does not have the capacity to destroy all of Iran’s military capacity and it is doubtful they can even seriously harm their nuclear assets. This is not the same situation as when they bombed Iraq’s nuclear program in the 1980’s. That target was concentrated in one location and was totally caught by surprise. Iran is a much more determined adversary who is more than aware of a potential attack.. Their nuclear assets are scattered in numerous places which would force Israel to divide its attack upon several targets and hope to be successful at all of them. A military improbability. Also, once attacked, Iran is going to strike back. Not only will they strike back at Israel, but they will also attempt to close down the Strait of Hormuz and shut down the flow of oil coming out of the Persian Gulf. Then the United States will have to get involved to reopen the passage. So Israel can only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a small factor, and in so doing, create a big international mess that the United States will have to clean up anyway.

No. There is no way of getting around the obvious. The job must fall to the United States. We must strike in such a thorough way as to eliminate, not only all of the various sites Iran has dedicated to developing nuclear weapons, but also we must destroy all of their military capacity. This will not necessarily require an invasion, but it will require a prolonged air and naval campaign to render the regime in Tehran impotent. Only the United States has the military capacity to do this.

But that returns us to the same moral dilemma we faced on the eve of the Iraq war. Is it moral for the United States to attack another country first? The threat is clearly present in the form of both the actions and words of the Iranians. Yet, in spite of all the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, many feel it would be a second immoral preemptive action.

Does the United States have the right to attack another sovereign nation? ABSOLUTELY!! There is no doubt about the intent of the government in Iran. They have boasted of their desire to destroy the United States and Israel to the point where almost no one pays them any attention anymore. So much so that presidential hopeful Barack Obama feels comfortable belittling the threat they present as part of his campaign rhetoric. But now we all can see that they can carry out their threats in a manner equal to their bravado. As always, I am led to a passage in the Bible:

EZEKIEL 33:1-6 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul. But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.

Here we see that God holds those who know of an impending attack into account. The fate of the people rests in the hands of the watchman if he fails to warn the people. However, once warned, it is the people themselves who are accountable for their lives. Interesting…

Our leaders, acting as our watchmen, have known of this threat for some time. Our blood has been on their hands. The electromagnetic pulse weapon is designed as a first strike weapon. If successful it may be the only strike required to destroy us. It would be completely immoral for our president to fail to protect us from this attack. In fact, it can be argued, that the president has no greater responsibility than that of protecting the country. But consider this: you who are reading this, and many others throughout our country, are now aware of this threat as well. Your blood may very well be falling into your own hands as you cast your vote in the next election. We must be sure we elect a man with the moral fortitude to act in our defense. When dealing with a weapon that can start and finish a war in one strike, survival depends on shooting first. Some people in our country are clamouring for a change. Iran and their terrorist proxies would love to give it to us. This is a danger every bit as serious as the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. In fact it is more dangerous! We better be sure there is a man in the White House who can handle it, not one who belittles the situation.

“When a country doesn’t recognize the individual rights of its own citizens, it cannot claim any national or international rights. Therefore, anyone who wants to invade a dictatorship or semi-dictatorship is morally justified in doing so, because he is doing no worse than what that country has accepted as its social system. It is improper to attack a free country, because it recognizes the individual rights of its citizens.”

Who could have said such a thing? Why none other than the world famous and renowned atheist Ayn Rand. Though I am no fan of atheism, she was quite an interesting and very reasonable woman. Her Objectivist philosophy is thoroughly based on reason and self-interest, two things the political left in this country arrogantly thinks they have bestowed upon themselves. A nation that oppresses its own people and does not recognize the individual rights of its own citizens cannot itself claim a right of sovereignty now can it? On what would their claim be based? How can a nation which openly calls for the annihilation of other nations not expect that those nations might seek to act in their own defense and strike them down first? The truth is, such a nation can and should be destroyed BEFORE it causes harm to a free state. It is immoral to put free societies at risk just to placate a bully state for a few more moments of delusional safety. It is time to go about the business of acting in the interests of protecting the free world, whatever the short term consequences and inconveniences.

Without a shadow of a doubt, Iran qualifies as a society that fails to recognize the individual rights of its own citizens, as also did Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. So all of you who have worried your consciences over the moral ethicality of attacking an oppressive society need to get over it. Talk of impeaching President Bush for war crimes for the Iraq invasion is rendered childish and silly when seen in its proper perspective. In fact, he would be more entitled to an impeachment if he had failed to act! If the populations of oppressed countries can tolerate their own oppression, they are not going to do anything to prevent their country from attacking and oppressing others. They deserve the same as their government deserves. There are no innocent people in an oppressed country. Oppression is a cancer on civilization. You don’t tolerate cancer, you remove it. The Iranian people wanted a change in the 1970’s…and they got it. They got the Islamic Revolution and they have been living under the yolk of Islamic totalitarianism ever since. Their leaders are leading them straight toward a confrontation with us. They made their choice and have been antagonistic to the United States from the moment they took our embassy and held its members hostage. Let us act in our own interests and not concern ourselves with their fate anymore than they are concerning themselves with ours. I choose for them to be destroyed, and will not vote for a president who fails to perceive the seriousness of their apocalyptic agenda. If this sounds like an endorsement of John McCain…so be it.

I’ll conclude by quoting the President of the recently invaded country of Georgia, a free country that was improperly attacked. When asked what America could do to help his country, Misha Saakashvili replied: “Who else can stand up for liberty in the world?” Who else, indeed?

A better question might be: Who will stand up for America when she has been neutralized by an electromagnetic pulse attack? Some people want change…this is one we must prevent! Its time to deliver to the Iranian government its final ultimatum…give up their nuclear program and openly allow international inspectors, or give up their lives. Each day we fail to act is another day closer to our own demise. To risk the death and destruction of our free society at the hands of an oppressive, Islamic Iran is an immoral act. Attack!

August 17, 2008 - Sunday