One of the key elements to a successful strategy during war is to truly know your enemy. Know their strategies, strengths, weaknesses, numbers, inventory, their size and scope, but more than anything, know what their goals are and what steps they will take to realize them.
One does not have to be a West Point Professor of War Studies to “know” ISIS. They have loudly broadcasted their goal: the establishment and growth of an Islamic Caliphate. They have already claimed the establishment of the Caliphate and announced their leader: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Their goal now is to grow by conquering new lands. It is the Ottoman Empire 21st Century Edition, but they make the Sultans of yore look like bunny rabbits.
What is now at stake is the whole of Iraq. If they conquer Baghdad, they will loot the city of its treasure like they did in Mosul. It will then be sufficiently funded to finally seize control of Syria and then it is on to Jordan & Lebanon. We also know the steps they will take: ANY. There is no evil, no act or lower point of depravity they will not implement. They are evil incarnate. They are beheading children and placing their heads on sticks.
There is only one way to defeat ISIS. It is the act and strategy of “Total War”. And we won’t do it. I actually heard that there is talk in the Obama Administration about “political solutions”. This is the height of ignorance and idiocy. There is no other solution other than the utter destruction of ISIS.
“Total War” has not been implemented in the West since World War II. It requires the complete destruction or unconditional surrender of your enemy. ISIS will never surrender as their mindset proves, so only total destruction is left as an option and this administration does not have the will or stomach for it (nor did the last).
They fight for Allah and their Prophet Mohamed. In fact, they are mimicking his very actions. Mohamed grew his own empire through acts exactly like those of ISIS. He raided, looted, plundered, raped and slaughtered his way to power. He kidnapped and enslaved. He showed no mercy for the “kafir”(non-believer). The very same conditions he established for his enemies after his rise in Medina are the very same ISIS commands: convert, pay the “Jizya” (tax) or die. In the case of the Christians in Iraq, the conditions are simply convert or die by the sword.
These are the same commands put forth by Mohamed in The Sira (Sunnah). During one day in Medina, Mohamed had trenches dug and 800 Jews were beheaded while he watched with his 12 year old wife sitting on his lap, laughing. This episode was called “The Judgment of Saed” or the “Massacre of Banu Qurayza”. Sound familiar? Mohamed would be very proud of ISIS.
Given the sickness of mind and the unrelenting religious goal they are fueled by, they will not be defeated piecemeal. Sporadic bombings and short-lived campaigns will not defeat them. We should aggressively and earnestly court allies. We should form a coalition. If we cannot do that, we should go it alone. Iraqi leaders be damned. We should enter with 300,000 troops and with overwhelming force and kill them all.
Every last one.
I will NOT use this web site and put info on it. And if you do you’re crazy as bat crap.
An outbreak of lawlessness
For all the gnashing of teeth over the lack of comity and civility in Washington, the real problem is not etiquette but the breakdown of political norms, legislative and constitutional.
Such as the one just spectacularly blown up in the Senate. To get three judges onto a coveted circuit court, frustrated Democrats abolished the filibuster for executive appointments and (non-Supreme Court) judicial nominations.
The problem is not the change itself. It’s fine that a president staffing his administration should need 51 votes rather than 60. Doing so for judicial appointments, which are for life, is a bit dicier. Nonetheless, for about 200 years the filibuster was nearly unknown in blocking judicial nominees. So we are really just returning to an earlier norm.
The violence to political norms here consisted in how that change was executed. By brute force — a near party-line vote of 52 to 48 . This was a disgraceful violation of more than two centuries of precedent. If a bare majority can change the fundamental rules that govern an institution, then there are no rules. Senate rules today are whatever the majority decides they are that morning.
What distinguishes an institution from a flash mob is that its rules endure. They can be changed, of course. But only by significant supermajorities. That’s why constitutional changes require two-thirds of both houses plus three-quarters of the states. If we could make constitutional changes by majority vote, there would be no Constitution.
As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.
Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. It’s not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session. It’s not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass — the Dream Act — by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws.
We’ve now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans.
Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law. Under Obamacare, no insurer may issue a policy after 2013 that does not meet the law’s minimum coverage requirements. These plans were canceled because they do not.
The law remains unchanged. The regulations governing that law remain unchanged. Nothing is changed except for a president proposing to unilaterally change his own law from the White House press room.
That’s banana republic stuff, except that there the dictator proclaims from the presidential balcony.
Remember how for months Democrats denounced Republicans for daring to vote to defund or postpone Obamacare? Saboteurs! Terrorists! How dare you alter “the law of the land.”
This was nonsense from the beginning. Every law is subject to revision and abolition if the people think it turned out to be a bad idea. Even constitutional amendments can be repealed — and have been (see Prohibition).
After indignant denunciation of Republicans for trying to amend “the law of the land” constitutionally (i.e. in Congress assembled), Democrats turn utterly silent when the president lawlessly tries to do so by executive fiat.
Nor is this the first time. The president wakes up one day and decides to unilaterally suspend the employer mandate, a naked invasion of Congress’s exclusive legislative prerogative, enshrined in Article I. Not a word from the Democrats. Nor now regarding the blatant usurpation of trying to restore canceled policies that violate explicit Obamacare coverage requirements.
And worse. When Congress tried to make Obama’s “fix” legal — i.e., through legislation — he opposed it. He even said he would veto it. Imagine: vetoing the very bill that would legally enact his own illegal fix.
At rallies, Obama routinely says he has important things to do and he’s not going to wait for Congress. Well, amending a statute after it’s been duly enacted is something a president may not do without Congress. It’s a gross violation of his Article II duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
A Senate with no rules. A president without boundaries. One day, when a few bottled-up judicial nominees and a malfunctioning health-care Web site are barely a memory, we will still be dealing with the toxic residue of this outbreak of authoritative lawlessness.
By Bill Fortenberry On November 1, 2013 ·
When considering Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, most people only consider how the phrase “wall of separation” sounds to our modern ears. To us, this phrase sounds as if it is describing an impenetrable impasse which stands between our nation’s religious institutions and her political institutions. Consider, for example, the following opinion of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter in McCollum v. Board of Education:
Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson’s metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a “wall of separation,” not of a fine line easily overstepped.
Justice Frankfurter’s opinion sounds perfectly reasonable to most of those living in the twenty-first century, but it is not consistent with the way that this phrase was understood by our forefathers.
The phrase “wall of separation” has a very lengthy history in the Judeo-Christian world view. It is a reference to the wall which separated between the Jewish and the Gentile worshipers in the temple at Jerusalem, and in Ephesians 2:14, Paul refers to this wall being symbolically broken down by Christ when He died on the cross. This is almost the exclusive usage of this phrase in the literature prior to Jefferson’s letter, and an example of it can be seen in the 1756 edition of The Family Expositer by Philip Doddridge:
For he is the Procurer of our Peace, who hath reconciled us, whether Jews or Gentiles, to God and to each other, and hath so incorporated us into one Church, that it may properly be said, he hath made both one, as to an Interest in the Favour of God, and in the Privileges of his People; and that no Difference might remain between us, he hath thrown down the middle Wall of Separation, which divided us from each other, as the Wall which runs between the Court of the Gentiles and that of Israel in the Temple at Jerusalem, divided the Gentile Worshippers from the Jewish.
Gentile proselytes to the Jewish religion were not permitted into the inner court of the temple unless they actually became Jews by being circumcised in accordance with Exodus 12:48. These proselytes were allowed to worship God and to participate in the ceremonies, but they had to remain distinct from the Jews by staying on the Gentile side of the wall of separation.
In the Christian era, following Paul’s symbolic usage, the term “wall of separation” came to be used as a figure of speech for anything which prevented complete union between two groups. This usage can be seen with great clarity in James Durham’s Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland published in 1740.
In such Practices as are opposite and infer Division in the Cases mentioned, there can be no Union or Communion expected, as we see in all the Cases where such have been practised, as of the Novatians, Donatists, and such like; there may be more or less Heat and Bitterness betwixt Men that differ so: But there cannot be Union, because such Determinations and Practices do draw a Line, and build a Wall of Separation betwixt the one and the other, and so makes one Side to be accounted as not of the same Body.
This phrase was also used in this sense in William Hale’s “Survey of the Modern State of the Church of Rome” published in The Analytical Review in 1790.
The grand pillar of the Romish church was indirectly sapped by its rational members, when they found themselves obliged, by cogent reasons, and the humane suggestions of their own minds, to soften tenets they could not enforce or excuse. The wall of separation thus removed, all conscientious christians may meet and agree, in observing the main doctrines of the gospel, justice, mercy and truth, leaving rancorous disputes to those who are hearers, rather than doers of the law.
But uses of this phrase were not limited to religious writings. It was also used on multiple occasions to describe King James’ successful union of England and Scotland. One of the more famous of these is found in Sir Francis Bacon’s address in the British Parliament:
His majesty is the first (as you noted it well) that hath laid lapis angularis, the corner stone of these two mighty kingdoms of England and Scotland, and taken away the wall of separation: whereby his majesty is become the monarch of the most puissant and military nations of the world.
And, of course, I cannot fail to mention that Benjamin Franklin once used this phrase to refer to the imaginary boundary between fresh water and salt water at the mouth of a river:
In such cases, the salt water comes up the river, and meets the fresh in that part where, if there were a wall or bank of earth across, from side to side, the river would form a lake, fuller indeed at some times than at others, according to the seasons, but whose evaporation would, one time with another, be equal to its supply.
When the communication between the two kinds of water is open, this supposed wall of separation may be conceived as a moveable one, which is not only pushed some miles higher up the river by every flood tide from the sea, and carried down again as far by every tide of ebb, but which has even this space of vibration removed nearer to the sea in wet seasons, when the springs and brooks in the upper country are augmented by the falling rains, so as to swell the river, and farther from the sea in dry seasons.
Thus we can see from the historical understanding of this phrase that when Jefferson wrote of the “wall of separation between church and state,” he was not referring to a completely impassible barrier as Justice Frankfurter supposed. He was using a commonly understood phrase to describe the fact that the First Amendment prevented the church and the state from achieving a complete union in America. They would always remain distinct entities, and the President of our nation would never be, as Jefferson described it, “the legal head of its church.” This was the true intent of Jefferson’s claim, and we would be fortunate indeed if this intent were once again to be realized among us today.
More Government run amuck – and are you surprised?
So now our military is being told to remove “garb” that is a part of our/ their history?! The “Don’t Tread On Me” Navy Jack isn’t a symbol originated by the TEA Party but it is being associated with the conservative movement and being labeled a symbol of radicalism!
Since when is wanting small government, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, being for capitalism and free markets and most of all following the rule of law aka The Constitution radical? It is only radical to those threatened by these principles. Congress, law enforcement and our military take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and this nation, yet we have individuals from the White House down giving out orders that IMO violate that oath!
CLICK HERE FOR THE SPEECH —-> Sounded something like this – ya think ?
After the crap of closing the Vietnam, Korean & WWII memorials and letting 4 die in Benghazi, I think that every veteran, spouse of a veteran, child of a veteran, mother or father of a veteran, supporter of the veterans, and everyone who considers veterans honorable should call their elected officials, tell them they are not voting for the establishment any longer (Dem or GOP) like Reid, McCain, McConnell, etc. And remember this during the Congressional & Presidential elections.
Or just write a check to the Gov, turn in your guns, pledge allegiance to Obama & your elected officials, leave your churches and forget God and then bend over and kiss your ass good bye.