Peter Brookes is the National Security Affairs Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy.
The Testimony of
Dr. Peter Brookes
The Homeland Security Committee
Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence
U.S. House of Representatives
July 24, 2014
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views on the subject of today’s hearing. I want to commend you, the Committee, and your staff for highlighting this issue in this public setting. In my view, it comes none too soon.
Before I begin my testimony, let me say that the views I express today are my own and should not be construed as representing the official position of any of the organizations with which I am associated.
Quite simply, it is my view that Islamist militancy is on the march. Second, I believe we are facing increasing threats to the homeland as a result. And third, I have concerns about current U.S. policy for dealing with it.
Let me briefly expand on these points.
Islamist militancy is on the move.
I never would have thought that nearly 13 years after the 9/11 tragedy that we would still being dealing with the threat of Islamist terrorism, especially that associated with al Qaeda, at such an elevated level.
The al Qaeda threat, whether by groups that have a direct association with al Qaeda’s core, exist as an off-shoot, or merely embrace its ideology, has proliferated significantly in recent years in my judgment.
The increasing diversity and the intensity of the Islamist terrorist threat, in my mind, means we have to defend against a growing number of different threat vectors, making it more difficult for our intelligence, law enforcement, and military efforts to succeed, whether at home or overseas.
We are all painfully aware of the rise of violent extremists across the globe. Indeed, the State Department reports that terrorist attacks were up more than 40 percent last year.
Syria is a good example, and should be of significant concern, considering the estimated number of violent jihadists that have gathered there to oppose the Bashar Assad regime.
As the Committee knows, an estimated 7,000-12,000 foreign fighters from some 70-80 countries have reportedly gathered in Syria, perhaps constituting what experts believe is the largest contingent of violent extremists in any one place at any one time, including in pre-9/11 Afghanistan.
Iraq is also deeply afflicted with terrorism, especially the resurgence of al Qaeda in Iraq off-shoots, which seemed to have been almost extinguished by the end of the U.S. surge in Iraq. Last year, Iraq suffered some 5,000- 9,000 casualties as a result of terrorist and sectarian violence, according to various sources.
Of course, perhaps, the most troubling development is the rise of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS) which has set about capturing—and perhaps holding—a swath of significant territory that spans both Iraq and Syria.
Within this territory, ISIS has declared a caliphate, which not only threatens the regimes in Baghdad and Damascus, but which may prove over time to be a safe haven for terrorist planning, training, and operations beyond Iraq and Syria.
This newest caliphate is likely to resonate with Islamists on a number of levels around the globe. The allure of a new Islamist state may lead to more recruits, funding, and alliances. Moreover, ISIS’ early success may encourage others to undertake the same thing elsewhere.
Indeed, even prior to the establishment of the “Islamic State,” there were reports of the development of camps for not only training fighters for opposing the Syrian and Iraqi regimes, but for training foreign fighters to return to their native lands, especially Europe and the United States, to undertake terror attacks there.
Of course, the problem is not limited to Iraq and Syria.
Elsewhere in the Middle East, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which is resident in Yemen, may be the most dangerous al Qaeda affiliate today. It has held territory in Southern Yemen and its bomb-making prowess is well-known based on a number of spectacular plots by its innovative explosives expert, Ibrahim al Asiri.
In South Asia, Taliban and Haqqani Network violence is up in Afghanistan as the number of U.S. and foreign forces draws down, according to news outlets. These terror groups have historically found safe haven in neighboring Pakistan, which has severely impacted U.S. and Coalition counterinsurgency and terror operations in Afghanistan.
In Africa, terrorists and violent extremists are thriving as well. In Libya, the situation remains chaotic three years after the U.S.-NATO operation led to the demise of Libyan strongman Moammar Qaddafi. Libyan militias, including al Qaeda associated groups like Ansar al Sharia, continue to threaten any semblance of stability.
Of course, Libya was the location of the deadly September 11, 2012 attack on our diplomatic facilities in Benghazi.
Algeria is afflicted by al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM); it has been linked to recent plots in France on the Eiffel Tower, Louvre and a nuclear power plant, according to news accounts.
AQIM is also active in nearby Mali, where violence is on the up-swing after a French intervention slowed the terror group’s advance. Moreover, press reports indicate that al Qaeda linked militants in Mali may be working with Nigeria’s Boko Haram, a terror group causing increasing alarm.
News accounts indicate that fighting with Boko Haram Islamist militants in Nigeria has resulted in the death of some 2,000 people this year, the tragic kidnapping of hundreds of school girls aside. It also reportedly operates in Cameroon and Niger.
Across the continent in Somalia and Kenya, al Shabab—noted for its brazen Westgate Mall attack in 2013—is gaining ground. The terror group also seems to be a significant draw for prospective militants from the United States, according to some research.
Indeed, some analysts believed that al Shabab may have drawn or recruited more Americans than any other terror group, but it has now likely been outpaced by a surge to Syria and Iraq. Moreover, some assert al Shabab is cooperating and coordinating with Boko Haram, further expanding the terror network on the continent.
In general, lawless, ungoverned, and or chaotic places remain a significant counterterrorism problem.
Increasing threats to the homeland
What does this militant Islamist movement mean? In my opinion, it signifies that we are facing an increasing threat not only to U.S. interests overseas, but to the homeland.
I do not have to tell the Committee about the reports of nearly a hundred Americans and as many as 3,000 Europeans that have traveled to Syria—and perhaps now Iraq—to fight in the Syrian (and perhaps now Iraqi) civil war(s).
We must assume that based on open-source reporting that some of these Americans and Europeans will be recruited and trained in the terrorist dark arts while in Iraq and Syria with the intention of returning to their native countries to commit terror, if reports are accurate.
Recent violence and plots in places like Britain, Belgium, and Spain that are related to Syria means that the threat is not a prospective one, but one that is here and now.
Specifically, the recent reports of a possible terror plot involving explosive cell phones and or electronic devices that might be targeting US-bound airliners out of Europe is of great concern—and may arguably represent the most imminent terror threat to the U.S. homeland today.
Even more troubling are the reports that this plot involved a synergistic effort between al Qaeda operatives in Syria/Iraq and AQAP bomb-makers. This sort of transnational terrorist teamwork is very disconcerting.
But we should not be surprised.
Al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden, has long valued zealous religious converts, recruiting operatives in place, including via the Internet, and travelers with passports that may be in or enter a target country with limited scrutiny to perform terrorist acts.
While not all of these al Qaeda groups are directly targeting the U.S. homeland currently, we should not embrace the notion that this view will not change in the future; their objectives will not necessarily remain local or regional.
In my view, these terror groups, whose goals may seem local or regional at this time, may have fundamental needs that might need to be satisfied first (e.g., holding territory for planning, training and operating; securing funding; and finding recruits) before looking at expanding their operations afield such as toward the United States.
Furthermore, from a strategic perspective, these terror groups may not want to encourage or give reason for opposition from the United States at this time.
The point here being is that we should not assume that any seemingly overseas al Qaeda threat will stay that way and not evolve into a direct threat to the U.S. homeland. Indeed, intent can change quickly and may not be discovered by intelligence before it is too late.
While each terror group in unique, hostility toward the United States is a common characteristic, in my opinion.
U.S. Policy Concerns
While I understand and appreciate the hard work being done by intelligence, law enforcement, the military and others in battling violent extremists and protecting the American homeland, I have concerns about current U.S. policy.
First, the rhetoric used by the Obama administration has been misleading, in my view. Over time, the White House, including the President, has characterized al Qaeda as “on the run,” “on its heels,” and “decimated,” and so forth.
Suggesting such, especially as concerns al Qaeda writ large, is unfortunately disingenuous. While the White House occasionally specified that it was referring to “al Qaeda core” (essentially the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan) when it spoke of the terror group’s supposedly diminished status, that was not always the case.
Indeed, I would suggest that the White House was attempting to create a narrative on its handling of national security, specifically al Qaeda, that was arguably overly optimistic. Worse, it may have given the American public—and others—the impression that al Qaeda was in its last throes.
The take down of Osama bin Laden supported that narrative.
The problem is that, yes, Osama bin Laden was dead, but al Qaeda was still very much alive. I do not believe that this reality was conveyed accurately or adequately to the American people by the administration when it should have been part of our national security dialogue and debate.
I believe that the early, public Benghazi attack assessments, such as references to a provocative video, were also driven by the White House’s chosen, perhaps politically-driven, national security narrative.
Second, I am also troubled by other national security decisions. For instance, I believe the decision to withdraw from Iraq without the provision of follow-on forces directly contributed to, along with other factors, the dire situation that exists there today.
In addition, I believe that the security vacuum that will be left by the draw-down of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in the coming years, which could result in a total withdrawal, could be filled by al Qaeda affiliated groups over time as happened in Iraq.
Third, from a practical standpoint, I believe that a reluctance to influence or follow through on events in the Middle East/North Africa such as Libya and the Arab Spring, especially the events in Syria, has not served our national interests well.
Indeed, while a direct cause and effect is difficult to prove, I would suggest that a case could be made which claims that the failure of U.S. policies in Iraq and Syria had a hand in the success of ISIS today which now stands as a significant national security threat.
Fourth, I am concerned that much of the world sees the United States in absolute—or at least relative—decline. I also believe that perceptions of American inattention, disinterest, or weakness in world affairs will drive policies and actions directed toward us, including provocations from militant Islamist extremists.
Fifth, I am also worried that U.S. counterterrorism policy is meant more to contain than eliminate al Qaeda threats. In other words, we are containing threats in places like Syria/Iraq or Yemen, but not acting vigorously enough, or at all, to eliminate them.
Relying too heavily on the political will of foreign governments and the capabilities of other nations’ counterterror forces or militaries to battle terror groups may be a losing, indeed dangerous, strategy whether it is Iraq, Afghanistan, or Yemen.
Specifically, I believe that we are facing increasing threats to our interests overseas and to the homeland as a result of our failure to develop effective counterterror policies, which have provided space for terrorists to plan, train, and operate.
I would assert that parts of the world are aflame with Islamist militancy—and that we are in the crosshairs. Wishing away the terrorist threat we face at home or abroad will not make it disappear. Indeed, worse, we are at risk of creating complacency at home and abroad about this growing threat.
Complacency about such a challenge can be a killer. We have already weathered some 60 terrorist plots and or attacks since 9/11, according to Heritage Foundation data. This is clearly no time for contentment with the status quo.
The concern is that some believe we are in a post-Osama bin Laden era. That is factually correct, but we are not in a post-terrorism or post-al Qaeda period in my judgment. Osama bin Laden’s and al Qaeda’s inspirational Islamist ideology of political violence lives on in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, Libya, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
Letting our guard down to this growing Islamist extremist reality would be a huge mistake—and a major threat to our security and interests both at home and abroad.
Dr. Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow. He is also a Commissioner with the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Prior to his work at The Heritage Foundation, he served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, a professional staff member with the House International Relations Committee, the CIA, the State Department and in the U.S. Navy. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, the Defense Language Institute, the Naval War College, the Johns Hopkins University, and Georgetown University.
Posted by Reagangirl.com 7/24/14
July 24, 2014
Environmentalism, animal rights, and abortion are partnered in a legislative and cultural campaign to negate the value of the human individual.
Young Colorado women can be founding hiking, running, climbing, boating, and pursuing all manner of thrilling recreational activities with their companions of choice–dogs. It has long struck me that, in the Mountain West, you will more readily find a woman between the ages of 20 and 35 passing the time in the company a dog than that of a man.
A Weekly Standard website article posted on February 1, makes it clear that dogs are displacing men not just in Colorado, but across all geographical regions and social demographics. This may bode well for the pet industry as well as the lovable pooches themselves who are lavished with such attention and loyalty, but for the American family, it portends extinction.
The article by Daniel Halper, titled Animal Planet: Pets Outnumber Children 4 to 1 in America, cites a new book by Jonathan V. Last which tackles the demographic disaster of plummeting birth rates in the West, of which the explosion in pet ownership, and the pet care industry itself, are symptoms. What to Expect When No One’s Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster will be formally released next week. According to Halper’s article, Jonathan Last comes to the inescapable conclusion that “[E]ducated, middle-class people have all but stopped having babies. Pets have become fuzzy, low-maintenance replacements for children.” I’ve suspected for decades that when, back in the 1970′s, in the wake of bra burning and the legalization of abortion, American women embraced playing frisbee with Fido and bonding with Buddy over men and marriage, that humanity was in a buttload of trouble.
I have a few theories of my own to add to Jonathan Last’s ruminations on the denouement of modern civilization. First; human beings are natural care-givers. They’re compassionate, and the expression of love through acts of kindness and service to a being which is incapable of fully caring for itself is edifying for most people. It’s literally what we live for. Anti-human movements have taken the forms of “population hysteria,” as exemplified in Paul Ehrlich’s dismally errant book, “The Population Bomb,” environmental fear-mongering and assertions that humans are destroying the planet, as exemplified in Rachel Carson’s equally inaccurate book, “Silent Spring,” and finally the war on children, exemplified by the SCOTUS ruling on Roe vs Wade in 1973 that legalized abortion-on-demand. These movements have always pursued one goal, and that is to vitiate human supremacy over the creatures of the earth.
Anti-human doctrines catechize the idea that people are nothing more than organisms with destructive potential, and they must be stopped and ultimately punished for their sins against the natural world. Environmentalism and abortion are partnered in a legislative and cultural campaign to negate the value of the human individual. These movements, however, don’t necessarily extinguish the compassionate impulses of people. We love to love, and to be loved. With the worth of marriage, families, and children being diminished for decades, society scolds its members–especially women–for having ‘too many’ children, or for fostering the traditional roles through which our loving impulses naturally find satisfaction. As a result, we have turned to pets as an outlet for our love. As the importance of families and relationships shrivels, human compassion is misplaced in the comfort, nurturing, companionship, and rights movements, of dumb animals. Humans have a righteous responsibility to treat living creatures humanely, but this form of misplaced compassion, where unborn humans are slaughtered as a matter of convenience, and men and women of child bearing age are opting out of parenthood completely, is neither righteous nor humane when it comes to our own species. Modern society is filling the void where large families and traditional marriage once stood with dogs, cats, and other ‘fur babies.’
The second in my litany of personal theories, addresses changing expectations and values regarding commitment in modern relationships. Pets are not just replacing babies, they’re replacing potential spouses. When divorce laws were changed and any party could divorce the other without grounds, other than the nebulous ‘irreconcilable differences,’ the rigors of ‘ for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health, until death do us part’ were regarded as unreasonable lengths to which one must go to preserve a dispensable relationship. Why have a high-maintenance man at the cost of your personal freedom when you can have the companionship and comfort of man’s best friend? Love between humans is not conditional. It must be earned through the diligence of both marital partners. Forming lasting relationships requires sacrifice and striving. Pets provide many of the same psychological rewards without the emotional risks or effort.
As marriage is devalued, so too is the importance of robust populations of children. It is considered heroic and selfless among people on the Left to abandon parenthood proclaiming that “it would be cruel to bring children into the world when the planet itself is imperiled and life is so hard.” But it’s not just Liberals who are opting to raise critters instead of kiddies.
Virtually all demographic groups are slowly whittling down their rates of birth. Liberals are, however, nearing zero population growth more quickly than Conservatives, Christians, and other religious groups. This not an indictment on pets in the homes of Americans, or the ambitions of entrepreneurs in the pet industry who build upon this infatuation with furry replacement babies. But serious reflection upon our priorities and regard for children is due. Animals as pets and helpers are as natural to humanity as the flora in our gut. But when the rigors and rewards of parenthood take a back seat to a fascination with animals, we can be sure that we have lost our sense of mission as human beings whose progenitors were sent into the world to multiply and replenish the earth.
by Marjorie Haun 7/24/14
July 23, 2014
Thou shalt slander thine opponent if it be profitable unto thee. Thou shalt lie, fabricate, concoct, and pull out of thy butt all manner of false witnesses against those who oppose thy words, or point out that thou art in error.
Good Little Liberals’ 10 Commandments–and then some.
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before big government.
2. Thou shalt not supplant thy god, big government, with unholy written documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Scriptural Word of That Guy. Thou shalt love, protect, and vote for thy Democrat candidates with all thy heart, might, mind and soul even when they are scoundrels, sex perverts, thieves, liars, phonies, Marxists, or just hideously nasty.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of thy Dear Leader, Barack Hussein Barry Soetero Obama Yo Mama, in vain, or in any way that might hurt his feelings.
4. Remember the Gay Pride Day, Black Heritage Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer Month, Ramadan, and Thank a Union Leader Day, to keep them holy. But on the first day of the week, which is the Christian Sabbath, thou shalt eschew traditional worship, and in its stead, smoke weed in the park with much gladness in thine heart.
5. Honor thy mother, but not thine paternalistic, abusive, oppressive, male chauvinist pig father, for he is a plague upon the land, and for his donor seed shalt thou honor him only.
6. Thou shalt not kill violent criminals, terrorists, child rapists, or murderers. Thou shalt not kill animals for food, even the beasts of cloven hooves, or the chickens or anything like unto the dumb creatures of the barn. But the unborn child of thy womb shalt thou kill if it bring a vexation of inconvenience or embarrassment upon thine house. Thou shalt kill thine infant inasmuch as his image or aspect is displeasing unto to thee. Thou shalt kill the aged and infirm inasmuch as they cannot produce nor add to the riches of thine house.
7. Thou shalt commit adultery, fornication, sodomy, bestiality, pederasty, and all manner of sexual perversity which bringest pleasure unto thee, inasmuch as thou doest not marry in the manner of Father Adam and Mother Eve wherein one man and one woman are united in holy matrimony. Thou shalt teach thy child to fornicate, pleasure himself, and make his bed with that of the same junk. Modesty and chastity shalt thou eschew, mocking those who partake in the communion of boring fidelity and out-dated nuclear family, and calling them “homophobic, antiquated ninny heads.”
8. Thou shalt steal from those whose riches are greater than thine. Thou shalt call upon thine government to rob from the men whose hands produce wealth, that their wealth may bless thine own house. Thou shalt shalt rob from all men through the taxation of the government, that thou shalt succor those whose eschew work, who hate the labor of the field, who will feed upon the riches of another, that their days may be long, leisurely, that they may become obsequious Democrat voters.
9. Thou shalt bear false witness against thy neighbor inasmuch as it be profitable unto thee. Thou shalt slander thine opponent if it be profitable unto thee. Thou shalt lie, fabricate, concoct, and pull out of thy butt all manner of false witnesses against those who oppose thy words, or point out that thou art in error. With thy words thou shalt savagely attack Sara Palin, the Tea Party, and any living thing that thou regardest as a threat unto thy power. Above all else, thou shalt slander That Guy, to say Jesus Christ invented Socialism.
10. Thou shalt covet thy neighbor’s wife to fornicate with her, thy neighbor’s son to molest him, thy neighbor’s property to redistribute it by the sword of the government. Thou shalt covet the wealth of the wealthy, the beauty of the beautiful, and the brains of the smart, insasmuch as thou would take the wealth, mock the beauty, and beat out the brains of thine enemies. Thou shalt encode covetousness into law in the form of a progressive income tax. Thou shalt despise those whose riches thou covetest, heretofore making them thine enemies.
Liberal Addendum: The New Commandments
11. Thou shalt love the planet with all thy heart, might, mind and soul. Thou shalt regard man as a plague upon the world, to be destroyed.
12. Thou shalt hate all vehicles with an internal combustion engine. But thou shalt drive what ever the hell thou seest as good, for thou art above reproach.
13. Thou shalt not use plastic grocery bags, and those who do, thou shalt make thine enemies, scorning them to shame.
14. Thou shalt be politically correct, wherein if thine enemy utterest words of condemnation thou shalt destroy him. But thou shalt speak evil, swear, use potty mouth, mock, deride, insult, undercut, and verbally bludgeon thine enemies with all manner of vulgar speaking.
15. Thou shalt not pledge thine allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, as thine enemies. Thou shalt pick thy nose, finger thy butt, shift upon thy feet, or make ugly faces in the stead.
by Marjorie Haun 7/23/14
U.S. Sen. Udall fails on pay equity
July 21, 2014
Despite heavy reliance on the “War on Women” theme during his tough re-election campaign, including pay equity, U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., pays his full-time women staffers considerably less than the men who work for him, an analysis by Watchdog Wire shows.
This stands in stark contrast to his campaign challenger, U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, a Republican. Data from the site Legistorm, show that, on average, Udall pays his women staffers 86-cents for every dollar earned by the men. The analysis covered fiscal year 2013 — October 2012 through September 2013 — and included only full-time staffers who had been on staff the entire fiscal year. The 17 women earned an average of a little more than $58,000, while the 14 men earned $67,300.
July 21, 2014
Hey kiddos, have you heard of the “Rape Whistle App” or the “Anthony Weiner App?” Well, stop texting for one frigging minute and check out the new and amazing Liberal Democrat Apps for your Not-so-Smart Phone!
- The Slick Willie App: Extremely popular with single men, this app uses GPS and facial tomography software to identify reasonably attractive women within the user’s vicinity and alerts him as to their location. It has a sensitive, high-definition camera lens that can work from as far away as 300 yards. The user simply scans his surroundings and the camera will identify and pinpoint any woman over the age of 15 and under 300 lbs as a potential pick-up.
- The Lois Lerner IRS Emails App: This powerful app has the ability to scour clean the hard drives of computers and servers, eliminate emails stored in the computers and servers of those who received them, and cause hard copies of sensitive data to dissolve into the ether. Once you upload the Lois Lerner IRS Emails App you will also be able to strike from the memory of any person in the world any data which may have been obtained through Lois Lerner’s emails.
- The Border Invasion App: This application works much a silent dog whistle. It emits no discernible sound but when activated sends a signal to all the poor people in Central America calling them to show up at the Border where they will get open passage into the country, free food, medical care, transportation to the city of their choice, and a CD containing all the speeches of Barack Obama in Spanish.
- The Terrorist Border Invasion App: Like its sister app, this one links into the social networks of terrorist cells in Mexico, Central and South America and beyond. When activated it will send a direct message to its terrorist users written in Arabic saying, “The border with America no longer exists. Dress like a peasant, keep your head down, and enter by blending with the tens of thousands pouring into America, get an apartment in Austin, sign up for food stamps, and start building your bombs. See you in September.”
- The Border Invasion Language App: This powerful application uses Universal Translator software to help politicians such as Sheila Jackson Lee and Nancy Pelosi welcome illegal aliens into the country. The user speaks into the microphone and the speech is audibly translated into Arabic, Chinese, Yemeni, Urdu, Russian, Nahua, or in a pinch, Spanish. This app is a mandatory feature of all iphone 5s currently being distributed by the Department of Self-Immolation to all illegal border invaders.
- The Hillary Clinton Benghazi App: Nobody knows what this app does, but what difference, at this point, does it make?
- The Bowe Bergdahl App: The ratings for the Bowe Bergdahl App are not good because of its buggy nature. Once downloaded the app will take up the 24 hr news cycle for approximately 2 weeks and then it will inexplicably disappear, never to be mentioned again.
- The Depressed Taliban App: Using a digital voice software which mimics Barack Obama, this app sends voice messages of encouragement and hope to terrorist detainees at Gitmo, all of whom have an iphone 5.
- The Anthony Weiner App: Also known as “digital male enhancement,” this app works with your camera to enlarge a specified portion of a photographic image while keeping everything in the background in its proper proportion.
- The Hobby Lobby App: For reasons which remain a mystery to ordinary smart phone users, this app, when activated, causes liberal women to go into convulsions and scream, “My body, it’s my body, and I have a right to make you pay for my contraceptives!” This app comes with an appropriate warning, which usually goes unheeded by Democrat-leaning sluts.
- The Rape Whistle App: Liberals and most Democrats, who have an unusual aversion to the mere concept of guns and armed self-defense, like this simple app. In the case of an attempted rape the user simply activates the app and it emits a shrill sound similar to a whistle. Although it has reportedly never prevented a rape, it remains popular among liberal gals because it makes them feel good.
- The Obamacare Website App: Although this application has been in development for years and has cost nearly a billion dollars to bring to market, it is still too buggy for consumer use. It is likely the developer will have no choice but to create the Single Payer App in its stead.
- The Veterans Administration Waiting List App: There is a real version of this app, and a fake version of this app. Neither works properly, but the fake version creates the appearance that its working. In the end, it’s a totally useless piece of crap. No one, however, is willing to take this expensive piece of crap off the market and replace it with something that works because hundreds of thousands of over-paid bureaucrats like it just the way it is.
- The Al Sharpton App: This application works much like a teleprompter but uses phonetic syllables to help the speaker say even the simplest words correctly. Within the text are alerts in a bright yellow font reminding the speaker to “speak slowly and don’t spit so much.”
- The Alinsky App: This handy application, with just the touch of an icon, can help idle Socialists plan how to use racial politics, wedge issues, hate mongering and scare tactics to organize their neighborhoods into little balkanized islands consisting of haves and have nots, blacks and whites, rich and poor. Extremely popular among Democrats the Alinsky app is tricky to use and will cease to function if the Free Market Capitalism App is used in the same vicinity.
- The History Revision App: Liberal teachers love this app. It works as a sort of translator and can translate text, or website content taken from history texts or databases, and revise it to fit the liberal, “America sucks” narrative. Using terminology such as “genocide,” “conquest,” “invaders,” “religious zealots,” and “Capitalist pigs,” the History Revision App will take the most heartwarming American tale and turn it into a story of injustice, racism, violence, and hate, almost too much to bear.
- The Liberal Male App: This optical application turns the screen of your smart phone into a sort of fun house mirror. The typical liberal male, physically inadequate with splotchy face and body hair, sallow skin and dead eyes, can gaze into this app and it will reflect back to him an image which is well-muscled, fit, and properly hairy. Though it may give the liberal male a temporary boost of confidence, liberal females have been known to break phones with this app, having a rabid hatred of manly men.
- The Liberal Female App: Much like its counterpart, this application is to be used only in secret. They typical grotesque liberal female gazes into the screen of her smartphone and reflected back is the image of a beautiful woman such as Sara Palin or Megyn Kelly. Liberal females must be careful not to use this app in the presence of a liberal male as it has a tendency to cause them to become Conservative Republicans.
by Marjorie Haun 7/21/14
July 19, 2014
- The Tea Party App: This app links to the social networks of 2.7 million Tea Party, 9/12, Liberty, Patriot, Militia, Civitarian, Libertarian, and other groups throughout the country. Very popular with activists and operatives, through the instantaneous sharing of information the Tea Party App helps you find the closest rally, protest, public hearing, council meeting, townhall, or other function where you can join other like-minded folks by the thousands and scare the hell out of politicians who think it’s still 2008.
- The Gadsden Flag App: projects a holographic image of a waving Gadsden Flag. It is designed to be used along with the Tea Party App when you arrive at a rally or protest, and didn’t have time to grab the real thing.
- The Hayek App: It beeps an alarm signal when you have gone too far down the road to serfdom.
- The von Mises App: is a speech recognition app able to discern the difference between “Classical Liberal” rhetoric, and “Radical Leftist Liberal” rhetoric. The von Mises App is recommended for users who get confused about which school of Liberalism is the topic of political discussion. If the rhetoric is Classic Liberalism, “Human action is purposeful behavior,” for example, it will play a soothing harp tune. If the app detects Radical Leftist Liberal rhetoric, “I got me Obama phone,” for example, it will sound an alarm reminiscent of WWII-era Air Raid sirens.
- The Ronald Reagan App: Captures biofeedback and when it senses the onset of negative emotions sends a text message with an encouraging Reagan quote such as, “We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we will always be free,” or “I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there’s purpose and worth to each and every life.”
- The John Wayne App: Offers support when you have a question about an important decision. You enter information about the situation followed by the hashtag #WWJWD and it offers up 3 suggestions for “What Would John Wayne Do?” in a given circumstance. THIS APP IS ESPECIALLY HELPFUL IN ARMED CONFRONTATIONS AND BAR FIGHTS.
- The American Flag App: Projects an image of the American flag waving in the breeze on any flat surface such as a wall. To be used in places where commie pinkos refuse to display the American flag.
- The “Make My Day” App: With the touch of a button this app makes the beautiful sound you hear when a twelve-gauge pump-action shotgun is being cocked. Very useful in dark places full of unruly Democrats.
- The Chris Kyle App: uses GPS and laser-assisted triangulation to help you increase your accuracy on the range. Used in conjunction with a high-powered sniper rifle, the Chris Kyle App is particularly helpful when your target over 1 mile away and is about the size of a human head.
- The Bill Clinton App: Use the settings in this app to protect all the women in your life. Using GPS technology it sends a customized alarm tone accompanied by a text message saying. “Watch your backside!” whenever former President Bill Clinton comes within one hundred yards of a woman’s vicinity.
- The “Ugly Liberal Women” App: This favorite among men is a simple application which accesses a cloud database of images of all ugly liberal women of the last 60 years. It’s very useful when your liberal friends ask why such a nice guy could be a conservative. Just open this app and they will clam up for months.
- The “Weak, Pencilneck Liberal Men” App: Works the same as the “Ugly Liberal Women” app, to be used to remind your lib gal friends that their men–if they have men–are pussies.
- The “Lower Education” App: uses a cloud database of all the “in the name of Heaven, don’t send your kid there” Stalinist-infiltrated, crazy commie pinko pervert colleges and universities in the country. It’s easy to use. Just enter the name of an institution and it will give a rundown of all administrators, faculty, and other staffers that belong to the Communist Party of America, Socialist Party of America, North American Man-Boy Love Association, New Domestic Subversives Brigade, and others. This app is a little buggy because of the need for almost daily updates due to the increasing number of American colleges being run by former KGB agents.
- The Patton App: This application is used exclusively by men in combat. It works to boost morale and incite courage during the heat of battle. The app projects a holographic image of General George S. Patton in his field uniform saying the following words, “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”
- The R. Lee Ermey App: Simpy sync this app with all your Internet media accounts and with the touch of an icon you can leave an R. Lee Ermey-generated comment on any blog, newspaper, and even Facebook and Twitter. The following comments generated by the R. Lee Ermey App were found on Huffpo and Think Progress websites: “What the hell is wrong with you people? Were you born ugly, or did your mama use your face as a meat tenderizer?” and, “You sniveling bawl-babies make me puke. Like dumb shits you spew your Commie Pinko lies like there was no tomorrow. You disgust me!” and the favorite, “Drop and kiss the ground you spineless, witless piece of flea crap! Fifty push-ups now, if you wanna live you pathetic maggot!”
Stay tuned when next month we churn out the NextGen of Conservative Smart Phone apps. by Marjorie Haun 7/19/14
July 18, 2014
This book review was originally published by American Thinker, and subsequently posted on Reagangirl.com by author, Marjorie Haun.
The Reagan Files: Inside the National Security Council (2nd Edition) is a highly satisfying fix for even the most avid Reagan addict. Jason Saltoun-Ebin’s written documentary is an exhaustive compilation, provided with help from staffers at the Reagan Presidential Library, of recently de-classified conversations between President Reagan and his National Security team. The conversations, which begin just days after his 1981 inauguration, and conclude with a final conversation between Reagan and Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, in December of 1988, make The Regan Files a time machine which transports the reader back to a prescient era of hair-trigger dangers in a ramped-up nuclear world.
Many related transcripts remain classified to this date, nevertheless, the abridging editor and author, Jason Saltoun-Ebin, offers the reader a navigable journey into the inner workings of Reagan’s National Security Council (NSC) by adding section introductions to provide context as well as annotations to support the book’s chronological flow. Without editorializing on the content of the NSC transcripts, Saulton-Ebin allows the conversations to speak for themselves. The reader’s experience is a “fly-on-the-wall” sense of being immersed in the truisms that “past is prologue” and “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” The overriding theme of the book is that both the substance and style of Ronald Reagan’s leadership were deeply rooted in the man himself; his personal faith in God and belief in American exceptionalism.
Tasked with rebuilding, both in image and in fact, the foreign policy wreckage left by Jimmy Carter—who was at heart averse to the appearance and use of strength—Reagan’s role in the NSC was one of unequivocal leadership. Though well-studied, Reagan took no presumptions into his sessions, and allowed his advisors, such as heavy-hitters Caspar Weinberger (Defense Secretary), William Casey (CIA), Alexander Haig (Secretary of State), Edwin Meese (Attorney General), Jeane Kirkpatrick (U.N. Ambassador), Lawrence Eagleburger (Undersecretary of State)and George H. W. Bush, among many others, to bring their knowledge and perspectives to the table before formulating a presidential plan of action. The conversations, sometimes contentious, sometimes eloquent, rarely closed without Reagan’s final say.
The Reagan Files is a window into the 40th president’s grasp of the fluid nature of geopolitical relationships of the time, and the potential impact of new technologies and new threats as they emerged in the volatile ‘80s. Despite the rapidly-changing conditions during his terms, Reagan never projected wishful thinking onto the mural of world events, unlike his modern counterpart. The NSC transcriptions testify of Reagan’s scientific mind and deliberative style, which he used to process ever-flowing streams of data and evidence upon which he would ultimately base his actions—or inaction. His ability to formulate a plan and act decisively once a case was made was a unique aspect of Reagan’s leadership style. Reagan’s confidence was based partly in his ability to identify evil, name it, and NEVER give it the benefit of the doubt, standing in stark contrast to President Obama who always gives America’s enemies the benefit of the doubt, while clinging to fantastical notions about the effects of own his appeasing charm.
However decisive Reagan was, he treated other world leaders, friends and foes alike, as figures who took the well-being of their own nations seriously. Reagan, at times, attached hand-written messages to the ends of more formal policy letters as a way to communicate that his intentions were not belligerent, but rather to see every citizen of every nation enjoy the same blessings of freedom and prosperity available to Americans. One such post script, written to Konstantin Chernenko at the end of a letter addressing Soviet deployment of SS-20 ballistic missiles (p. 292)contained the reassurance, “Our common and urgent purpose must be the translation of this reality into a lasting reduction of tensions between us. I pledge to you my profound commitment to that goal.”
Members of the NSC, including Reagan, were aware that the actions formulated during their meetings had a number of interested audiences including the American people, Congress, NATO allies, and global enemies. Weighted toward United States’ interests, the rhetoric crafted during the meetings always supported Reagan’s Peace Through Strength image. Appeasement took a back seat to the projection of strength. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was an example of such an effective crafting of words. Though still in its technologically formative stages, Reagan’s projection of certainty took SDI out of the realm of science fiction and “Star Wars,” as it was labeled in the media, and created the perception of a defense strategy that the Soviets could neither equal nor defy. SDI is often credited with prompting Soviet defense spending which eventually lead to the bankruptcy and breakup of the U.S.S.R.
Congress, a sometimes adversarial audience, was often at odds with Reagan’s vision of Military supremacy, and he had to remind his national security team of the budgetary constraints on defense spending. Nevertheless, during the mid-80s uptick in East-West tensions, Reagan never relented on his advocacy of strategies which ensured United States’ dominance. In a session dated January 13, 1984, addressing Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions (MBFR), Reagan is quoted, “I don’t want the West to be in a position of constantly backtracking or adopting a new posture in the absence of Soviet movement. I don’t want to be in a position of shifting if they give nothing in return.” (p.280) One cannot help but wonder if the present escalation of tensions in Russian and the Middle-Eastern nations might have been avoided had the current administration also remained immovable in their foreign policy goals and strategies.
As past is prologue, many of the recorded conversations in The Reagan Files: Inside the National Security Council, centered on the illegal activities by the Soviets, including non-compliance with treaties such as SALT I. Putin’s recent illegal actions in the Crimean region of Ukraine add a startling depth of context for the reader. Some of the national security themes in the book, such as the global spread of Islamic terrorism, progress on a continuum of growing threats. Concurrently, the assertion of Communist dominance has traced a circular path from dissolution under the strong leadership of Reagan, to a pseudo-democratic mob-state during the Clinton and Bush years, back to a full-blown thrust toward restoring the Soviet bloc under the nearly non-existent leadership of Barack Obama.
From its beginnings in early 1981, to its closing sessions in December of 1988, the conversations depicted in The Reagan Files: Inside the National Security Council, signify Reagan’s acute awareness of history and human nature. Above all, Ronald Reagan understood his own nature which was deeply motivated by his personal faith and fervent patriotism. Speculation still abounds regarding what some believe were Reagan’s biggest mistakes, such as the withdrawal of American troops following the 1983 terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. There are those who say the decision comprised a retreat which signaled American weakness, leading, eventually to increasing terror attacks on American soil. Others believe that Reagan was correct in sending the Marines back home instead of escalating tensions in a country ambivalent about our presence. The path of history, however, is one with varying slopes of national strength and diminishment. Regan knew that evil is an ever-present factor in global politics, and that when one form of evil, such as the Soviet “Evil Empire,” wanes, another, such as Islamic terrorism, will wax strong in its stead.
Peace Through Strength was President Reagan’s guiding principle in foreign policy. Because he understood the world and its ugly realities, and because he applied his personal devotion to American exceptionalism, and the belief that the country he led was the “Last Best Hope of man on earth, ” he left office in 1989 having rebuilt American influence and military might. The Reagan Files: Inside the National Security Council (2nd Edition) is a personal window into the arduous effort by Reagan and his National Security team to leave the world a much safer, more hopeful place for all mankind that he found it in post-Carter 1981.
By Marjorie Haun 7/18/14
This book review was originally published by American Thinker, and subsequently posted on Reagangirl.com by author, Marjorie Haun.
HERE’S AN IDEA: Helen Krieble explains The Red Card Solution: a simple, free-market answer to temporary foreign workers in the U.S.
By Eric Boehm | Watchdog.org
Helen Krieble says she will never forget the day that the federal government’s black helicopters and armed agents swooped down on her equestrian facility in centralColorado.
They came in — unannounced — by the dozens, with batons drawn and police dogs snarling at the end of their leashes.
Krieble remembers the agents searching through barns and stables, demanding identification papers from each of the independent contractors who rented space in her facility for the season. Some contractors had illegal workers, who ended up in handcuffs and legs chains, thrown in the back of black vans and driven away to unknown locations.
LABOR IMBALANCE: The government grants 66,000 visas per year for unskilled nonagricultural workers, another 65,000 for high-skilled workers and about 150,000 visas annually for farmworkers. But that doesn’t keep up with the demand for foreign labor, forcing many workers to cross the border illegally.
Then the agents came to Krieble’s office, rummaging through papers and demanding documentation for each of the workers on her own staff.
“Somebody had reported that we had illegals working here. We didn’t, but some of the other contractors who rent space in our barns did,” she said, recalling the incident in a recent phone interview with Watchdog.org.
“It’s hard to imagine something like that happening in the United States. Eventually, I realized it was happening because our laws are bad,” Krieble said.
The immigration system in the United States is broken.
Krieble has a plan to fix it.
Prompted by her up-close-and-personal experience with federal immigration police, she became an activist for better immigration laws. The result is the so-called “Red Card Solution” that would create a new system of unlimited guest worker visas for foreigners to use on a short-term basis.
The entire system would be operated by private businesses, with labor offices inside the United States and abroad. Any foreign citizen could come in and apply for a job. If they get it, they would be given a temporary “red card” to enter the country and work legally — without fear that the immigration police would come swooping in with their helicopters and dogs to take them away — and would have to leave when the job was finished.
It’s the perfect solution, she said, for the types of workers who come to the United States for seasonal work and return home to their families in the winter — the immigrants Krieble is used to seeing at her equestrian facility in Parker, Colo., or in farming communities across the nation.
While participants in the program would be here legally for the duration of their employment, they would have no way to become citizens unless they left the country and sought re-entry through existing channels.
It’s a far cry from how the nation’s guest-worker permit program currently operates. The government grants 66,000 visas per year for unskilled nonagricultural workers, and another 65,000 for high-skilled workers. The government also issues about 150,000 visas annually for farmworkers.
FOCUS ON THE BAD GUYS: If more workers could get guest permits, immigration enforcement could focus on those crossing the border illegally for illicit reasons.
Compare that total to the estimated 1.5 million foreign farmworkers in the United States, and it’s easy to see why there’s an illegal immigration problem.
When the demand for foreign workers is so much higher than the supply of legal workers allowed by the government, a black market for labor is bound to occur. And that’s exactly what has happened.
Alex Nowrasteh, immigration policy analyst for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington D.C., said those quotas are the real problem.
There is demand for foreign workers in many sectors of the economy and there is a supply of foreign laborers who would like to fill that need. But the government’s quota for guest worker visas forces many workers to become illegal immigrants in order to get those jobs.
“The law has produced a very restrictive immigration system that only allows a small number of the people who want to come here, to come here,” Nowrasteh said. “If we increased legal immigration and expanded the guest worker program, we could channel almost all immigration into the legal markets.”
After all, he said wryly, you didn’t see scores of Irish or Italians landing their boats on the New Jersey coast and making a run for it during the 1800s. They all passed throughEllis Island and other legal channels because the government was not setting artificial limits on immigration.
Krieble said the “Red Card” would solve the problem created by quotas.
With an unlimited supply of red cards for “good workers” who can pass a criminal background check and secure legitimate employment, the only people forced to climb over the fence and scurry through the desert would be those who could not get a red card because of a criminal record, or because they were not interested in working a legitimate job.
Those are the human and drug traffickers that the United States’ immigration police should be focused on.
“We need to focus on the bad guys, who are camouflaged completely as they are coming across the border with all the good people who are trying to find work,” she said.
The red card proposal has drawn plenty of opposition on both sides of the partisan divide. Conservative, anti-immigration groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform have warned that an unrestricted guest worker program would undercut American jobs and workers’ pay. They are worried that workers will simply overstay their visas and continue to illegally work in the United States, instead of re-applying for a new card.
On the left, some pro-immigration groups like the Immigration Policy Center have voiced concern that the red card program would create a new system of “indentured servitude” because workers would be unable to leave the job assigned to them without violating the terms of their guest worker permits.
And even if those concerns are set aside, the entire Krieble plan hinges on a major assumption — that most illegal workers in the United States today do not want and will not seek a pathway to citizenship if one were offered to them.
Krieble believes this is true. Many seasonal farm workers and other illegal immigrants are here to make money for a brief period and want to return to their families in Mexico and elsewhere.
Though it is hard to get reliable data on illegal immigrants, there’s historical evidence to support her argument. When the United States offered amnesty to illegal immigrants in the 1980s, less than half of all newly-eligible illegal immigrants ended up applying for citizenship.
Among illegal immigrants from Mexico, 68 percent decided not to become citizens when given the chance.
“That says to me that people who come from countries far away are more likely to want to stay here forever and become citizens,” said Nowrasteh.
But a recent survey of illegal immigrants conducted by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials found 87 percent of those polled would seek citizenship if it was offered to them.
Krieble’s “Red Card Solution” briefly gained national attention during the Republican primary in the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election. In late 2011, with his star on the rise in the crowded field, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich voiced support for the plan.
But it was largely absent from the congressional debate over immigration reform during 2013.
Though the Senate-passed immigration plan included an overhaul to the guest worker program, it left the government in charge and the quotas in place.
Eeric Boehm is a national reporter for Watchdog.org. Contact him at EBoehm@Watchdog.org
July 16, 2014
“You cannot rely on your heartstrings to be the reins of your reason.” ~ Reagangirl
Isn’t it interesting how the media uses “compassion” to get people to side with giving aid and comfort to the illegal aliens hoards flowing into our communities? They publish things like, “Made up your mind on immigration? Meet this mother and her children first,” in an effort to tug at our heartstrings as they aid and abet the invasion of our sovereign nation by drug cartels, terrorists, criminals, and the illiterate poor of Central America. The same media will tell you that an unborn baby, of any race or nationality, doesn’t deserve your compassion, that it’s not really a person, doesn’t have rights, besides, that “fetus” could grow into an unwanted baby, and what a bad life it could have. Abortion activists will react with disgust–yes, disgust is an emotional reaction–to the picture of a fetus in or out of the womb. “That’s NOT a baby!” they howl.
You see, friends, you cannot rely on your heartstrings to be the reins of your reason. The principles of liberty are the cornerstone of freedom for everyone in the world, and ONLY correct principles can provide sure guidance for citizens navigating mists of chaos and deception. If the bleeding hearts were intellectually honest about the poor “child” illegal aliens needing and “deserving” a better life, they would adopt at least 3 of them into each of their families, volunteer to teach them English to ease what will be an overwhelming burden in the public schools, and use their private efforts to feed, care for, educate, and rear these people in their own homes on their own dime.
Too many good people have traded emotion for reason because–brace yourselves–the Left has figured out your vulnerabilities. “It’s for the kids,” “in the name of compassion,” “it’s the Christian thing to do.” Progressive anti-Americans have presented good Americans with an emotionally-driven conundrum. Jesus helped and blessed everyone he could, especially little children. It is a godly thing to be kind and life the poor and needy. We need to act in behalf of “the least of these my brethren.” But no patriotic American is comfortable in this conundrum, because those with a lick of common sense know that to reward illegal aliens with toys, food, clothes, and even the minimal necessities that nourish and heal, rings like a bell throughout the Western Hemisphere inviting the illegals already here to stay forever, and those not yet here to come. Christians, good people, know this. Yet progressives have put out the most powerful bait in the world for these good people, “What would Jesus do?” And many are biting vigorously and very publicly.
But before you bite the “compassion” bait you first must reason for yourself:
Do the ends of the destruction of America justify the means that some support of “helping the border children?” Those who are rewarding the child aliens (most of whom are between the ages of 14-18 and are 75% male) by giving them toys and food and helping them INTO American instead of sending them home, have themselves becomes means to the revolutionary Progressive end of fundamentally transforming America into a flagging, socialist. pseudo-democracy which cannot protect its own borders or culture, care for its own needy, or defend against the thousand forms of tyranny that seek to overrun its lands and steal its resources.
Is one act of “compassion” that proves to be an enticement for more parents to send their children on a perilous trek, guided by coyotes and organized by drug cartels, to a foreign nation, really compassionate, or is does it simply temporarily assuage a sense of guilt or duty? Is one act of Christian charity that further weakens the identity of America as a strong nation of laws truly charitable, or will it lead to more suffering in the world, more hopelessness as the Shining City on a Hill dims, leaving the entire world in darkness, fear and confusion?
Good people of America; check your premises. Your short term compassion may be nothing more than emotional gratification, the easing of psychological guilt. But reason would tell you otherwise. Rewarding lawlessness leads to more lawlessness, and more lawless brings greater suffering to everyone.
by Marjorie Haun 7/16/14
July 16, 2014
If Political Correctness had been practiced by Adam and Eve, mankind would never have been. “Multiply and replenish the earth” would have ended the minute Adam told Eve that she had a lovely set of fig leaves.
So, let me get this straight–a renowned sportscaster effusively pays homage to the beauty of a beauty queen who is dating a quarterback playing in the game about which he’s commentating. The renowned sportscaster is called out by “entertainment blogs” and feminist reporters for commenting on the beauty queen’s beauty, and is so thoroughly casti(ra)gated that his sports network feels the need to issue an APOLOGY!
“We always try to capture interesting storylines and the relationship between an Auburn grad who is Miss Alabama and the current Alabama quarterback certainly met that test. However, we apologize that the commentary in this instance went too far and Brent understands that.” ESPN Spokesman, Mike Soltys
How on earth does a heart-felt complement go too far? Ladies, and you guys out there, when you pay a complement to your beauty queen, there is no such thing as too far. This is an excellent example of the mental disorder known as “Political Correctness” (PC). We all know by now that Political Correctness is the antithesis of moral correctness and common sense. If PC had been practiced by Adam and Eve, mankind would never have been. “Multiply and replenish the earth” would have ended when Adam told Eve that she had a lovely set of fig leaves. A PC Eve would have kicked Adam out of the garden, returned to school to finish her degree in “women’s studies,” and terminated forever the messy practices of courtship, marriage, sex, and bearing children. When you consider the social implications of PC, it’s clear that the very relationships, observances and rituals that are at the heart of human existence are targeted for elimination by the people and ideologies that push political correctness as a secular Decalogue.
MILITANT FEMINIST PC:
That Brent Musburger’s enthusiastic endorsement of Kate Webb’s appearance drew one iota of controversy is absurd. With the Democrat National Convention, during which many female delegates flaunted buttons that screamed “Sluts Vote,” still fresh in our memories, it’s even more outlandish because the liberal women who asserted their ‘slut power’ in September are of the same ideology as the ninnies howling “sexist,” and “creepy” because Musburger noted that Miss Alabama is an exceptionally pretty woman. Yes, PC is designed to keep men and women as far apart as possible, as far away from traditional marriage as possible, and in perpetual doubt about their identities and the natural impulses that attract them to one another. By the same token, militant feminist PC keeps women as close to their abortion doctors as possible. And it persuades the larger culture that traditional relationships and communications that endear women to men and men to women are outdated and oppressive modes of behavior and language based on intolerable stereotypes.
The subjugation of the traditional family model to the “new normal” through policies that exalt homosexuality and same-sex cohabitation, while undermining the meaning and purpose of God’s institution of marriage, are at the core of perversion PC. One must tread ever so lightly over terminology that refers to homosexuals and their sexual arrangements for fear of character assassination by the “homophobe” detection squads in the media and culture. Alternate lifestyle PC is so powerful that what was once considered perverse, aberrant and dangerous, is now lauded–and integral to the plot lines of most sitcoms coming out of Hollywood–and to trespass new cultural norms that drive men to be with men, women to be with women, and institutionalize every distasteful version of homosexuality, bisexuality and weirdsexuality in existence, means certain political death, and possibly a lawsuit to boot.
Pedophilia is the new “gay rights” movement. A cabal of university researchers and ‘social scientists’ are now doing the work that the reprehensible NAMBLA once had to do on its own, and that is to normalize the idea that adults having sex with children is neither harmful nor abnormal, and that children may actually enjoy such relationships. Pedophilia proponents are sure to use the hammer of PC to bludgeon opponents just like the perversion movements that came before and now dominate our culture. The pedophilia movement is already poo-pooing the idea that child molestation is criminal and that its practitioners are in anyway abnormal. Pedophilia PC is designed to drive children out of the loving arms of their parents into the predatory arms of sexual reprobates.
ILLEGAL ALIEN PC:
Illegal aliens are known in politically correct parlance as ‘undocumented laborers,’ ‘migrant workers,’ or ‘Americans who got kicked out and have come back to reclaim their homeland.’ But the fact remains that they are in the country illegally, and being non-citizens, are also aliens. PC nonsense is designed to neutralize the innate sense of justice within the lawful person, while eliminating the moral standards by which civil society judges lawfulness. PC labels lawfulness as narrow-minded and oppressive while it proclaims illegality to be a means to justice in an unjust and unfair world. Any terminology that links illegal aliens to illegal activities will get you a protracted sentence in racist gulag. Several states are currently enacting policies that elevate the rights of illegal aliens above the rights of citizens. Illinois, New Mexico and Washington state will now allow illegal immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses with little or no documentation. The caveat that turns justice on its head is that if illegals are stopped on a traffic infraction, with or without a license, the state could be sued under the current practices of Obama’s Department of Justice, that regard questioning of someone based on race or nationality an infringement of their civil rights. The same does not hold true for citizens who are stopped and/or arrested on a driving charge. In this case, the illegal alien is immune from the consequences that the lawful citizen must suffer should he break the law.
Illegal Alien PC has turned one’s illegal status into a ticket to a free-for-all at the expense of law-abiding Americans. Illegal Alien PC drives potential new citizens away from constitutional principles, personal accountability, and self-reliance and into the arms of pandering politicians and a no-account nanny state. Political Correctness is cultural carpet bombing, indiscriminately blasting apart the foundations of civil society. PC is the wedge between individuals and the healthy, natural impulses that drive them to aspire to American ideals such as marriage, family, self-sufficiency, and individual achievement. PC is the invisible force field that drives young people apart by suspicion borne of the cultural myths of feminists and secularists. PC is the faux compassion that drives Americans away from the moral principles of the Founding Fathers into subservience at the feet of populations who have come to consume the wealth of the nation without ever becoming participants in the American Dream. PC is ultimately a wedge between people and God.
by Marjorie Haun 7/16/14