Atheists: At War With a God They Don’t Believe In

July 29, 2014

The latest offensive tactic of Atheists and Secular Humanists is to tweet or post this image:

the-USA-is-not-a-christian-nation_john-adams   They conveniently omit, however, that when Adams said these words he was referring to government, not the American people, rebuking the idea that American government was as outgrowth of Biblical Christianity. Atheists should remember that in 1791 delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave us a republic–if we can keep it–formed as an impartial secular state whose primary purpose is to defend and protect the rights of people to think and act according to their moral impulses, which at the time were deeply entrenched in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as found in the Bible. Atheists fail to mention Adams and the other Founders wrote often about religion, morality, and the Divine lineage of man, weaving Christian principles through almost every treatise and pamphlet of the time. They should remember the following: George Washington

“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”

John Adams: 1776

“The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever.”

Thomas Jefferson

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”

Alexander Hamilton

“I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.”

Patrick Henry

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

I couldn’t make the case better. It’s been made. But nevertheless Christians like me who challenge the growing Secularist movement in America and her institutions, are fighting these savage Antichrists on a daily basis in order  to force their illogical and fragmented arguments into the open air of debate, and show them as the unenlightened, bitter, naughty Children of God they are. Trolling by Atheists and people who call themselves “Secular Humanists,” is common. They exist to monitor anti-Atheist or pro-Christian posts on social media, crashing and trashing a thread or comment with vile anti-God comments. There are some who will occasionally engage in debate, but they tend to bolt once they see their talking points, such as these, fail:

  • I don’t need to pray to the invisible man in the sky.
  • Religion and science are incompatible–only science can be proved.
  • Christianity is responsible for more deaths than all other ideologies combined.
  • If Jesus Christ were alive today, I would kill him again.

Yeah, there’s hate, darkness of mind, and arrogance, more than anything Atheists are arrogant. For whatever reason, they have supplanted the authority of God with their own limited “wisdom,” and so to defend something so feeble and ephemeral, they employ chest thumping, rabid arrogance. Rarely, if ever, do Christians troll Atheist discourse looking for an opportunity to leap in and launch a few venal insults. But Atheists rail endlessly against Christian beliefs. Like insecure, emotionally-undifferentiated children, such people feel small and are threatened by the all-knowing, creative power of God. Atheists resent the confidence of Christians, which speaks without words, an unshakable trust  in the authority and love of God. Atheists hate the fact that force–the persuasion of the courts, censorship, and laws that increasingly limit public and private expressions of faith–has no power to stop Christians from believing. They’re frustrated with their inability to use rhetorical fallacies disguised as “logic” to derail Christians from their moral stances on things like homosexuality and abortion. Above all, Atheists are perplexed by the happiness and peace accessible to Christians; a peace that reaches beyond a mere system of beliefs, to the daily assurance that life is purposeful, adversity an important feature of mortality, and all is guided by loving eye of the Creator. Always searching in their secular quiver of science for what they call “proof,” Atheists and Secular Humanists blanch when the faithful are not persuaded by an absence of scientific of evidence. Christians don’t need evidence that can be measured by scales of science. The timeless principles authored by God, the beauties of His creation, and the immensely logical and enduring nature of His Word, are sufficient to keep faith ablaze when countless opposing ideologies would quench it. What Atheists fail to realize is that they all have a measure of righteous sensibility, whether regarding the dignity of their person or their right to think and associate freely, which derives from an eternal moral constitution, set forth by God, and upon which all physical and spiritual laws are based. Doubting the existence of an eternal Heavenly Father, or pretending that a lack of scientific proof of God disproves His reality, is the defining, and fatal, argument of savage secularists. But as a Christian, and a highly logical one at that, I believe that Atheists are most dogged by doubts about their own existence. For without God, there is now law. Without law there is no good nor evil. And in the absence of definitive good and evil, there exists no agency. Without agency, we are not human. If we are not human, but mere bundles of sensations and appetite, then anything is permissible, and a cosmos where anything is permissible is a cosmos of darkness, chaos, and oblivion. For Atheists to doubt the existence of God, they must in turn doubt that that anything exists at all. Head in Hands

Alma 42:22

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

by Marjorie Haun 7/29/14

The Secret BLM Plan to Close Off 140 Million Acres

July 28, 2014

The BLM, in concert with other agencies such as the National Park Service and Forest Service, plans to shut off roughly 1/10 of open American lands to human activity.

closed An internal document published by Department of the Interior titled “Treasured Landscapes”, was not meant to be released for public consumption. The House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee, however, obtained and published the 2009 draft in an effort to create public awareness of the shocking plan within the BLM and other government agencies to confiscate hundreds of millions of acres across the country through the creation of national monuments, national parks, wilderness areas and other protected zones.

The Introduction of this “discussion paper” details a 21st Century plan to “finalize appropriate conservation designations” of areas in the United States equivalent to the size of Wyoming and Colorado combined, overcoming “jurisdictional boundaries” (read state and private property rights) to create “a modern landscape-level management system…” In other words, the BLM, in concert with other agencies such as the National Park Service and Forest Service, plans to shut off roughly 1/10 of open American lands to human activity.

The “Treasured Landscapes” plan is being implemented by the current administration, as seen in a number of  “Presidential declarations” which have, by executive order, created several new national monuments and protected areas without public comment or Congressional action. It gets worse. Read the entire text of the internal document here: 

Friends of the Colorado National Monument has fought to keep a local treasure, a fixture of our daily lives, from undergoing a bureaucratic metamorphosis into a restrictive and risky national park. As plans of federal government agencies are revealed, it becomes clear that they view human beings as a problem to be solved, and not as citizens to be served. Please read and share this chilling document with everyone you know.

Posted with permission from Friends of the Colorado National Monument by Reagangirl.com 7/28/14

Mark Udall: Married to Extreme Environmentalism

July 27, 2014

Mark Udall is married, in every sense, to the extreme environmental Left. His rejection of the Keystone XL project, which would increase America’s energy independence and bring thousands of jobs to states across the country, is indicative of how far he is willing to go to please extremist special interests, and at the same time, keep the peace at home.

Mark Udall, Maggie Fox

Senator Mark Udall (D) Colorado, is known for his alliances with extreme environmental groups and his “I hate fossil fuel” policies, which often puts him at odds with Colorado’s businesses, local interests, and the national economy:

  • Despite a recent study showing that fracking bans in the state of Colorado would have devastating effects on the state and local economies, Mark Udall refuses to disavow fracking ban initiatives.
  • He voted against a non-binding resolution in 2013 supporting completion of the Keystone XL pipeline, despite polling which shows a large majority of Coloradans support it.
  • Udall’s loyalties come into question recently when billionaire philanthropist Tom Steyer vowed to “back” lawmakers who continue to oppose the KeystoneXL pipeline.
  • A proponent of “green” alternative energy, Udall has a record of pushing “climate change” legislation, and saying those in Colorado who have doubts about the science behind so-called manmade global warming have “their heads in the sand.”
  • In 2004 Senator Udall himself received a 100% legislative rating from the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), which is heavily involved in activities that increase Federal Government control over areas in and around national parks and promote their long-term goals of shutting off millions of acres to human activity and development.

One of the reasons Cory Gardner, the United States Congressman from Yuma, Colorado, is such a threat to Udall’s tenure in the Senate, is that Udall has a narrow, ideological focus on environmental issues, ignores the will of the people of his state and the country, and has voted with Obama nearly 100% of the time. Knowing what we know about Udall is unpleasant enough–but many people don’t know that he is married to Maggie Fox-Udall, an environmental lawyer and activist.

Maggie Fox-Udall has been the good wife to candidate Udall. While most political wives are seen in public supporting their men, acting the supporting role of help meet and honey, Maggie Fox-Udall, whose hubby is in a celebrity death match with Gardner, has been strangely silent–inexplicably invisible. Perhaps this is why:

  • Maggie Fox-Udall is currently serving as President and CEO of the “Climate Reality Project”. The Climate Reality Project  is “a non-profit organization leading a campaign to help citizens around the world discover the truth about the climate crisis and bring about global change.”  In a “getboulder.com” magazine interview, Mrs. Udall compares educating “climate change” skeptics that the phenomenon is a reality with that of educating the people of South Africa that Apartheid was wrong.
  • Maggie Fox is the past National President of “America Votes,” which “has built a permanent advocacy and campaign infrastructure that provides coordination, data and targeting services to progressive organizations; pursues electoral reforms that expand voting rights across the country; and advances progressive policies through state and local ballot initiatives. America Votes’ strong progressive infrastructure will support our coalition partners’ advocacy efforts and facilitate the coordination of voter outreach.”
  • Maggie Fox is also a former Deputy Director of The Sierra Club, whose Rocky Mountain Chapter (RMC) advocates…
    • Fracking bans
    • Banning oil and gas extraction and waste disposal
    • Political activities that drive energy development out of the State of Colorado
    • Supports state and federal legislation increasing government control and decreasing local control over land and water rights, and threatening private property rights
  • An ardent Leftist, Maggie Fox campaigned for Obama in 2008. In this clip she stumps for Joe Biden and introduces him with a plug for “a green energy revolution.”

The Maggie Fox-Udall resume’ is rife with examples of extremist leanings. But it should come as no surprise. Udall is known first as an environmentalist and obstructionist of western energy projects. He has tried for nearly 3 years to push national park status for the Colorado National Monument onto the folks of Western Colorado, a large majority of whom don’t want the change. But like all ideologues, Udall and Fox are relentless.

To hardcore Leftists like the Udalls, science takes a back seat to purpose. The ends justify any means, no matter how destructive. Public opinion is a hurdle to be overcome. And truth is what they want it to be.

Colorado is sick of bad science, destructive Democrat policies, and tin-eared politicians who, instead of We the People, serve their own agendas and extreme special interest groups.  Mark Udall is quite literally married to the extreme environmental Left.

by Marjorie Haun  7/27/14

 

 

Illegal Aliens and the Corrupting of Churches

July 26, 2014

Our churches are in trouble when they adopt this perverse double-standard. This is not the Christ-like charity of the good Samaritan. This is the self-flagellation of a guilt-ridden people, hell-bent on self-destruction.

Illegal aliens, by way of their illegality, consign themselves to lives outside the true American culture.  They will join other illegals in communities where anchor immigrants have mastered the gaming of our permissive social welfare system. They come not to produce, but to take, always seeking more substance from the earners for their support, and more absolution from civil and moral authorities for their crimes.

American churches of all denominations, especially those churches which openly offer sanctuary to criminal aliens, but those as well  whose charitable works benefit communities where illegals dwell, have done this.  Catholic churches in California, Texas, Colorado and other states, as well as Baptists and other denominations, have been taking money from the federal government in preparation for the current tsunami of illegals now pouring in through the southern border. In the name of charity, the separation of church and state, a concept which protects religious bodies from the constraints and interference from the government, has dissolved into bribery.

Churches often rationalize that illegals are simply good people escaping oppression in their own countries, and that it’s understandable when they break our laws in a quest for opportunity. This is where churches let the camel into the tent by turning from moral principles and supplanting them with sentiment and expediency.

Church advocates of illegals assert that poor immigrant “seeking a better life” is by nature virtuous and has the right to take what others earn because that’s the policy Jesus would enact.  But is this attitude a moral attitude? The answer of course is no, but it goes even deeper.

People of faith who are law-abiding citizens and who contribute and tithe to their churches subsidize illegals who live opposition to the doctrines to which they try faithfully to conform.  With their  contributions they are asked to suborn their moral virtues to the vices of an entire class of people whose behavior and identity is that of criminals. 2illegal-immigrant-children-obama-dumps-on-arizona-2014

People of faith are made to feel guilty if they take umbrage at their church’s extension of charitable effort to communities where criminal aliens are harbored.  People who live lawfully may feel pressured into supporting and sustaining people who break they laws they abide and who enjoy a parasitic attachment to a system which is already supported by the taxes they pay.

If some people can break the law while others will be condemned for doing so, where are the moral absolutes, and where is the moral authority of any body that teaches such a thing?

Our churches are in trouble when they adopt this perverse double-standard. This is not the Christ-like charity of the good Samaritan. This is the self-flagellation of a guilt-ridden people, hell-bent on self-destruction.

Many people of faith have been deceived by the acts within their own churches which throw moral absolutism out the door in favor of political correctness. Churches lose their moral authority when they harbor, and pressure their members to play surrogates to, a generation of lawless aliens. These illegals are not pilgrims but are parasites who have come to take advantage of our generosity, burdening our schools, filling our prisons, and plundering state and federal social services, often amassing incomes far above those of the lawful, working American. This is a perversion of faith. This is an abdication of moral authority.

By Marjorie Haun 7/26/14

1960s Urban Policies lead to 2014 Urban Blight and Broken Families

July 25, 2014

This article is posted with the permission of Derrick Wilburn, founder of American Conservatives of Color.

[The Model Cities Program was an element of U.S. President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty. In 1966, new legislation led to the more than 150, five-year long, Model Cities experiments to develop new antipoverty programs and alternative forms of municipal government. The ambitious federal urban aid program succeeded in fostering a new generation of mostly black urban leaders.]
-from WIKIPEDIA
A portion or rather ‘condition’ of the access to “aid” from the Model Cities program that burst entitlement spending into the stratosphere was the necessity of there not being a man in the house in order for women to gain access to certain streams of aid. Since the programs were targeted toward inner-city urban communities, this requirement of course disproportionately affected black women/mothers/families. Now, 50 years later and with an out-of-wedlock birthrate of 73% in the black community – we are reaping the fruits of those horrible, horrible seeds.
In 1993, pondering the sad plight of the 20 million American children growing up without their fathers in the home, Charles Murray identified “illegitimacy as the single most important social problem of our time…because it drives everything else.” Last year, the U.S. illegitimacy rate had grown to 41%, among whites it was 29%.Prior to Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, husbands and fathers provided for their families. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock babies born last year and their unmarried moms now look to Big Brother as their financial provider. The Left is content to let this problem persist because 70% of unmarried women voted for Barack Obama for president. They vote for the party that offers the richer subsidies.Means-tested welfare handouts cost federal taxpayers $700 billion last year (not counting programs into which people pay, such as social security and medicare). Spending by the states raises the annual total to $950 billion, more than we are spending on national defense, and most of these programs subsidize non-marriage.The 69 means-tested programs include Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, housing subsidies, Medicaid, daycare, WIC, EITC (which can be as much as $5,657 a year to low-income families), School Lunch, School Breakfast, Summer Food, SSI, Headstart and S-CHIP.
The Heritage Foundation estimates that these benefits amount to $16,800 per person in poverty.The financial subsidies that encourage non-marriage are the biggest reasons why federal spending is out of control. There is no way to make significant cuts in the federal deficit unless we address the marriage-absence problem. Poverty is massively greater for children living with a single, divorced, or cohabitating parent than with parents who are married to each other. The poverty rate for single parents with children is 37%, but only 6% for married couples with children. At the same time that it forces government to become the financial provider for millions of children and their caregivers, it reduces the government’s tax receipts to pay for the handouts.Income tax day now divides us into two almost equal classes: those who work for their income and those who just vote for their income.
In 2009, 47% paid no federal income taxes, and the bottom 40% receive cash or benefits financed by the 53% who do pay income taxes.Among other unfortunate effects, the trends toward non-marriage and toward same-sex marriage are a direct attack on fathers. The bond between a child and his mother is an obvious fact of nature, but marriage is the relationship that established the link between a child and his father.Since the federal government created the child-support bureaucracy, the majority of divorces have been initiated by women. They confidently expect that pro-feminist family courts will award them a steady income for which they will never be held accountable.
The more child support that divorced fathers are ordered to pay, the more federal funds flow through the hands of the states, which compete for federal bonuses given to states that collect the most child support. It is profitable to state bureaucrats to make sure that fathers are permitted to see the own children only a few days per month so support payments can be set at the highest possible level.

 

Women have discovered they can use a request for an Order of Protection against their husband as “the gamesmanship of divorce” (in the words of the Illinois Bar Journal) in order to get sole child custody plus generous so-called child support. It’s easy to get such Orders without any evidence of abuse or even a threat, without notice to the husband, and with no danger of prosecution for perjury. Federal and state laws and subsidies that undermine marriage are the biggest fiscal as well as cultural issue of our times.

by Derrick Wilburn © 2014, All Rights Reserved

To become a partner of American Conservatives of Color, please click HERE.




Peter Brookes: Islamic Militants Have America in the Crosshairs

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

Before

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.

On the topic of today’s hearing, I would like to make three fundamental points.ISIS

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 Shababnoted 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.  

Conclusion

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.

Peter Brookes

 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

Fur Babies and the Dying Family

July 24, 2014

Environmentalism, animal rights, and abortion are partnered in a legislative and cultural campaign to negate the value of the human individual.

2dog 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

10 Commandments of Liberalism


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.

310-commandments-block

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



More Udall Hypocrisy on “Equal Pay”

U.S. Sen. Udall fails on pay equity

July 21, 2014

By Joshua Sharf | WatchdogWire.com

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. AP file photo

OOPS: U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., pays his women staffers less than the men he hires.

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.

House staffs are much smaller. Gardner employed only six women and four men for the fiscal year. However, Gardner’s office paid the women an average of $55,000, with the men earning a little more than $46,000. The difference is almost completely accounted for by the senior staff positions. Udall hired men to serve in the higher-paid chief of staff and deputy chief of staff positions, while Gardner’s chief of staff was a woman.
Posted with permission by Reagangirl.com  7/23/14

Democrat Apps for your Not-so-Smart Phone

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!

hill222

  • 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

Content Protected Using Blog Protector By: PcDrome.
WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera