It Was The Christmas Party

The cognitive dissonance of the left and left-wing media is amazing. They just can’t seem to accept facts and act accordingly. It was the video that caused the Benghazi attack. Now the narrative promulgated by the left is that it was the Christmas party that drove Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik to kill 14 and wound 17 at the San Bernardino Inland Regional Center yesterday.

Law enforcement authorities are eyeing terrorism as a possible motive for an attack in Southern California that left 14 dead and was carried out with cold precision by a "devout" Muslim and his wife, who were killed hours later in a shootout with police.

Dressed in tactical gear and toting assault rifles, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, burst into a San Bernardino social services facility and shot up a conference room where Farook's employer, the county health department, was hosting a holiday party. The pair escaped in a black SUV after the attack, which authorities said was over within minutes, only to resurface four hours later and less than 2 miles away in a fierce gun battle on the city's main drag.

"They came prepared to do what they did, as if they were on a mission," San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said.

Farook, who Burguan said was born in the U.S. and had worked at the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health for five years, was described by co-workers as a "devout" Muslim, who is believed to have lived in nearby Redlands. The nationality of Malik, who reportedly recently had a baby with Farook, was not identified. Family members told The Associated Press the couple was married.

Law enforcement officials said late Wednesday they could not rule out terrorism as a possible motive. The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force was aiding in the investigation.

A law enforcement source told Fox News that the couple were each carrying an AR-15 rifle and a pistol when they were shot and killed by police after a brief chase in their black SUV about 2 miles from the initial shooting site. The source said the vehicle also contained so-called "rollout bags" with multiple pipe bombs, as well as additional ammunition. The couple also had GoPro cameras strapped to their body armor and wore tactical clothing, including vests stuffed with ammunition magazines.

"That's a military tactic for a sustained fight," the source told Fox News of the rollout bags.

In addition to the explosives found at the SUV, authorities discovered and detonated three pipe bombs late Wednesday at the Inland Regional Center, the complex where the initial shooting took place.

Another source described a house in Redlands that was being searched in connection with the shooting as "an IED facility." The source said investigators discovered multiple pipe bombs in the house, as well as small explosives that were strapped to remote-controlled cars.

The initial shooting happened shortly before 11 a.m. local time at the state-run center, which includes three buildings where developmentally disabled people of all ages are treated. The conference area had been rented out by Farook's colleagues for a holiday banquet, according to authorities. The chief said that Farook had angrily left the party before returning with Malik. However, other investigators doubted the alleged dispute had taken place or whether the shooting could solely be chalked up to a workplace dispute due to the apparent planning behind the attack as well as the heavy weaponry used.

As the day progressed and information dribbled out to the media only Fox News took a cautious approach to the shooting. Fox reported on information reported by law enforcement agencies and focused on the investigation while showing pictures of events and interviewing eye-witnesses. At the same time bastions of the left such as CNN and MSNBC along with our President, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats focused on gun control. However, one interesting fact is that during the day while left-wing pundits and politicians were touting for more gun control California governor Jerry Brown was loudly silent. Perhaps his advisors told him to keep his mouth shut so that latter he would not have to eat his words.

Within hours of the shooting the left was blaming Republicans and Christians. The media speculated that the shooter was white. But it turns out to be another round of Islamic radicals.

The name of one of the suspects was out there for hours, but only Fox News was willing to report it. The rest of the media, until they could do it no longer, kept pounding on about gun control. Unfortunately, it became obvious that this was more than a random act of violence.

So the obvious happened. On CNN, a talking head openly speculated that the Islamic radical wasn’t a terrorist, just offended by having a holiday party. Others suggested it just had to be workplace violence.

No doubt Syed Farook, a county employee, went to the party being held at the second floor conference center of the San Bernardino Regional Center and was offended that it was a “Christmas” party. So he went home in an angry mood got his wife Tashfeen Malik and took their 6-month old baby to grandma’s house. They then suited up in body armor and tactical gear got their AR-15s, semi-automatic handguns, and improvised explosive devices. They strapped on GoPro cameras and set booby traps in their house. Then they jumped in their SUV and took off to kill a bunch of people at a party. If you believe that this was spontaneous work place violence there are several bridges in New York you can buy at bargain basement prices. This was a planned terrorist attack and all that was needed by Syed and Tashfeen was the right moment.

It really is a study in contrasts. Last week, the media blamed videos and Christians for three deaths in Colorado. Now, they are struggling to find a reason for the deaths in California, but they are absolutely sure it can have nothing to do with terrorism or radical Islam. Only Christians shoot places up.

There is an interesting trend worth noting. In the face of tragedy, the political left always blames rational Americans first — not crazies, not terrorists, but rational Americans with whom they have political disagreements, who tend to be white, Christian, and Republican.

It happened immediately yesterday. As word came of a mass shooting in California, the left’s immediate reaction was to blame Republicans. A writer for the Guardian suggested assassinating NRA board members. CNN made sure to document where the Planned Parenthood facility was. Alan Colmes did too. So too did Bloomberg. News reports spread that it could be a white suspect who did the shooting. Once it turned out to be a Muslim, the left-media would not even mention his name for hours after Fox News had broken the story.

Along the way, leftwing activists began shaming anyone who tweeted or put on Facebook that they were offering prayers. The left was shaming people as victims and relatives in California, with blood still on the ground, were praying together or texting, asking for prayers. Yes, the left was criticizing people for praying as the victims were praying.

When shootings like this happen in the United States, the first reaction of the American right is to blame either lunatics with mental issues or terrorists. They do not instinctively blame their fellow Americans with whom they have political disagreements. But time and time again, whenever there is a shooting, whether it is Floyd Lee Corkins shooting up the Family Research Council, the gay reporter in Virginia killing his two colleagues, the Islamic terrorist in Chattanooga, TN, or the two (or three) jihadists in California yesterday, the left always blames their political opponents. Their opponents tend to be mostly white, mostly Christian Republicans.

They peddle made up statistics on violent Christians and angry Republicans. They wrap themselves in comfortable memes. They refuse to acknowledge actual enemies to their freedom and they refuse to acknowledge the problems with mental health in this country. Their agenda is single-minded focused on taking away guns and shaming those who dissent from their agenda.

In the United States, there is roughly one gun per person. The American cities with the worst gun violence, Washington, D.C. and Chicago, IL, also have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Contrast them with Kennesaw, GA, which requires every homeowner in the city to own a gun. According to the website www.neighborhoodscout.com, Kennesaw sees 1.31 violent crimes per 1000 people annually. Chicago sees 9.00 and Washington sees 13.00.

The truth is the United States and its gun culture are unique. Instead of mimicking Australia and Great Britain with their gun confiscation programs, our leaders should think differently. The best gun control in this country is an armed, honest citizenry who can shoot straight. Instead of gun free zones, we should allow law abiding, concealed carry permit holders to go where they wish with their guns.

Luckily for gun owners, the more Democrats agitate for restrictive gun laws, the worse the Democrats do in polling. Beta male gun control policies may be winners on editorial pages, but are losers in our national electoral system.

When the shooters turn out to be gay or Muslim or an environmentalist, the media sweeps it under the rug. When it turns out to be a single while male with mental health problems, the media indicts the entire political right and attacks the NRA.

The left is always blaming white America, Christians, and conservatives first. They cannot help themselves. They have made every aspect of their lives political and grace toward their fellow citizens must be set aside in the name of advancing their agenda.

Just remember, the moment it turns out the killers yelled “Allahu Akbar,” this becomes a workers comp case for workplace violence just like Fort Hood.

Unless our politicians and media get honest and face facts contrary to their political agenda these terrorist attacks will continue. ISIS, unlike al Qaeda, does not look for the “big attack” to promulgate terror in the United States. They use the Internet to recruit and advise Muslims to become radical Islamic terrorist. These radicalized Muslims look for soft targets where they can kill a dozen or more people quickly. Paris is a great example for ISIS to use for recruitment. This is probably why the San Bernardino shooters were wearing GoPro cameras so they could post the aftermath of their attack on the world-wide web.

Cowards, Maniacs or Warriors

“It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it superior over all religions, though the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah” - Quran, Sura 9:33

Sura 9:33, simply put, predicts the conquest of Islam over all religions. Islam must dominate the world through jihad.

"He who fights that Allah’s word be superior is in Allah’s cause" – The Hadith

The Hadith are the collections of the reports claiming to quote what the prophet Muhammad said verbatim on any matter. The term comes from the Arabic meaning "report", "account" or "narrative". Hadiths are second only to the Quran in developing Islamic jurisprudence, and regarded as important tools for understanding the Quran and commentaries on it. Many important elements of traditional Islam such as five salat prayers, the abhorrence of paintings and sculpture of living things, stoning adulterers, are mentioned in hadith but not the Quran.

In Islam, Muhammad is considered al-insan al-kamil (the "ideal man"). Muhammad is in no way considered divine, nor is he worshipped (no image of Muhammad is permitted lest it encourage idolatry), but he is the model par excellence for all Muslims in how they should conduct themselves.

It is through Muhammad's personal teachings and actions — which make up the "way of the Prophet," the Sunnah — that Muslims discern what is a good and holy life. Details about the Prophet — how he lived, what he did, his non-Quranic utterances, his personal habits — are indispensable knowledge for any faithful Muslim.

Knowledge of the Sunnah comes primarily from the hadiths ("reports") about Muhammad's life, which were passed down orally until codified in the eighth century AD, some hundred years after Muhammad's death.

The Hadiths comprise the most important body of Islamic texts after the Quran; they are basically a collection of anecdotes about Muhammad's life believed to have originated with those who knew him personally. (Click here for more information regarding the Hadith)

Jihad is an Islamic term referring to the religious duty of Muslims to maintain the religion. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning "to strive, to apply oneself, to struggle, to persevere". A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural of which is mujahideen). The word jihad appears frequently in the Quran, often in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)", to refer to the act of striving to serve the purposes of God on this earth.

Muslims and scholars do not all agree on its definition. Many observers—both Muslim and non-Muslim—as well as the Dictionary of Islam, talk of jihad having two meanings: an inner spiritual struggle (the "greater jihad"), and an outer physical struggle against the enemies of Islam (the "lesser jihad") which may take a violent or non-violent form. Jihad is often translated as "Holy War", although this term is controversial. According to "Orientalist" (historian of the Middle East) Bernard Lewis, "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists", and specialists in the Hadith "understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."Javed Ahmad Ghamidi states that there is consensus among Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against wrong doers.

It was generally supposed that the order for a general war could only be given by the Caliph (an office that was claimed by the Ottoman sultans), but Muslims who did not acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Caliphate (which has been vacant since 1923)—such as non-Sunnis and non-Ottoman Muslim states—always looked to their own rulers for the proclamation of a jihad. There has been in fact no universal warfare by Muslims on non-believers since the early caliphate. Some proclaimed jihad by claiming themselves as Mahdi, e.g. the Sudanese Muhammad Ahmad in 1882 (Fall of Khartoum). In classical Islam, the military form of jihad was also regulated to protect civilians [Source: Wikipedia]

(Note: The Sunnis view the Mahdi as the successor of Muhammad, but, unlike most Shia Muslims, do not believe the Mahdi has already been born. The Mahdi is expected to arrive to rule the world and to reestablish righteousness.)

The primary aim of jihad as warfare is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state. In theory, jihad was to continue until "all mankind either embraced Islam or submitted to the authority of the Muslim state." There could be truces before this was achieved, but no permanent peace. One who died 'on the path of God' was a martyr, (Shahid), whose sins were remitted and who was secured "immediate entry to paradise.

All of the above shows the complexity of Islam and the differing interpretations by scholars over the years. There are many sects of Islam and they have been fighting and killing each other since the 7^th century:

Although Sunnis make up the majority of Muslims, not every Muslim belongs to the same Islamic sect. A Muslim's Islamic beliefs may take one of these forms:

Sunni Muslims include 84%–90% of all Muslims. Sunni means “tradition,” and Sunnis regard themselves as those who emphasize following the traditions of Muhammad and of the first two generations of the community of Muslims that followed Muhammad.

A number of movements to reform Islam have originated mainly in the 20th century. Some are limited to one country and others have a broader influence. Most are Sunni movements, such as the Wahhabis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Jama`at-i-Islami.

Shi`ite Muslims comprise 10%–16% of all Muslims. Shi`ites are the “party of `Ali,” who believe that Muhammad’s son-in-law `Ali was his designated successor (imam) and that the Muslim community should be headed by a designated descendent of Muhammad. Three main subgroups of Shi`ites are Twelvers (Ithna-`Asharis), Seveners (Isma`ilis), and Fivers (Zaydis).

Sufis are Islamic mystics. Sufis go beyond external requirements of the religion to seek a personal experience of God through forms of meditation and spiritual growth. A number of Sufi orders, comparable to Christian monastic orders, exist. Most Sufis are also Sunni Muslims, although some are Shi`ite Muslims. Many conservative Sunni Muslims regard Sufism as a corruption of Islam, although most still regard Sufis as Muslims.

Bahai and Ahmadiyyas are 19th-century offshoots of Shi`ite and Sunni Islam, respectively. Bahai’s consider themselves the newest of the major world’s religions but recognize that historically they originated from Shi`ite Islam in the same way that Christianity originated from Judaism. Ahmadiyyas do regard themselves as Muslims. Most other Muslims, however, deny that either group is a legitimate form of Islam and regard members of both groups as heretics — people who have corrupted and abandoned Islamic belief and practice.

Druze, Alevis, and `Alawis are small, sectarian groups with unorthodox beliefs and practices that split off from Islam. Druze and Alevis do not regard themselves as Muslims and are not considered Muslims by other Muslims. `Alawis have various non-Islamic practices, but debate continues as to whether they should still be considered Muslims.

With 1.6 billion people in the world who claim Islam as their faith it is the small sect of Sunnis and some Shi`ites we should be focused on. Iran is a Shiite dominated nation. They are the world’s leading sponsor or terrorism by providing monetary and material support for Hezbollah – a Shi`ite Muslim organization. Hezbollah is often at odds with other Muslim terrorist groups.

Those loyal to the Sunni branch of Islam are by far the largest and most aggressive terrorist organizations. They are comprised of those pledging featly to the likes of The Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabism, Salafism, and Hamas. These groups are large in numbers and get their monetary and material support from the Sunni Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden was loyal to Wahhabism. Hamas’ main concern is the fight with Israel.

The latest coordinated attacks in Paris where 100 people lost their lives and 300 were injured, some critical, were carried out by well trained and armed Jihadis. They were not cowards and maniacs as many in the media are calling them. They were dedicated Radical Islamists believing in the tenets of the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabism, and Salafism. In essence they believed themselves to be warriors for Allah. James Holmes, the person who shot up the theater in Aurora, Colorado and Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter were maniacs. They were lone wolf disturbed individuals who had no ideological alliances. They just wanted to make a statement by killing innocent, defenseless people.

Like the Japanese Kamikaze pilots of World War II when they volunteered to fly their planes into U.S. warships during the battles for Saipan and Okinawa. They were not maniacs or cowards. They were willing to die for their emperor. By our western standards were could not understand their motives so we deemed them lunatics. Zealots yes, but not lunatics. These pilots had definite targets in mind. They knew their mission and were ready to die for it.

The Radical Islamist terrorists of today are in the same class as the Japanese pilots. They are warriors ready to die for Allah. They carry out well planned missions like the 19 pilots who rammed their hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As were the Pakistanis perpetrating the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The recent Paris attackers were of the same breed. They were supported by one of the above mentioned radical Islamist sects. They believed they were doing Allah’s work. Some were trained and sponsored by ISIL under the direction of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi its leader.

ISIL is a Wahhabi/Salafi jihadist extremist militant group, self-proclaimed to be a caliphate and Islamic state. Unlike bin Laden’s al Qaeda who had to exist in Afghanistan under the auspices of the Taliban ISIL is a caliphate. They occupy territory in Iraq and Syria. They have training grounds, money, captured military weapons, including tanks, cyber networks, and dedicated leadership and soldiers. They can print passports and send their soldiers anywhere in the world they wish. Many of these soldiers travel as refugees seeking asylum from western nations including the United States.

They advertise for recruits from western nations through their publications and the Internet. Young, disaffected Muslims (including women) surreptitiously travel to the ISIL caliphate for training and a mission. That mission usually pertains to the nation they are citizens of or where they came from. According to Jihad Watch in the past 18 months 66 Muslims have been charged with Islamic State plots in U.S. Many of these people charged do make the news. Faisal Mohammad the student who went on a stabbing spree at the University of California at Merced was one of those young Muslim youths influenced by ISIL propaganda. While deemed a mentally ill lone wolf by the media and UCM despite the fact that Mohammad “was found to have an image of the ISIS flag, a handwritten manifesto with instructions on how to behead someone, and reminders to pray to Allah,” everyone who participated was sure that his stabbings had something to do with “images of masculinity” and nothing to do with Islam, and that only “Islamophobes” thought otherwise. This is no surprise. The University of California Merced is no different from any other campus all over the country: full of indoctrinated bots who have been thoroughly imbued with the notion that when Islamic jihadists attack us, it is our fault. This is an example of how political correctness will get people killed. This what the French thought even after the Charlie Hebdo shooting in January. It took last week’s attack to finally mobilize the French and Belgian security and intelligence forces to begin rounding up those suspected of jihad.

This week the Honduran authorities arrested five Syrians intending to make it to the United States with stolen Greek passports, triggering alarm Wednesday in the wake of the Paris attacks launched by Syria-linked jihadists.

The Syrians were arrested on Tuesday as they flew into Toncontin airport serving the Honduran capital and failed to make it past airport security checks, a police spokesman, Anibal Baca, told reporters.

“Five Syrian citizens have been detained and will be taken to our offices to be investigated because it is suspected they are carrying false documents, passports stolen in Greece,” Baca said.

Were these trained jihad soldiers making their way to the United States to form a terrorist cell or just a few Syrian refugees trying to get into the United States. If they were refugees where were their wives and children, if any?

Now ISIL is threatening attacks in Washington, D.C. and New York’s Times Square. While these attacks may be possible to me they are doubtful. Both of these places are hard targets. As demonstrated in Paris these jihadis go after soft targets. Their cells are not large enough or equipped with heavy weapons to assault hard, well-guarded hard targets. In my view they will go after soft targets such as shopping malls and theaters.

Shopping malls and darkened theaters are soft targets. They usually are not protected by armed guards. They are in most cases designated as “Gun Free” zones. For a moment think of malls like The Mall of America in Minnesota, South Coast Plaza in affluent Orange County, California, or Clackamas Town Center in Oregon. These are very large malls with parking spaces for well over 6,000 cars. They also have parking structures. On Black Friday they will filled to capacity – well over 10,000 shoppers.

Now you take an Islamic terrorist cell of three or four persons armed with AK-47s – there favorite weapon of choice. In 6 or 7 minutes, the minimum time it would take armed law enforcement officers to arrive on scene, the terrorists could kill and wound upwards of 200 people spraying 7.62 rounds at 600 rounds per minute with a muzzle velocity of 2,300 feet per second around the mall from differing positions.

When the police arrive they will most probably be armed with a 9mm Glock 17 or 19. While these hand guns are fine for normal police work or self-defense they are pretty much useless against trained terrorists using AK-47. Not many people, including law enforcement officers are able to hit a person in their central nervous system from more than 30-40 feet. FBI studies have concluded that between 50-70% of LEOs will miss the target with their second and third shots. Even when hit by a 9mm 124 grain hollow point anywhere but the CNS (heart, upper spine or head) the shooter will not be disabled and will continue his shooting. This has been proven by the FBI.

There has been mention of armed citizens carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) in preventing deaths in a terrorist attack such as mentioned above. Most CCW permit holders will be armed with either a 9mm or .40 caliber semi-automatic hand gun with a 3 or 4 inch barrel like a Glock or Smith and Wesson M-P. While these fire arms are good for close range self-defense they are not much value at ranges beyond 30-40 feet while the AK-47 can reach out to 100 yards with accuracy in the hands of a trained shooter. Keep in mind that these terrorist shooters will be using high capacity (50 rounds) double stacked magazines allowing then to reload quickly while the LEO or armed citizen will have magazines with a 10 or 15 round capacities. Once their slide locks open on an empty chamber they will probably be shot unless they are behind suitable cover.

I am not trying to downplay the value of LEOs or armed citizens I am merely stating the facts. Yes, the LEO or armed citizen can alleviate a terrorist attack by trained Islamic soldiers but these LEOs and armed citizens must be trained in tactical firearm combat with adequate mindset and muscle memory to shoot quickly and accurately. They are not shooting at paper targets; they are shooting at people who are shooting back.

My recommendation to those visiting their local shopping mall during this upcoming Christmas season is to stay in the yellow zone of situation awareness and if they see something suspicious get the hell out of there quickly. Embarrassment is way better than being dead.

Why doesn't it feel like world war to most of us? Because the attacks are happening at different times by people from many different countries against many different countries, using many different kinds of weapons, without using a flag, without uniforms, and often done by people born and raised in the country being attacked. What kind of a war is this?

It's an all-out war of Islamists against everyone else, not to seize territory or gain the spoils of war, but to make the whole world apply Sharia law.

Why are they doing this? Because it is their duty. They believe (as it says in the Qur'an) that the world cannot be saved until every government on earth is an Islamic state. Peace cannot reign until the whole world is ruled by Islamic law. It is their sacred duty to overthrow, by whatever means, the non-Islamic governments of the world, because a government ruled without Allah's laws is a profanity.

They are not cowards and maniacs. They are dedicated soldiers willing to die for the caliphate and Allah.

Cognitive Dissidence of the Democrats

Cognitive Dissidence: In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance—as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it.

A basic example of CD is when presented with a certain set of provable facts that are contrary to personally held beliefs one either suffers physiological tension or goes into denial. This is common among Democrats.

I watching snippets of last night’s Democratic public relations press conference (called a debate) each candidate refused to use or agree with the term Radical Islam when the question was posed by the moderators. Sanders, Clinton and O’Malley. Sanders said the term did not matter and went on to describe the barbarian behavior of the terrorists. Clinton dodged the question with her referral to Jihad excusing Muslims from being terrorist. O’Malley said the problem was radical Jihadis.

Note: Jihad is an Islamic term referring to the religious duty of Muslims to maintain the religion. In Arabic, the word jihad is a noun meaning "to strive, to apply oneself, to struggle, to persevere". A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural of which is mujahideen The word jihad appears frequently in the Quran, often in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God to refer to the act of striving to serve the purposes of God on this earth.

In essence O’Malley’s response was saying the problem was radical war makers. This is how the Democrats (including Obama) address the question of terrorists today. It is cognitive dissonance for political purposes, i.e. don’t insult Muslims, they might not vote for us. It should be noted that Islamic Radicals kill more Muslims that anyone else.

They latest attacks in Paris with 128 dead and 300 wounded (80 critically) and the downing of the Russian airliner killing 240 is the latest example of Radical Islamic jihad practiced by ISIS (ISIL). This is not workplace violence, random acts of terror, a criminal act, or senseless violence as some reporters and liberals state. It is (was) a planned, coordinated attack on us non-believers. The Pairs attack was carried out by Syrian immigrants into France. The weapons and tactics they used, including the suicide vests, were planned in detail and highly coordinated. This type of attack is not a random act of violence or senseless. It resembled the Mumbai attack of 2008 where 164 people were killed and 308 wounded.

(Photo of Victims of a shooting attack lay on the pavement outside La Bell Equipe restaurant in Paris Friday, Nov. 13, 2015. Well over 100 people were killed in Paris on Friday night in a series of shooting, explosions.Anne Sophie Chaisemartin AP )

Europe in their cognitive dissidence knows that the Syrians and Yemenese are most capable and ideologically prone to carry out attacks like this. They also know that their citizens are going to Syria to join ISIS in the fight. Yet they are allowing thousands of Syrian refugees into their countries with Germany taking the most – 700 thousand. Keep in mind that 70% of these “refugees” are men between the ages of 16-35. Where are the women? Where are the children? Yes the media focuses on one photo of a man holding a dead child who had drowned while attempting to enter Europe. This is fodder for the bleeding hearts and do-gooders. By admitting these refugees they appease their guilt and walk away feeling good about themselves ignoring the threat to national security.

French President Francois Hollande has contended unambiguously that ISIS launched the Paris terrorist attacks Friday night, and ISIS itself has now claimed responsibility. It is not too early, even now, to draw important lessons from this tragedy. We do so both to prevent the near-term recurrence of more terrorist violence against the West, and to address seriously the broader, global Islamicist threat that has been growing, not diminishing, in recent years. We certainly have at least enough information and experience to draw working hypotheses for the next days and weeks until more details become available.

Fox News reported:

“ISIS claims of responsibility for Friday’s Paris massacre are being reviewed by US intelligence analysts Sunday morning, with a focus on the English-language version, which is delivered in American-accented English, Fox News has been told. It is now clear the plot included a rollout of ISIS propaganda, which was prepared in advance, including threats directed toward the Russian people, Rome, London and Washington DC.

Separately, Fox News has learned that four credible, ISIS-linked social media accounts began sharing messages 72 hours before the Paris attack, including images of weapons, the Eiffel tower, as well as blessings for the attackers’ mission. A military intelligence source says the social media traffic is now seen as evidence the three teams had gone operational.

The translations include “God bless you in your mission” and “Support the deployment,” as well as a reference to our “sister,” suggesting an operative, or member of the support team was a woman.

Meanwhile, FBI Director James Comey has told field offices across the country to intensify surveillance on ISIS suspects, hoping to prevent violence in this country. Before the attack, Comey confirmed there are 900 active ISIS investigations, spread over all 50 states.”

Now Obama wants to allow over 65,000 Syrian refugees into the United States with more planned. The FBI states it is impossible the vet this many refugees. Where will they go? Where will they live? No doubt they will want to go to places where they can stay under the radar of law enforcement until they have consolidated their cells and planned their attacks. I sure as hell don’t want any of them in my town or neighborhood. According to the FBI we already have many ideologically indoctrinated Muslims and non-Muslims young adults in the country – too many to watch with the resources they have. The latest attack at the University of California at Merced is under investigation by the FBI. The FBI does investigate local murders – they investigate acts of terrorism.

Authors like Brad Thor, the late Vince Flynn, and the late Tom Clancy have written books on the subject of planned Islamic terror attacks in the United States. These books, while fiction might be considered precursors to what is coming. They certainly were for France.

I have often talked about situation awareness and being armed. Both will go a long way in preventing or alleviating such terrorist attacks. We know this from the attacks in Chattanooga in July and Garland, Texas. The list is long.

While most Americans are not legally armed, especially in states like California and New York; they certainly can follow the rules of situation awareness and live in the Yellow Zone and not the White where most people live their lives. For those who are not familiar with these zones here is a brief recap:

White Zone: This is where most Americans live. They walk about with ear buds in their ears or talking on cell phones. They window shop in the mall where I believe the terrorists will soon attack. They are unaware of what is going on in the world or around them.

Yellow Zone: This is the zone you can live in without too much trouble. You are aware of your surroundings and who is around you. You constantly scan your surroundings. You look in shop windows and note not only what the retailer is selling but also the reflections. You note where the exits are and where cover would be. You are constantly aware.

Orange Zone: Now we are in a zone where you need to take action to protect yourself and your loved ones. If you see something that bothers you – you will know if you are in the Yellow Zone. You might see a suspicious person or someone walking about mumbling to him or herself. Seeing a package or backpack unattended. This is where you take flight. You leave the potentially dangerous situation. There is no harm in being wrong. You are still safe. Embarrassment beats the hell out of a 5.56 or 7.62 round in your head or an explosion killing or maiming you.

The Red Zone: This zone only pertains to those who are legally armed. In this zone you cannot take flight – you have to defend yourself. Example might be in a parking structure where you approached by someone about to harm you with a knife, club or firearm. This is where there is not time or opportunity to flee. You have to shoot. It should be noted that you must be trained and proficient at self-defense shooting. You must have the mindset, the skill and muscle memory, and the tools to do this.

One last thought on whether or not words matter. If you don’t define the enemy with clarity you cannot fight and kill them. Just think of the brave soldiers of the 1^st, 29^th, and 4^th Divisions storming the beaches of Normandy on June 4, 1944 being told not to call the German defenders Nazis as they might offend them. Ridiculous? Yes it certainly is. But this is exactly what the liberals are advocating today when it comes to Radical Islam.

Islam is the world's second largest religion. According to a 2010 study and released January 2011, Islam has 1.57 billion adherents, making up over 23% of the world population. According to the Pew Research Center in 2015 there were 50 Muslim-majority countries.

I have tried to get a figure on how many Radical Islamics there are in the world. I had two problems. One is the definition of “Radical”. It runs from dedicated Jihadis like ISIS to those who endorse genital mutilation of young girls along with lack of education for girls to those supporting the imposition of Sharia Law. Second the number ranges from 0.1% to 25%. If I use 10% the number of Radical Islamists in the world would be 157 million. You can make up your own mind on how many have the resources and ability to attack us in the United States. If it’s only 0.1% that’s 157 thousand. Of course as of today it only took 8-10 to cause 128 deaths and over 300 wounded in Paris.

Indeed, this is a time for statesmanship, resolve and determination, not for sweeping the cruel reality of what has just happened under the rug. Our ability to safeguard the future may well depend in substantial part on what we do and how we do it in just these coming days and weeks.

We should not view the appropriate American and Western response as “bringing these terrorists to justice,” in President Obama’s words. This is not a matter for the criminal law, as many American political and academic leaders, including the President, have insisted, even after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

This is a war, as President Hollande has forthrightly called it, not a slightly enhanced version of thieves knocking over the corner grocery store within an ordered civil society. And the mechanism of response must be to destroy the source of the threat, not prosecute it, not contain it, not hope that we will “ultimately” destroy it. “Ultimately” is too far away.

(Photo of rescue workers help a woman after a shooting, outside the Bataclan theater in Paris, Friday Nov. 13, 2015. French President Francois Hollande declared a state of emergency and announced that he was closing the country's borders.Thibault Camus AP )

(You can view more photos at: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/article44800977.html)

In light of Paris and the continuing threat of terrorism it so graphically conveys, we need a more sensible national conversation about the need for effective intelligence gathering to uncover and prevent such tragedies before they occur.

Knee-jerk, uninformed and often wildly inaccurate criticisms of programs (such as several authorized in the wake of 9/11 in the Patriot Act) have created a widespread misimpression in the American public about what exactly our intelligence agencies have been doing and whether there was a “threat” to civil liberties. Now is the time to correct these misimpressions, and to rebut the unfounded criticisms that have in too many cases become the conventional wisdom.

Similarly, in the debate over immigration and refugees, it is time to take into account the national security issues at stake.

Law-enforcement and intelligence authorities had already estimated earlier this year that thousands of European and U.S. citizens had travelled to ISIS-controlled territory in Syria and Iraq, there to receive training and financing to conduct terrorist operations in their home countries. These were individuals with valid passports and visas, taking advantage of holes in our detection and prevention capabilities.

One priority should be to determine if any of those perpetrating the November13-14 attacks in Paris had travelled to ISIS lands. And imagine now the dangers posed by the massive refugee flows moving into Europe from North Africa, the Middle East and even Afghanistan.

A government that cannot keep its own borders secure and will not exercise discretion over Syrian refugees in light of the attacks on Paris is a government that should not stand because if that government continues to stand, the nation itself will falter.

A citizen who cannot look at Paris and realize an open invitation for Syrian refugees is a terrible idea or has faith that our government can quickly discern who should or should not come probably should be ignored.

If we cannot exercise discernment and discretion in letting in refugees from Syria, we should let none of them in. It really is that simple.

The Past is Prologue

“There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity; it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.” — George Washington, Fifth Annual Message — 1793

Today is the 14^th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and the failed attack on the Capitol. Most everyone over the age of twenty can remember where they were and what they were doing at 8:45 a.m. (EDST) on a clear Tuesday morning, an American Airlines Boeing 767 loaded with 20,000 gallons of jet fuel crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City.

It was a mere 18 minutes after the first plane hit, a second Boeing 767–United Airlines Flight 175–appeared out of the sky, turned sharply toward the World Trade Center and sliced into the south tower near the 60th floor. The collision caused a massive explosion that showered burning debris over surrounding buildings and the streets below. America was under attack!

As millions watched the events unfolding in New York, American Airlines Flight 77 circled over downtown Washington, D.C., and slammed into the west side of the Pentagon military headquarters at 9:45 a.m. Jet fuel from the Boeing 757 caused a devastating inferno that led to the structural collapse of a portion of the giant concrete building. All told, 125 military personnel and civilians were killed in the Pentagon, along with all 64 people aboard the airliner.

Less than 15 minutes after the terrorists struck the nerve center of the U.S. military, the horror in New York took a catastrophic turn for the worse when the south tower of the World Trade Center collapsed in a massive cloud of dust and smoke. The structural steel of the skyscraper, built to withstand winds in excess of 200 miles per hour and a large conventional fire, could not withstand the tremendous heat generated by the burning jet fuel. At 10:30 a.m., the other Trade Center tower collapsed. Close to 3,000 people died in the World Trade Center and its vicinity, including a staggering 343 firefighters and paramedics, 23 New York City police officers and 37 Port Authority police officers who were struggling to complete an evacuation of the buildings and save the office workers trapped on higher floors. Only six people in the World Trade Center towers at the time of their collapse survived. Almost 10,000 others were treated for injuries, many severe.

Meanwhile, a fourth California-bound plane–United Flight 93–was hijacked about 40 minutes after leaving Newark International Airport in New Jersey. Because the plane had been delayed in taking off, passengers on board learned of events in New York and Washington via cell phone and Airfone calls to the ground. Knowing that the aircraft was not returning to an airport as the hijackers claimed, a group of passengers and flight attendants planned an insurrection. One of the passengers, Thomas Burnett Jr., told his wife over the phone that “I know we’re all going to die. There’s three of us who are going to do something about it. I love you, honey.” Another passenger–Todd Beamer–was heard saying “Are you guys ready? Let’s roll” over an open line. Sandy Bradshaw, a flight attendant, called her husband and explained that she had slipped into a galley and was filling pitchers with boiling water. Her last words to him were “Everyone’s running to first class. I’ve got to go. Bye.”

The passengers fought the four hijackers and are suspected to have attacked the cockpit with a fire extinguisher. The plane then flipped over and sped toward the ground at upwards of 500 miles per hour, crashing in a rural field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:10 a.m. All 45 people aboard were killed. Its intended target is not known, but theories include the White House, the U.S. Capitol, the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland or one of several nuclear power plants along the eastern seaboard.

The attackers were Islamic terrorists from Saudi Arabia and several other Arab nations. Reportedly financed by Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist organization, they were allegedly acting in retaliation for America’s support of Israel, its involvement in the Persian Gulf War and its continued military presence in the Middle East. Some of the terrorists had lived in the United States for more than a year and had taken flying lessons at American commercial flight schools. Others had slipped into the country in the months before September 11 and acted as the “muscle” in the operation. The 19 terrorists easily smuggled box-cutters and knives through security at three East Coast airports and boarded four flights bound for California, chosen because the planes were loaded with fuel for the long transcontinental journey. Soon after takeoff, the terrorists commandeered the four planes and took the controls, transforming ordinary commuter jets into guided missiles.

The man behind these attacks was Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden the son of a Saudi billionaire. Osama bin Laden was a radical Islamic terrorist who began his terrorist career fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan with the assistance of our CIA and U.S. Weapons. One would imagine he would have been grateful to the U.S., but that was not the case. As soon as the Soviets left Afghanistan he turned on his benefactors with a vengeance. He wanted the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world.

Our CIA and other intelligence agencies knew who and what bin Laden was. There was even a small group within the CIA charged with tracking bin Ladens moves, tactics and alliances.

On February 26, 1993, a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,336 pounds urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device was intended to send the North Tower (Tower 1) crashing into the South Tower (Tower 2), bringing both towers down and killing tens of thousands of people. It failed to do so but killed six people and injured more than a thousand. The mastermind behind this attack was bin Laden’s second in command, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This was the opening shot by bin Laden and al Qaida against the United States. Soon after there were attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killing hundreds. Then there was the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. During the 2000 presidential run up bin Laden and his al Qaida crew attacked the USS Cole (a U.S. Warship) in the Yemeni port of Aden. 17 American sailors were killed, and 39 were injured.

All of these attacks were masterminded by bin Laden and al Qaida yet the U.S. intelligence and criminal agencies were not reading the signs of things to come or ignoring them. We were going about our business as usual more concerned with hanging chads and domestic issues. The signs were there. The United States was in denial.

After the 9/11 attacks President George W. Bush issued orders to send Special Forces into Afghanistan to search for bin Laden with no success. Soon after the U.S. invaded Iraq following faulty intelligence that Sadam Hussein processed weapons of mass destruction. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were long a bloody giving the U.S. thousands of causalities.

As these wars wound down under the Obama administration a new threat began to surface. This threat came from ISIS (or ISIL). ISIS is a Salafi jihadist extremist militant group and self-proclaimed Islamic state and caliphate, which is led by and mainly composed of Sunni Arabs from Iraq and Syria. They are much more brutal than al Qaida and have no problem killing Muslims who oppose them. Also, ISIS is supported by Iran, the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world.

While the Obama administration forces his deal with Iran on the United States against the will of the majority of Americans ISIS continues its march towards a caliphate through Syria millions of refugees are being created. These refugees are flooding into Europe creating a mass problem. Germany's plan to take in 500,000 Middle East refugees per year is being hailed as humanitarian around the world, but uneasy critics inside the European power fear the huge influx could not only skew the nation’s demographics in a hurry, but could also include terrorists hiding among the war weary masses.

The United States is making plans to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees in the coming budget year, a significant increase from the 1,500 migrants that have been cleared to resettle in the U.S. since civil war broke out in the Middle Eastern country more than four years ago, the White House said Thursday.

There are various explanations for the hundreds of thousands flocking to Europe, but the ultimate responsibility for the crisis is the Western refusal to commit itself to two issues: a solution to the strife and Islamist control of a considerable part of Iraq, and ending the slaughter in the civil war in Syria. That war has so far led to about 250,000 deaths and millions being displaced inside and outside Syria. The whole world is threatened by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (IS) and the self-styled caliphate that organization has established.

The main problem in the area is the contending Arab and Muslim political and religious groups, yet the refusal of the West, particularly the U.S., to play a role is crucial. In 2003 a major mistake was made, during the Bush administration, by Paul Bremer when he disbanded the Iraqi army and the Baath party in Iraq, leading to unemployment, resentment, and the empowerment of a corrupt and inefficient Shiite minority.

But even more important has been the overly cautious foreign policy of Obama. Somewhat surprisingly, it was Hillary Clinton, after she was secretary of state, who remarked that Obama's phrase "Don't do stupid stuff" is not an organizing principle for foreign policy. It is true that no policy can solve all problems. However, it is now apparent that the initial Obama mistake was the failure to build up or to aid a credible fighting force of those originally opposing the Assad regime in Syria.

Many in the U.S. applauded Obama's refusal to commit ground troops of any kind to the region. Yet the total withdrawal of the Obama administration from Iraq and refusal to render sufficient help to Syria, as well as the refusal of European countries to intervene directly after the Arab Spring, meant losing the opportunity for moderate elements to emerge in the Arab world.

As a result, the countries of the EU had neither the will to participate nor the willingness to secure their borders sufficiently to prevent smuggling of people, some of whom were terrorists, from North Africa and the Middle East. Those countries, except Germany, are today hesitating — partly for economic reasons, but even more for political and security reasons — to absorb the mass of migrants.

Those migrants will exacerbate conditions in and among European countries. First, the migration has caused friction among the European countries because of the difficulty in agreeing on a quota system for claims for asylum. It will put pressure on economic resources as far as welfare and benefits are concerned. It will almost inevitably increase the strength of the anti-immigrant, far-right parties, with unfortunate consequences in both national and global politics.

Moreover, the danger of the migration influx has already become apparent. Media reports have shown migrants in Bulgaria, and some on a train in France, shouting "Allahu Akbar" and obscene language in struggles with police. Migrants in a camp near Milan have resorted to violence, destroying traffic signals and attacking shops in riots over "poor living conditions." The Greek island of Lesbos, six miles from the Turkish shore, has been invaded by thousands and become a war zone, with frequent violence and riots. Mytilene, the main town of Lesbos, has become a public urinal.

Despite media coverage that plasters images of women and children on this centuries-old invasion, it is worthy to note that, per the United Nations, 72% of these “Mediterranean sea arrivals” are single men. (“Mediterranean sea arrivals” being innocuous terminology for Islamic conquest.)

Breitbart also reports: “They are young. They are fit. They clearly know what they want. Yes, there are families. Plenty with young children. But if you stand and take a rough count it is hard not to come to the conclusion that young men are in the overwhelming majority.”

Without a doubt, young Muslim males often pose a special kind of threat. However Muslim women present a risk, as well, because traveling with them and their children is a totalitarian ideology that is incompatible with Western values. And that is the problem.

When many in the West look at photographs of Muslims arriving en masse to the southern shores of Europe they fail to see the hatred that lies in the hearts of many of these imports from Islamic nations – hatred, I might add, for us, our values, and our way of life. Hatred we have seen played out here and across Europe, from creeping Sharia to overt acts of terror and everything in between.

And so, not unexpectedly, this mash up of Muslims from the Middle East and North Africa are causing an outbreak of violence across Europe, along with a hefty dose of entitlement as these conquerors make demands.

The U.S. role cannot be misunderstood. Candidate Barack Obama on July 14, 2008 called for the phased redeployment of combat troops that he had long advocated, which he thought was needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States. He pledged that, if elected president, on his first day in office, he would give the military a new mission: to end the war. On January 21, 2009, his first full day in office, he did as he promised by asking the U.S. military leadership to plan for a responsible military drawdown from Iraq.

U.S. policy must take account of present realities: the threat of Islamic terrorism and militancy, essentially in the case of Iran but more immediately with the Islamic State. ISIS, originally an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq, had been weakened after 2006 but became stronger with the emergence of Baghdadi as leader in 2010 and his merger of the various jihadist groups in 2013. This happened during the Obama administration, which failed to appreciate this development and did little to help destroy the caliphate that IS established. With control over some 80,000 square miles and a population of 10 million, and a fighting force of more than 30,000, ISIS has created a brutal state based on Islamic law and made notorious by its cruelty, public beheadings, full veils for women, and special taxes imposed on non-Muslims.

So on Thursday, September 10, 2015 after Republican leaders spent months colluding with the Democrats, the Washington cartel ensured that our children and grandchildren will live in a world with a nuclear Iran. This is to be Obama’s legacy as bin Laden was Clinton’s legacy and Iraq and Afghanistan is Bush’s legacy. None of these legacies are based on solid intelligence and an understanding of the radical Islamic mind or goals. Iran, under its current leadership (and no doubt its future leadership) will not live up to is agreements. Obama will be gone to Hawaii and his Presidential Library will be full of propaganda but Iran and ISIS will remain for the next man or woman to occupy the White House.

Addressing the Republican’s role in Thursday’s outcome, Mark Levin had this to say:

“And I want Mitch McConnell to know something. You will have blood on your hands for the rest of your life and so will the Republican Party. You have taken a once great party, that stood on principle, that stood against slavery, that stood against segregation, that stood against the Nazis and the fascists, that stood against the communists, led by great men…And you, Mr. McConnell, you’re a quisling. You’re a little man. You’re a no nothing.

And this is on your head. You could have stopped this simply by following the Constitution. You claim to support the Constitution. You don’t support it any more than Barack Obama…You violated the Constitution. You’re no better than him. As a matter of fact, you’re worse than him. We know what he is. And you pretend to be something that you’re not.

The wrath of the nation should fall on your head, Mr. McConnell. And all the fools, all the lemmings who follow you over the cliff in the Republican party in the Senate.

And these fools will be all over TV this evening. They’ll be all over TV tomorrow and over the week-end, lamenting Barack Obama, lamenting what the Senate Democrats did, lamenting how dangerous this all is when they created the circumstances for this.

They have a majority. A majority in the Senate means everything. All they had to do was say this is a treaty in every respect. We’re going to treat it as a treaty…Obama can treat it as a cucumber. He can do whatever he wants. We’re going to treat it as a treaty. And you need 67 out of 100 votes, or 2/3rds of the senators present to get it ratified.

McConnell didn’t want to do it.

McConnell didn’t want to stand up, this man of very few brains; very inarticulate. This is a man who wouldn’t even have an Assistant Managers job at McDonalds. Look how high he’s gone in the Byzantine world of the United States Senate.

And so we now not only have a 9/11, but a 9/10 – when our leaders sold us down the river. Yet again. But this time the stakes are as high as they get.”

Today, as in the past 12 years there are ceremonies for the victims of 9/11. There are museums and memorials. There will be speeches by politicians and bureaucrats and comments by analysts. There will be the laying of wreaths and the playing of taps. Then all will be forgotten until next year when we will do it all over again.

Perhaps many elected officials don’t care about America, their oath of office, or our children. Apparently their allegiance to party and power trump concern for even their own children.

Yes, Mark Levin is right. The wrath of the nation should fall upon them.

Yes, the Past is Prologue.

Do We Really Have Moral Authority to Attack Syria?

“The Army (considering the irritable state it is in, its suffering and composition) is a dangerous instrument to play with.” — George Washington, letter to Alexander Hamilton — 1783

On August 20, 2012 President Obama warned against chemical weapons' use in Syria, declaring it a "red line." On Dec. 3, 2012, Obama repeated his warning to Assad, saying "The use of chemical weapons is totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable."

Last April, Britain, France, and Israel concluded that chemical weapons had been used in Syria. On June 13, the Obama administration finally concurred that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians.

But nothing happened after that — except a conclusion by the Syrian regime that it can continue to use such weapons with impunity. Indeed, United Nations Middle East envoy Robert Serry claimed in July that the United Nations had received 13 reports of alleged chemical weapons use in Syria. On August 21, Assad gassed to death 1,429 civilians.

What principle was violated upon the 14th use of chemical weapons but not on the first thirteen uses? Obama's reactions to violations of his "red line" have been spineless and incoherent: apparently chemical weapons use is fine if fewer than 1,429 civilians are killed. But if the death count is dispositive, those totals are met every week with Assad's use of conventional weapons. And if chemical weapons use matters because it violates some international moral norm, as Obama recently argued, then his response comes 13 violations (and the related deaths) too late.

Obama will no doubt get Congressional approval for the enforcement of his "red line." Such backtracking resembles his attempt last April to condition any U.S. response on a thorough investigation that confirmed Syria's chemical weapons attack to the satisfaction of the international community (in yet another reversal Obama later said that the U.S. was justified in acting unilaterally). If Assad's 14th chemical weapons attack had killed 30,000 people, would Obama still need Congressional approval for military action? How many Syrians have to die before Obama acquires the necessary conviction to lead?

Obama's symbolic "punitive strike," will change nothing on the ground. Assad will emerge unscathed, declare that even the mighty U.S. can't stop him, and continue massacring his citizens, perhaps even with chemical weapons again, knowing how tepid the U.S. response will be. At best, Obama is trying with reluctant half-measures to confront adversaries — Syria, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah — fully committed to victory. Such tentative actions achieve nothing and jeopardize U.S. interests by drawing the U.S. and its allies into a dangerous conflict on the enemy's terms.

Over the last few weeks as the crisis in Syria has come to a head, I’ve found myself in nonstop arguments about what, if anything, to do. I saw dead kids, knew we had bombs, and was fine with dropping bombs on the heads of the people that killed the kids. However, I knew that was probably not a very well thought out position given the complexities of the middle east and that most of what goes on over there sails right over my head.

What I did know, was that throwing my hands up in the air at that moment was unacceptable to me. From where I stood, we should be trying to figure out if there’s anything we could do before declaring something “none of our business” and walking away. I’d heard too often about the genocides in Darfur and Rwanda and been told so many times through the movies & documentaries about those tragedies that we can “never again” allow that to happen. I believed we would be the height of hypocrites to now ignore a potential genocide as it unfolds before our eyes.

To be clear, I don’t believe we should invade or bomb Syria, yet. I say “yet” because I can’t know what risks the future may reveal, but as of now, I believe that we would end up making things worse for the very children upon whose deaths I found myself outraged. What I eventually had to accept was that this meant more children would die and there wasn’t a thing I could do about it.

The problem with Syria is that both sides of the conflict are our enemies and by stopping one, you by default help the other. This means that the only appropriate military action would be to invade, kill both sides of the conflict, install a government, rewrite their constitution, and occupy their country for several decades with permanent bases in the long run. Whether or not this would save more lives is debatable. What’s not debatable is that the people of the United States are far too war-fatigued to even consider such an option. Also, we no longer have T.E. Lawrence to take the lead.

So, clearly I don’t have all the answers about what if anything to do, but I do feel confident that an immediate military response is not a good idea. As Brady Cremeens put it at Conservative Intel last week, “There’s a stark difference between a justifiable war and a wise war, and it’s not an easy line to toe.”

As bankrupt as elected Republican leadership is in Washington vis-à-vis domestic policy, they are completely clueless as it relates to foreign policy. While America continues to become an economic and moral wasteland under this regime, Obama is attempting to spend American treasure helping one nefarious side of an Islamic civil war in Syria — one which involves Iran-allied supporters of Hezbollah (Assad regime) vs. predominantly Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels.

Astoundingly, most GOP leaders are either siding with Obama or are totally insouciant to this reckless fomenting of an Islamic insurrection. Instead of fighting ObamaCare, they are allowing Obama to distract from the upheaval at home by focusing on this inane escapade in Syria.

Most media figures discuss the current foreign policy debate in broad platitudes pitting so-called neo-conservatives vs. libertarians, hawks vs. doves, or interventionists vs. isolationists. But these labels are non-sequiturs to the reality of the current debate. Most mainstream conservatives are not Ron Paul libertarians who don’t support any war on terror. Quite the contrary, they support a robust intervention to repel Islamic terrorism when it threatens our interests. But in the case of Libya, Syria, and Egypt, we are actually intervening on behalf of our enemies.

Granted, Syria is more complicated than the other two examples. Bashar Assad is a sworn enemy of the United States, the closest ally of Iran, and a prolific exporter of terror. In a perfect world, it would be great to overthrow him and stick it to Iran (and their Russian allies). But the reality is that the strongest elements of the insurgency are saturated with Al-Qaeda affiliated extremists, backed by Pan-Islamist Turkish President Recep Erdogen, much like the insurgencies in other countries. Why place American money and weapons in the hands of people who will be just as adversarial to our interests as the current regime?

This is not a matter of opposing intervention for the sake of isolationism; it is a matter of not supporting intervention that is either superfluous or deleterious to our national interests. A “hawkish” stance towards Assad is a dovish stance towards Al-Qaeda. As Sarah Palin noted, in a battle with Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah on one side and Al-Qaeda and Turkey on the other, let Allah sort it out.

This should be a slam dunk opportunity for GOP leaders to oppose a wrongheaded and unpopular intervention, while shifting the focus back to the ObamaCare civil war at home. Yet, House leaders are either ambivalent or downright supportive of Obama’s planned strike on behalf of Al-Qaeda. In the Senate, Mitch McConnell put out his signature mealy-mouthed parsing of words, declining to take a stand on any contentious issue.

“Today the President advised me that he will seek an authorization for the use of force from the Congress prior to initiating any combat operations against Syria in response to the use of chemical weapons. The President’s role as commander-in-chief is always strengthened when he enjoys the expressed support of the Congress.”

So much for the clout and power of being “GOP Leader:”

What are the president’s objectives and how will an attack achieve those objectives? What are his options?

It’s understandable that we want to “do something.” Those pictures of linen-wrapped children, dead from inhaling chemical weapons, are horrifying. But there is only one thing worse than doing nothing – that is doing something that makes things even worse. And whatever we do, our first and foremost goal should be what is best for America.

So what are the president’s options? Here are five:

Option One: Regime Change. We could launch major attacks and destroy Assad’s war making ability, presumably in conjunction with allies and Syrian rebels, so Assad ends up like Libya’s Qaddafi. Ironically, Bush administration NeoCons and Obama Interventionists have finally found common cause — both want to topple Assad. Even President Obama himself said two years ago that Assad "must go."

But, if the last ten years have taught us anything, it should be that toppling dictators doesn’t necessarily lead to something better.

We toppled dictators in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt, and were assured there was a pro-democracy, Western leaning-cadre ready to step in and assume the reins of power. Iraq led to ten years of bloody war, Libya led to Benghazi and Egypt to a Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship.

With Syria, we already know that the rebel groups likely to prevail are Al Qaeda affiliates. As bad as Assad is, an Al Qaeda-led Syria would be even worse for America.

It's a cardinal rule of foreign policy that if two of your enemies are trying to destroy each other, don't step in and try to stop them. If we try to unseat Assad, it's doubtful his Iranian and Russian allies would stand silently by. At a minimum, Iran would redouble its efforts to develop nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

Option Two: Limited Attack. We could launch a limited attack to destroy the helicopters and planes that delivered the chemical weapons. According to press reports, the administration is leaning in this direction.

It would give Assad a symbolic public spanking, but the civil war would continue, with both sides more or less where they are today.

It would make good on Obama’s “red line” threat and serve to “punish Assad,” as Secretary Kerry pledged.

The administration is also hoping it would deter Assad, but there is no guarantee he wouldn't use chemical weapons again, since the caches would remain untouched. It’s just as likely that Assad could decide to double down and use chemical weapons again, thus leaving Obama in the uncomfortable position of having to escalate U.S. involvement.

It’s possible the president would be faced with the one thing he wants to avoid and the American people deplore — getting involved in another civil war in the Middle East.

Option Three: Arm the Rebels. We could openly arm and train the Syrian rebels to do the job for us. The question is, which rebels?

This may have been a viable option two years ago, but today even those in favor of arming the rebels admit that the strongest among the many rebel groups are linked to Al Qaeda. As dangerous as Assad possessing chemical weapons might be, Al Qaeda having them would be even worse — Al Qaeda has long sought to get its hands on weapons of mass destruction to use against Americans.

If we arm the good rebels, it would be in hopes they could defeat both the Al Qaeda rebels and the Assad government.

At best, that would put us in the middle of a three-way civil war: we support our rebels, while the Arab oil states support their rebels, and Iran and Russia support the Assad government.

At worst, the Al Qaeda rebels seize our weapons, and use them first against Assad and then against us?

Sound farfetched? That’s what happened in Benghazi.

Option Four: Destroy the Chemical Weapons. According to some military experts, we have non-conventional "agent defeat" weapons designed specifically to neutralize chemical weapons without dispersing toxins into the atmosphere.

One type first punctures chemical weapons containers and then smothers the toxins with neutralizing agents before they can be dispersed.

Other military experts claim these exotic weapons are too experimental, or wouldn’t work, or work only if we first destroyed Syria’s air defenses. They claim if we want to destroy Assad’s chemical weapons, we would need special operations forces, in other words, boots on the ground – an option nobody wants. In either case, we could end up doing the very thing we’re trying to avoid: killing innocent civilians.

Option Five: Delay, Then Do Something Symbolic. President Obama was elected in part because of his opposition to the Iraq war, and criticism that President Bush’s casus belli, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, never existed.

Every day the evidence seems to mount that the Assad government did use chemical weapons to kill hundreds of innocent women and children. But the evidence is not incontrovertible, and may never be.

Obama could decide to wait for more proof. As long as chemical weapons are not used again, the public clamor to ‘do something’ would abate. The president could then satisfy his “red line” threat by lobbing a few cruise missiles on insignificant targets and call it a day.

But the message would be clear: America’s threats mean nothing. Assad and every other would-be murderous dictator would conclude the international community was unwilling to stop those willing to use weapons of mass destruction. Syria would see no consequence to using use chemical weapons again, and Iran would read it as a green light for their nuclear weapons program.

We are now left with no good choices. Thanks to President Obama’s “red line” threat last year, and his demand that “Assad must go” two years ago, he has put the U.S. between a rock and a hard place. Every parent knows you don’t make threats unless you’re willing to carry them out, since your bluff will always be called. So it should be a caution to all leaders – words don’t deter, only deeds so.

None of these options are risk free, all of them have potential consequences that would hurt Americans near term and long.

The best of the bad lot is to find a way to destroy the chemical weapons caches so they can’t be used against us or our allies, without getting pulled into another conflict. We could then leave the Syrian civil war to the Syrians.

Syria sounds eerily like Iraq, and Libya, and Egypt. The same civil strife could be repeated in Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain, and maybe even Saudi Arabia in the future.

Syria is the harbinger of a decade, if not a generation, of Middle East conflict as radical Sunni groups square off against radical Shiites. We have to find a way to get off the Middle East merry-go-round of death and destruction that Arab oil has chained us to.

Fifty years ago President Kennedy committed America to landing a man on the moon within a decade. President Obama should similarly commit America to becoming energy self-sufficient and free of Arab oil by the end of his presidency.

He should approve the Keystone Pipeline immediately, and unshackle our oil and natural gas companies so they can develop America’s domestic energy sources. Not only will it give the American economy a much-needed boost, it will allow America to declare its independence from the internecine wars which have plagued the Middle East since Cain slew Abel.

If not, America will find itself, time and time again, caught in the middle of the same kind of ethno-sectarian civil wars that have ensnared us for the last 20 years. Despite spending trillions of dollars and spilling the blood of thousands of Americans, we remain in servitude to Arab oil.

Our only interest in Syria is ensuring that as many Islamists on both sides are killed and keep each other busy so they can’t affect our national interests or threaten Israel. As long as the war is contained to Syria, a stalemate is the best outcome for our purposes so that neither Russia, Iran, Al-Qaeda or other Islamists claim an outright victory. Sadly, in a world of seven billion, there are innocent people killed on a daily basis due to civil wars. But we lack the resources or strategic plan to help those people in Syria without gratuitously tipping the scales to one of our arch enemies.

Some conservatives are concerned about demonstrating an image of weakness to our enemies by not following through with the ‘red line’ threat. Undoubtedly, they are correct about Obama’s self-contradictory policy in a wrongheaded intervention. But it is still a wrongheaded intervention, and the fact that he made the threat to begin with should not engender a need to fix that bad policy with another bad policy decision.

Barack Obama’s presidency has been, mostly, a presidency of words. As he had no actions or experience to point to, he ran on words and talked about how important those words are and how they had meaning. Once elected, and after several years of observing his tenure, his dependence on words over action became the hallmark of his presidency. We mocked his use of teleprompters. We made videos using his own words to show his hypocrisy. And as the world became increasingly aware that we had elected “President Words” our enemies became bolder and enjoyed more freedom to defy international norms. This is, in many ways, how we got here. It was President Obama’s “red line” comments that cornered America into considering action in Syria. For all of our dismissiveness, words may very well have brought us to the brink of World War 3.

During President Bush’s presidency, Compassionate Conservatism was the answer to this problem. It was a dud. It was a dud for the simple reason that it was a lie. It combined liberal actions with conservative words and only grew government. Empathetic Conservatism must find its way into our consciousness. If we don’t learn how to speak to people in a way that is optimistic and helps people see a brighter future while never abandoning our principles or compromising our beliefs, we are destined to continue losing.

Words matter.

Our freedom and way of life should take priority over bailing out a beleaguered group of Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda fighters. It’s time Republicans realize that and let Allah sort out Syria and the rest of the Muslim world.