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.

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.

Perception Management of Radical Islam

“We're in a new world. We're in a world in which the possibility of terrorism, married up with technology, could make us very, very sorry that we didn't act.” — Condoleezza Rice, Former U.S. Secretary of State

The term “Perception Management” (PM) has firmly entered the public lexicon. The Department of Defense even defines PM in one of its manuals, so the military folks obviously take it very seriously.

Perception management is a type of strategy that is aimed at guiding the motives, emotions, and conclusions of another party by means of using different approaches to alter that party’s perception of past events and the projections of future events. This particular type of strategy has been used in military operations in attempts to gain advantages over enemies, and has also found use in the business world among competitors. The goal is to alter the perception of the opposing party in a way that provides the manager with an advantage that can be used successfully to score a victory or otherwise defeat that opposing party.

There is some difference of opinion regarding whether the task of perception management must remain firmly rooted in the use of verifiable information that is presented in a manner that is likely to trigger the desired outcome, or if the strategy allows for the selective use of certain facts while ignoring others or even leaving room for the inclusion of data that is questionable. For those that focus on the use of verifiable data only, the task is to assess all the available information, then determine the best way to present those facts in a way that is likely to cause recipients to react in a certain manner. Sometimes referred to as spinning, here the focus is not on attempting to mislead per se, but instead to call more attention to certain bits of information while downplaying the importance of others. When successful, this approach has the benefit of having provided all the information, although in a format that definitely slanted the point of view in a specific direction.

At other times, the process of perception management includes the selective use of available data. In this scenario, certain facts are presented completely and concisely, while others are either presented only in part of are left out altogether. Doing so makes it easier to create a particular perception that can be sold to consumers, the citizens of a given country, or to a rival of some sort, assuming the opposing party is not privy to and does not discover the omissions.

In essence PM is not spin doctoring because perception managers don’t spin facts. They create facts and then sell them to the world as truth. Using these methods, a major untruth can be established so quickly and overwhelmingly across the world that no digging after the fact can make a dent in public consciousness that it actually isn’t true at all. And that’s what makes it so dangerous.

Examples of PM might be considered as: The sinking of the Battleship Maine, which got us into the Spanish-American War; the sinking of the Lusitania, which caused public opinion to enter World War I, the shooting at Fort Hood by a Radical Islamic terrorist shouting “Allāhu Akbar” was “work place violence”; and that Islam is a religion of peace and only a few nut jobs carry out terrorist activities.

Here is a quick test

Savages go on a shooting spree at the offices of a satirical magazine. While they're murdering journalists, the killers shout:

1. Hail Mary full of grace…
2. John 14:6
3. Shema Yisrael
4. Allahu akbar

A captive is beheaded by:

1. The Salvation Army
2. The Book of the Month Club
3. The National Geographic
4. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

In Europe, demonstrators carry signs calling for "Death to the Jews" and proclaiming "Hitler was right!" are:

1. Octogenarian Nazis
2. Members of the Church of Scientology
3. Representatives of Jimmy Dean Pork Sausages
4. Moslems

Someone who plants a shrapnel-packed bomb near the finish line of a marathon is likely to belong to:

1. an Ashram
2. a Reform synagogue
3. a Masonic Lodge
4. a Mosque

You’ll probably get death threats if you:

1. Produce something called “Piss Christ”
2. Make a movie that presents Moses as a psycho
3. Call Tea Party members terrorists
4. Do or say anything which shows Mohammed in an unflattering light

The response to the latest Religion of Peace atrocity – the attack on a humor magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris that left 17 dead, 21 wounded — was craven, inane and utterly predictable. This count does not include the three Radical Islamic Killers.

The facts so far known and verified by the French authorities pin the attack on three French citizens – all Muslims. According to a report by Fox News the terrorist attack was sponsored by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) from its base in Yemen:

“Shortly after the massacre in Paris, a series of tweets went out from a known Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula Twitter account. They show images of the Paris massacre with photos of al-Awlaki and Samir Khan (editor of Inspire magazine, who was killed along with al-Awlaki).

An intelligence source told Fox News that the tweets suggest foreknowledge of the Paris attack.

On Friday, U.S. government sources confirmed to Fox News that 34-year-old Said Kouachi, who, along with his brother Cherif, was responsible for the attack in Paris, travelled to Yemen in 2011 and trained with or fought along side AQAP, and one of his goals was to meet with the Al Qaeda branch's leadership. A U.S. intelligence assessment described to The Associated Press shows that Kouachi was trained in preparation to return home and carry out an attack.

Soon after the Al Qaeda member claimed responsibility for the Paris attack on Friday, The Associated Press reported that the branch's senior cleric Sheikh Harith al-Nadhari issued a recording on the group's Twitter feed commenting on the "blessed raid on Paris." He denounced the "filthy" French and called them "the heads of infidelity who insult the prophets." He praised the "hero mujahedeen" who he said "taught them a lesson and the limits of freedom of speech."

In a recent report by Fox News Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen has released a video claiming responsibility for last week's deadly attack by two gunmen on the offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris:

“Nasr al-Ansi, a top commander of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP as the branch is known, appeared in an 11-minute Internet video posted Wednesday, saying that the massacre was in "vengeance for the prophet."

Al-Ansi also said in the video that France belongs to the "party of Satan" and warned of more "tragedies and terror." He says Yemen's Al Qaeda branch "chose the target, laid out the plan and financed the operation," though he produced no evidence to support the claim.

The attack by two brothers, Said and Cherif Kouachi killed 12 people, including eight staffers at the magazine, which had reportedly drawn their ire for repeatedly depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. Muslim orthodoxy holds that any depiction of Muhammad is blasphemous.

An eyewitness heard the gunmen say in French, "We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad!" as they fled the newspaper office, while another witness claimed the gunmen addressed him before fleeing, saying, "Tell them this was Al Qaeda in Yemen."

It did not take long for major media in the West to begin to alter the facts and the truth.

The White House and State Department refuse to use the words “Islamic” or “Radical Islamic” when talking about the latest or any other act of terrorism committed by Radical Islamist. Instead they use the word “Extremists” lumping all acts of terrorism together. They don’t even call Al Qaeda or ISIL radical Islam. In this way they are presenting us with a new set of facts — facts that are intended to led us to a new truth. In essence they are managing the perception of what is happing around the world when it pertains to Islam. The motives for doing this are unclear, but one must consider Barack Obama’s background and various statements he has made about Islam over the years.

It is the job of a conscientious and diligent press to challenge the action and statements of those in authority over us — this why we have a First Amendment in our Constitution. When a free press becomes the spokespersons for authority bad things happen. This is what happens in totalitarian states such as Germany under the Nazis, Russia under the Communists, North Korea, and Cuba.

Below is a video clip of CNN’s Christiane Amanpour reporting on the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo in Paris last week refused to use the words “Islamic Terrorism” or even “Terrorism” but instead used the word "Activists" when referring to the actions of the two Islamic gunmen. This video of her is introduced by Greg Gutfeld of Fox News and reported extensively across the Internet.

Of course what would one expect from a woman of Iranian heritage and married to American James Rubin, a former US Assistant Secretary of State and spokesman for the US State Department during the Clinton administration and currently an informal adviser to former US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and President of the United States Barack Obama.

There are other quotes from CNN contributors in this clip warning of an overreaction to the killings by “right-wing” activists. It should be noted that no such action has ever happened – even in the wake of 9/11.

Activists are people championing a cause. Most right-wing act activists are peaceful marchers. Many left-wing activists use violence – note the recent demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri and New York City.

Martin Luther King was an activist. Gandhi was an activist. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are activists. They don’t walk into an establishment with AK-47s and start indiscriminately blasting away. Major Nidal Hasan is a terrorist.

As Gutfeld states in his comments on Christiane Amanpour:

“I get it. The enemy is pre-ordained. It's us. Which means Howard Dean is right. This is a cult, a cult of apologists. But Dean is also right when he says this is not a religious issue, which means, if I don't see Islam when I fight terror, then you cannot see Islamophobia when I fight it.

What should we see instead? Again, a death cult, one that needs no understanding, just eradication. It would be nice for moderate Muslims to help, but if they don't, we can handle it, it's nothing personal, Muslims. Just step aside.

Finally, where did this cult learn to punish language? From the Quran? From Al Qaeda? How about Harvard, and our modern cult of hate speech activists, who see language as violence, creating speech codes with penalties? Seeing "activists" silence critics so easily must make them drool with envy.”

Gutfeld is pointing out how language and the management of perception is why we cannot mount effective attack on Radical Islam.

Fueling the Western paralysis in dealing with radical Islam is the late 20th century doctrine of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is one of those buzzwords that does not mean what it should. The ancient and generic Western study of many cultures is not multiculturalism. Rather, the trendy term promotes non-Western cultures to a status equal with or superior to Western culture largely to fulfill contemporary political agendas.

On college campuses, multiculturalism not so much manifests itself in the worthy interest in Chinese literature, Persian history, or hieroglyphics, but rather has become more a therapeutic exercise of exaggerating Western sins while ignoring non-Western pathologies to attract those who see themselves in some way as not part of the dominant culture.

It is a deductive ideology that starts with a premise of Western fault and then makes evidence fit the paradigm. This is classic Perception Management.

A multicultural approach to the conquest of Mexico usually does not investigate the tragedy of the collision between 16th-century imperial Spain and the Aztec Empire. More often it renders the conquest as melodrama between a mostly noble indigenous people slaughtered by a mostly toxic European Christian culture, acting true to its imperialistic and colonialist traditions and values.

In other words, there is little attention given to Aztec imperialism, colonialism, slavery, human sacrifice, and cannibalism, but rather a great deal of emphasis on Aztec sophisticated time-reckoning, monumental building skills, and social stratification. To explain the miraculous defeat of the huge Mexican empire by a few rag-tag, greedy conquistadors, discussion would not entail the innate savagery of the Aztecs that drove neighboring indigenous tribes to ally themselves with Cortés.

For the multiculturalist, the sins of the non-West are mostly ignored or attributed to Western influence, while those of the West are peculiar to Western civilization. In terms of the challenge of radical Islam, multiculturalism manifests itself in the abstract with the notion that Islamists are simply the fundamentalist counterparts to any other religion. Islamic extremists are no different from Christian extremists, as the isolated examples of David Koresh or the Rev. Jim Jones are cited ad nauseam as the morally and numerically equivalent bookends to thousands of radical Islamic terrorist acts that plague the world each month. We are not to assess other religions by any absolute standard, given that such judgmentalism would inevitably be prejudiced by endemic Western privilege. There is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount that differs much from what is found in the Koran. And on and on and on.

In the concrete, multiculturalism seeks to use language and politics to mask reality. The slaughter at Ford Hood becomes “workplace violence,” not a case of a radical Islamist, Major Nidal Hasan, screaming “Allahu Akbar” as he butchered the innocent. After the Paris violence, the administration envisions a “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism,” apparently in reaction to Buddhists who are filming beheadings, skinheads storming Paris media offices, and lone-wolf anti-abortionists who slaughtered the innocent in Australia, Canada, and France.

The likes of James Clapper and John Brennan assure us of absurdities such as the Muslim Brotherhood being a largely secular organization or jihad as little more than a personal religious journey. Terrorism is reduced to man-caused violence and the effort to combat it is little more than an “overseas contingency operation.” The head of NASA in surreal fashion boasts that one of his primary missions for the hallowed agency is to promote appreciation of Muslim science and accomplishments through outreach to Islam. The president blames an obscure film-maker for causing the deaths of Americans in Benghazi (when in reality, it was a preplanned Al-Qaeda affiliate hit) — and then Obama makes it a twofer: he can both ignore the politically incorrect task of faulting radical Islam and score politically correct points by chastising a supposedly right-wing bigot for a crime he did not foster.

For the useful idiot, multiculturalism is supposedly aimed at ecumenicalism and hopes to diminish difference by inclusiveness and non-judgmentalism. But mostly it is a narcissistic fit, in which the multiculturalist offers a cheap rationalization of non-Western pathologies, and thereby anoints himself both the moral superior to his own less critical Western peers and, in condescending fashion, the self-appointed advocate of the mostly incapable non-Westerner.

Multiculturalism is contrary to human nature. Supposedly if Muslims understand that Westerners do not associate an epidemic of global terrorism and suicide bombing with Islam, then perhaps Muslims — seeing concession as magnanimity to be reciprocated — will appreciate such outreach and help to mitigate the violence, all the more so if they also sense that they share with the more radical among them at least some legitimate gripes against the West.

In the psychological sense, multiculturalism also serves as a way of dealing with affluent Western guilt: one does not have to put his kids in an inner-city school, visit the barrio to shop, or invite undocumented aliens over for dinner, when one can both enjoy a largely affluent and apartheid existence in the concrete, while praising the noble Other in the abstract. In the European context, the liberal French or British elite welcomes in the Muslim Other for low-wage jobs and to feed his multicultural sensitivities — only to outsource the immigrants to outlander suburbs that devolve into no-go zones even for the police. In the Clinton context, when Hilary lectures us that we must understand and even empathize with the minds of our enemies, we assume that Chelsea is not on the barricades trying to fathom what drives the violent “Other.”

Ultimately multiculturalism is incoherent, claiming that all cultures are equal, but then (privately) disturbed that Iranians behead gays or Saudi women cannot drive a car — or radical Muslims prefer to live in Europe than among the believers in Yemen. Yet even multiculturalism cannot quite equate honor killings with the glass ceiling.

Radical Muslims both emigrate to the West and yet, once there, seek through Sharia law to destroy the very foundations of what made the West attractive to them in the first place. Clean water, advanced medicine, entitlement support and free speech ultimately cannot exist in a society that routinely assassinates the outspoken satirist. In a less dramatic sense, the entire open-border, La Raza movement is based on the anomaly that the United States is such an inhospitable and racist place, while Mexico is such a benevolent homeland, that 11 million risk their lives to reach the former and abandon the latter.

For Muslims of the Middle East, there is a clear pathway to economic prosperity and a secure lifestyle; countries as diverse as South Korea, Japan, and Chile are proof of it. Within wide parameters, success only asks adherence to a mostly free market, some sort of freedom of expression, religious tolerance, a separation of science from orthodoxy, the rule of law, and consensual constitutional government — along with a cultural ethos of rough parity between the sexes, merit-based evaluation instead of tribal favors, and tolerance for ethnic and religious minorities.

Fail that, and human misery follows of the now familiar Middle East sort, in turn followed by the tired blame that the Jews, the Americans, the Europeans, or the West caused these self-generated pathologies.

If the Western establishment were truly moral, it would reject multiculturalism as a deductive, anti-empirical, and illiberal creed. It would demand that critics abroad first put their own house in order before blaming others for their own failures, and remind Western elites that their multicultural fantasies are cheap remedies designed to deal with their own neuroses.

Finally, it would also not welcome in newcomers who seek to destroy the very institutions that make the West so unlike the homelands they have voted with their feet to utterly abandon.

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.