Today’s historic accord in Vienna between Iran and the West makes the West’s submission to Islamic fascism official government policy. The agreement, which trades lifting Western sanctions against Iran for United Nations-supervised nuclear advancement, creates a new alliance between America and Iran. It is in this sense that leftists and the Obama administration are correct that the Iran deal is a major advancement in complicity between these historic enemies.
I am not convinced that Barack Obama’s deal with the Islamic dictatorship makes Iran’s nuclear weapons development and acquisition easier. This is because I think nuclear proliferation by Iran is already extremely easy and a lot depends on Iran’s ability as a military dictatorship to make, maintain and use nuclear weaponry. But neither America nor Israel chooses to end the nuclear program which should have been decimated long ago. The only hope for termination of Iran’s nuclear program may come from France, which should have learned its lesson in the perils of appeasement the hard way when it was occupied by the Nazis and once stood for reason against an appeasing America over the Arab seizure of the Suez Canal. On this grim Bastille Day, France, which suffered a major assault by Moslem terrorists early this year in Paris at Charlie Hebdo, ought to be motivated to act in defense of liberty and Western civilization.
Motives are what this bad deal makes clear. With sanctions lifted, Islamic fascist Iran, which seeks total annihilation of the West, is free to expand banking into Europe and continue to sponsor and wage its terrorism with new power, yielding jihadist infiltration and domination of the West. Nuclearization ought to be obvious—Obama’s deal is a deal with a barbaric regime and thus contains no real safeguards for anything but the totally catastrophic prospect of Islamic nuclear attack—and there is every reason to think Iran will seek, make and use nuclear weapons against the West.
However, as this map illustrates, Iran’s new power hikes the potential for catastrophic war between Islamic factions of fundamentalists, as John Lewis warned in my exclusive 2011 interview, and threats or instances of nuclear strikes against America and the West in the region. Coupled with Obama’s deal’s explicit approval of Islamic economic influence and infiltration in the West, this agreement, even if stopped by a unanimous act of Congress and override of an Obama veto, may preclude the necessity of an Iranian nuclear act of war. Such an attack may not, given U.S. submission to Islam, be necessary.
Obama’s deal means the U.S.A.’s endorsement of Iranian nuclear proliferation and thus may or may not make nuclear holocaust on the West likely or all but certain. These monstrous years of Obama’s presidency make the end of America more realistic in either case. Obama’s evil deal makes official America’s submission to the world’s predominant faith-based barbarism and marks a change from a nation based on the enlightenment to a country kneeling to the looming, foreign threat of savagery and mass death. Netanyahu calls the Iran deal a “mistake” but will probably do nothing about it. Hillary Clinton says she concurs with Barack Obama that this is a good deal.
Ominously, Iran’s president pledges that Obama’s deal opens “new horizons”—as NASA’s New Horizons space probe climaxes with the best view of Pluto known to man, thanks to men of aerospace, science and reason—in an interesting and contrasting choice of words. By the time the West awakens to the reality of Iran’s new horizons—fanatical religious delusions by mystics inciting mobs to bring “Death to America!”—it will be too late.
Obama’s deal with Iran is a pact for mass suicide.
Iraq no longer exists, not in any essential sense. The fall of Ramadi is a sign of impending ruin. With the Islamic state rising, spreading and rallying Moslems to arms for jihad, which still means holy war, the Middle East is near total war. The aimless war for nothing that George W. Bush started for the wrong reasons in the wrong country, which was continued and scaled back for the wrong reasons by Barack Obama, comes to this: pure barbarism. As an American government official, choosing to remain nameless, tells today’s edition of the New York Times: “We’re still trying to piece together exactly what happened [in Iraq].”
Any honest man can see what happened, as any thinking adult could have seen that Islamic terrorists would be motivated to fly passenger jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands despite what the foolish Condoleezza Rice said to the contrary. Bush refused to declare, wage and win war against state sponsors of 9/11 and other Islamic terrorism. This is what happened to end Iraq. Instead, Bush chose to praise the ideology of the enemy, Islam, refuse to bomb mosques (like his predecessor Bill Clinton), order the Marines to stand down at Fallujah, put the lives of others above the lives of Americans, time and time and time and time again like his father, and wipe out thousands and thousands of Americans for absolutely nothing of value for the United States of America. Nihilistic Obama, also time and again, lied and went back on his word and did the same as Bush only with more explicit endorsement of the enemy’s ideology. The end of Iraq makes plain what some of us have been saying since 2004: American soldiers who died in Iraq, as painfully depicted in American Sniper, died in vain. This is what Americans should think about on Memorial Day.
That and the fact that they, the Americans, sanctioned the sacrifice and collapse. They did so by electing and re-electing Bush and Obama. They did so by tuning into cynicism or, worse, nihilism, and choosing not to think about Iraq, Syria, and the major state sponsors of death to the West, Iran and Saudi Arabia. They did so by ignoring Libya, Afghanistan, and attacks by Moslems on Americans at Benghazi, Boston and Fort Hood. They did so by regarding 9/11 as a crime, not as an act of war; as a tragedy to mourn rather than as an atrocity to avenge. They did so by going along with America’s submission to those waging war for Islam. They did so by evading that the war between religious savage and civilized man and its corollary, the rise of the U.S. police state such as the NSA, TSA and censorship, is a victory for jihad and an imminent threat to life. Americans all but made, chose and commissioned the end of Iraq and the meaningless deaths of thousands of their soldiers and countrymen—by refusing to think and demand the end of jihad without mercy—and the end of Iraq is the bloody forewarning that, until they do, Americans act by default to end America.
This Memorial Day weekend, I urge Americans to think, or re-think, and think twice about the men and women who fought and died, the unending war and the fact of doom and dictatorship that threatens to destroy freedom in America. Read this interview with my late friend and teacher, war and history professor John David Lewis, who studied the essentials of liberty and victory. Read, think and check your premises, as Ayn Rand wrote. If you, too, regard Memorial Day as the proper time to think about liberty and victory, and reflect on those who gave their lives for your freedom, with life as the ultimate value, pledge to honor the fallen, especially the one who once said: “Let’s roll”. Let the end of Iraq be the start of a renewed, radical American ideal.
Courtesy Joshua Roberts for REUTERS (March 3, 2015)
Despite an unprecedented smear campaign by the Obama administration against an American ally, Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, addressed a joint meeting of Congress tonight. He entered the U.S. Capitol to a round of thundering applause.
Netanyahu, as everyone knows by now, came to Congress to warn America about its arch-enemy, states that sponsor Islamic terrorism and, in particular, Iran, with whom the Obama administration is horrifyingly negotiating on the question of nuclear capability.
Addressing himself plainly to members of both houses of Congress, which he correctly called “the most important legislative body in the world,” he brilliantly challenged the United States of America in the deepest sense, both its people and its government. Contrasting the U.S. founding political philosophy, Netanyahu referred to Iran as the agent of “death, tyranny and the pursuit of jihad,” which it is. And, in case a member of Congress forgot, he made an impeccable case based upon facts throughout history, from mass murdered American Marines in Beirut to an act of war against Saudi Arabia in Washington, DC, that Iran and Islamic State fighters compete “for the crown of militant Islam”, which he described as a “game of thrones.”
This line is an appeal to intellectual Americans, the types that watch premium paid television programming, to stop obsessing over TV shows and start thinking more seriously about life and the facts of reality. He cashed in on that line when he concluded that “when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy—is your enemy.” By now, it should be obvious that America is at war with savages and that any deal with an Islamic barbarian state such as Iran is not just a bad deal but “a very bad deal”, as he put it. But Americans have gone soft and, on this topic, it is true, starting with the most intellectual Americans. He came with these simple words and short sentences to evoke their precious pop culture and apply it to real, everyday issues of life and death.
He mentioned the Bible’s Moses, too, urging Americans to be strong and resolute and to neither fear nor dread the enemy. If popular mythology doesn’t convince anyone, he compared today’s jihad to the West’s ignorance and evasion of the single worst act of mass extermination in history and pointed to Elie Wiesel as a strong and noble presence in the House of Representatives. He pointed to Iran’s systematic subjugation and persecution of gays, women and journalists. He pointed to North Korea, which got the nuclear bomb after endless negotiation by the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, as evidence that the same result can be expected of Iran. He pointed to Secretary of State John Kerry’s admission that Iran may end up with a massive nuclear capacity when Obama’s deal expires in 10 years.
“Now I want you to think about that,” Netanyahu said. “The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy…That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”
Netanyahu urged Americans tempted to think that a deal merely buys more time to think twice.
I first warned that Iran is America’s foremost enemy in an op-ed I wrote, which was published in newspapers nationwide in 2002, the year I first attended a speech by Benjamin Netanyahu. It was an event in Century City organized by a group called Jews in crisis and it was attended by Jews and others, including myself, an atheist, and an Arab friend, as I wrote about here. Thirteen years after warning against Iran, the Islamic dictatorship is rapidly becoming a nuclearized Islamic dictatorship, alarmingly at the concession and appeasement of the United States. This is why Netanyahu’s final point, that Israel reserves the right to act in its own defense—he said that “[e]ven if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand”—may miss the point.
Netanyahu said that he knows that “America stands with Israel”.
Is this true—and how does he know it? Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke in Hebrew and talked of God, Moses and the Promised Land. This may be a grave mistake. Most every argument in Netanyahu’s speech used logic and reason until the end, when he made vague, flimsy references to the strength of a relationship which is weakening. America barely supported Israel when it was created in 1948 and, from Eisenhower at the Suez Canal to Reagan’s insistence that Israel release hundreds of terrorists, America is charting a course for mass death and total self-destruction which is deeply rooted in its abandonment of Israel. This is most especially true with regard to America’s denunciation of Israel’s July 4, 1976, raid on the Arab terrorist-hijacked airport at Entebbe, in which Benjamin Netanyahu’s brother Jonathan was killed while liberating his fellow countrymen in what may be the single greatest act of retaliation against terrorism in the 20th, which is currently the bloodiest, century. Yes, the glorious raid on Entebbe was denounced by America almost 40 years ago.
Mr. Netanyahu, whose otherwise excellent speech makes an unassailable case as it is, ought to know better. America cannot be saved by the leader of our allied state of Israel, though Netanyahu is right and Congress should stop Obama from dealing with Iran. America must be saved by Americans. The problem is that Americans don’t think, or know how to think and articulate, that America is worth saving, let alone understand why. I want Netanyahu’s warning to have an impact this time. Unfortunately, I doubt that it will.
“As one who has seen the enemies of the Jewish people make good on threats to exterminate us, how can I remain silent?” Elie Wiesel, the great writer and survivor of Nazi atrocities, recently asked in an open letter (read the full text of Wiesel’s letter here).
The 86-year-old Wiesel, a staunch supporter of Israel, wrote the letter in support of the Israeli prime minister’s March 3 address to the United States Congress, in defiance of the Barack Obama administration, which is negotiating with Israel and America’s avowed enemy: Iran.
Click to Buy
Wiesel, an Andrew W. Mellon humanities professor at Boston University, author of the Holocaust memoir, Night, and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the U.S. Congressional Gold Medal, Medal of Liberty and 1986 Nobel Peace Prize, chose this conflict between the U.S. executive branch and America’s ally, Israel, to proclaim his position against the administration; a committment to hear the case against the U.S. foreign policy of appeasement of Iran’s Islamic dictatorship.
In fact, he dared to publicly declare his intention to attend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech and he asked the president, vice-president and Congress:
Will you join me in hearing the case for keeping weapons from those who preach death to Israel and America?”
Wiesel’s radical refusal to remain silent—unlike most on the left, including Jews—and submit to Obama’s charge toward destruction is an act of moral courage from one with moral integrity. Elie Wiesel’s is a strong, powerful voice among Jews and those who care to know about the West’s worst act of self-destruction (so far) and, paraphrasing Leonard Peikoff (The Cause of Hitler’s Germany), America’s undeniably ominous parallel to the monstrosity of total government control of the individual.
Click to Buy
Wiesel’s singularly commanding voice of reason on this crucial issue has derailed the pro-Obama/anti-Israel campaign to stop this free exercise of speech—for now. There are days until Netanyahu’s address to Congress on March 3 and, as Americans and those living in the West have seen, civilization is increasingly and dangerously uncertain. This is war between the West and Islamic states that sponsor terrorism and this administration is driven to destroy the United States with its foreign and domestic policies. One who survived a Nazi death camp who lived and learned to Never Forget what causes mass death, like the old man depicted in the movie about the Jews’ revolt at the Nazis’ Sobibor camp, will not submit.
Neither should today’s American, who should follow this thoughtful intellectual’s example and watch Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress on March 3, come what may—then continue with a lifelong commitment like Elie Wiesel’s to speak out and defend against barbarism in its variously insidious forms.
Contrary to the president’s 2012 announcement during a nationally televised address of a pullout from Afghanistan, the Obama administration agreed to keep 9,800 U.S. troops in the country, adding $16 billion in aid and ceding to the new Afghan government control of troops’ and military contractors’ actions.
The U.S., is not, for example, allowed to raid mosques “or other sacred sites”, according to a report in today’s New York Times.
Indeed, the new Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, praised the agreement as being in Afghanistan’s “national interest”. Is the agreement also in America’s national interest? Objectively, the answer is No.
The Obama administration explicitly rejects the idea that acting in one’s self-interest is virtuous. In a White House statement, the U.S. government refused to acknowledge national interest as a legitimate concept while heralding helping others while putting mosques and sites deemed “sacred” by Afghanistan off-limits to U.S. military action:
[W]e look forward to working with [Afghanistan’s] new government to cement an enduring partnership that strengthens Afghan sovereignty, stability, unity, and prosperity, and that contributes to our shared goal of defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates.”
Note its use of the word shared.
This means that any goal, whether defeating an enemy combatant or treating infectious disease, must be shared by all Americans with the entire world. Naming how a goal affects U.S. national interest, let alone whether the goal advances U.S. national interest, is out of the question; executing an action in the nation’s interest is anathema to the United States government. Altruism, the idea that one’s highest moral duty is to serve others, is instead practiced to the extreme. The White House statement makes clear that defeating Islamic terrorists, unnamed as Islamic terrorists, is legitimate only if it helps others, especially Moslems.
This, of course, continues the George W. Bush administration’s fundamental foreign and domestic policy of helping others. Whether ordering Marines to stand down at Fallujah in 2004 or expanding Medicare, Bush, like Obama, chronically praises what moves the enemy, Islam, as a “religion of peace”, pledges to help others and expand the welfare state at the cost of adding trillions of dollars to the debt.
There once was a legitimate claim after 9/11 that a military attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan, however puny and insignificant in ending states that sponsor terrorism, is in America’s interest. Now the very idea of America’s interest is forbidden in Washington. Under Obama, only more so.
So, it should be obvious that Obama lied when he pledged to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. It should also be clear that the lie is based on a basic intent to change and thereby destroy the nation’s fundamental principle that the individual has the right to pursue one’s happiness for one’s own sake.
Afghanistan’s new leader promised that the pact will “open the doors for a continuation of civilian and [U.S.] military aid.”
What’s in the pact for Americans? Nothing, and everything that this implies.
The true answer to this variation on the much-maligned question “what’s in it for me?” ultimately redounds to catastrophe and mass extermination, as Leonard Peikoff repeatedly warns. A pact with a nation in which we are precluded from raiding buidings where the enemy stores weapons and houses soldiers of God in its jihad against America is a suicide pact. As the Taliban, which was invited by the new Afghan president for peace talks, said in its succinct response to the pact: “Death to America”. This is precisely what the U.S. gets from Obama’s new deal.
The polls are closed and it’s been reported that Scotland voters rejected a referendum to declare independence from the United Kingdom (U.K.) by a wide margin.
But those claiming victory for the U.K. may be missing the point. While the 55 percent to 45 percent margin is solid, the fact that this came to pass at all is another sign that the West is on the wane. The United Kingdom is, like the United States of America, not really united. In fact, the nation is disunited, as is America, which broke free from the U.K. in 1776 on the premise of individual rights. Though Scottish nationalism apparently drove the referendum to the voters, and I think there may be multiple factors driving Scotland toward independence, the momentum is on the side of those seeking to divide, not unite, the U.K. The same is true with the U.S.
Unity comes from a nation’s people identifying, accepting and sharing an idea or value to a certain degree, such as Americans uniting around the concept of abolishing slavery to preserve the union or creating a nation based on man’s inalienable rights or Germans uniting around the ideas of duty to the volk, collective or race and the morality of altruism, culminating in Nazi Germany. The fragmented welfare state U.K., which appeases its enemies, the Islamic terrorists and their state sponsors, unites around nothing (with the possible exception of Princess Diana following her death in 1997) and hasn’t since Margaret Thatcher left office. America, too, is divided over nearly every major political issue, and increasingly over cultural issues, though there are encouraging signs.
Still, rumblings among the public do not represent united opposition to statism and this is true in Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh, too, where, to varying degrees, factions of the public want more or less government control or merely more provincial or national control of government control. Indeed, in the aftermath of the divisive Scottish election, the government of the United Kingdom has coalesced around expanded power for Scotland over taxes and government spending.
Questions raised by the prospect of independence are likely to continue being asked and answered. The British Prime Minister David Cameron, in his victory speech, is already pledging more power for Scotland and also for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Arguably the only real uniting around this rejection vote is among the West’s nationalists: Quebec and Catalonia are emboldened by the surprisingly rapid advancement of Scotland’s separatist cause.
This effect, of the U.K. being less united, more disunited, is what makes the Scotland vote a cautionary moment for the U.K. and the West, which is buckling under the strain of massive debt and besieged by religious barbarians that have been appeased and coddled for most of the previous century. I fear that the outcome of the election is at best a temporary reprieve from disintegration; that this election result is seriously less than victory. As one woman who voted No to Scotland’s independence told a newspaper reporter in explaining her reasoning: “[the Scottish minister for breaking away] didn’t really have the plans in place.” Westerners should brace for the possibility that what this means is that Scots, and others throughout the West, from Spain to California, may be eager to elect those who do.