President Barack Obama addressed the weakened, fractured nation on the eve of another unavenged September 11th in a short, televised speech announcing new U.S. military involvement against Islamic terrorists in the nation formerly known as Iraq.
Obama, who has lied many times on foreign and domestic policy, has zero credibility, however. Nothing the president says should be taken as honest and forthright. As far as I’m concerned, the man who ran for president on the premise that he would pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and end the Bush administration’s military intervention in 2008 is utterly unfit for command. When he pledges that under his command America will “degrade and destroy” our enemies, what he means is the opposite. Almost every action he has taken in his two terms as president is deliberately designed to degrade the founding ideals of the United States and destroy what America means in theory and in practice. Obama is, as I once wrote, the Nothing Man. He is diametrically opposed to the fundamental founding principle of the country, individual rights, and he seeks to destroy the nation.
That our war against Islamic states that sponsor terrorism is a disaster which has never been properly declared, waged and/or fought is no reason to support the president and take his word for rational action in self-defense. Of course, America should destroy the enemy, which has been allowed to gather and attack. But Obama cannot be trusted to do it under any circumstances and the facts of reality have proven this time and again.
This does not stop conservatives such as Newt Gingrich from supporting the President, as Gingrich and others, such as David Gergen, rushed to do tonight on CNN. “We’ve had 13 years of trying to defeat the enemy” CNN’s Gingrich said after listening to the speech and describing it as “very good”.
Gingrich is wrong. America has not had 13 years of trying to defeat the enemy. America has had 13 years of not trying to defeat the enemy. In other words, we’ve actually had 13 years of appeasing the enemy, by not bombing mosques when we knew they contained enemy chieftains, combatants and weapons, for instance, by ordering Marines to stand down at Fallujah, as President Bush did, and by refusing to end states that sponsor terrorism. The fact is that the Islamic jihad is an immediate threat to the United States and so is the president of the United States.
Today’s news went without much notice that Bill Clinton, a former American president who had known opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden before 9/11, admitted to an Australian audience hours before Bin Laden’s 9/11 plot was executed that he rejected the chance to kill the chief jihadist.
With Israel, which has refused to annihilate its enemies since it was created by the United Nations in 1948, being maligned for killing civilians in an unending conflict with Hamas, coordinated movements of illegal aliens into the U.S. and communicably diseased missionaries being returned to the U.S. in the name of family values, the former president’s declaration of self-sacrifice is more evidence of the past as prelude.
To paraphrase Ayn Rand in The Fountainhead, the entire West is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing and, with America on what I personally think is the verge of breakdown, collapse or implosion, there is less time and therefore more urgency and complexity in distinguishing right from wrong as America descends into fascism. For example, there may be a rational case to be made, as Tucker Carlson recently pointed out, that Israel’s incursion is not in its self-interest. Or that illegal aliens should be welcome in the U.S., as Yaron Brook argued against Leonard Peikoff. Or that infected Ebola patients should be admitted to an Atlanta, Georgia hospital. All of that to some degree presupposes a relatively free republic out of imminent danger and I think those positions should be examined. Reasonable people may disagree.
But the case for killing a primitive Islamic chieftain that ordered the 9/11 attack prior to assault is unequivocal and Clinton’s statement (captured in an audio recording, according to Sky News Australia) explicitly confirms – particularly to those waffling conservatives that defend Reagan and Bush presidencies and Democrats who equivocate, too – that the U.S. government chooses to sacrifice its own people, both civilians and military, for the sake of helping others:
I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden … He’s a very smart guy. I spent a lot of time thinking about him. And I nearly got him once. I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan [sic] and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.”
In short, President Clinton chose to spare 300 Afghans presumed to be innocent rather than eradicate the Islamic terrorist whose plot to mass murder 3,000 mostly American innocents at the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and at other targets would be executed within hours of his altruistic statement. Here is his morality of self-sacrifice, shared by U.S. leaders then and now, from Reagan who failed to eliminate Islamic terrorism and instead abetted it, and Bush, who squandered the post-9/11 goodwill, to today’s empty president, Barack Obama, who actively seeks to destroy the United States in every meaningful sense and on every level. Remember this and that the American people generally support these views and presidents, too, if and when your flesh is burning from an Islamic terrorist attack or you hear the screaming jet engines or missile, though by then it will be too late.
Clinton, as I wrote in a roundup of DVDs about the 9/11 attack (read my report here), had plenty of opportunities to stop 9/11 before it was activated, including on February 12, 1999, the day that the U.S. Senate voted to acquit Clinton on charges related to the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, when he cancelled a military operation to attack Osama bin Laden because the terrorist was in the company of an Arabian prince whom the Clinton administration wished not to harm. Clinton’s choice came after his administration had asked which bin Laden camp tents were used as mosques, so as not to harm Moslem terrorists in prayer. Bin Laden began planning the 9/11 attack shortly after the aborted mini-strike.
In other words, time and again – and it’s done by conservatives, too – the U.S. government chooses to put the lives of others above the lives of Americans, a distinctly Judeo-Christian ethic (which Israel practices to its own doom, too). America’s enemies, by external or internal attack, demonstrate a faith-based drive to wipe out the West at any cost, destroying that which is most sacred to Americans, whether the tallest buildings, women, children or treasured institutions. This means Americans can count on being sacrificed and destroyed. Note the callous, dismissive, unthinking whimsy with which the former president’s last line before jihadists destroyed the World Trade Center was delivered – “so I didn’t do it” – and know that this casual dismissal of the primacy of a single American’s life applies to you, here and now. This willful disregard for American life is what must be utterly rejected. It must be met with the clear, moral case for egoism and with the conviction that life is, as Rand wrote, the ultimate value. When forced by those who seek to destroy the West to choose between the civilians they place in harm’s way and Americans, America and the West must always and with reverence for life be willing to choose to eliminate that which the enemy holds sacred and do so without a millisecond of doubt.
History shows that Atlanta, Dresden and Hiroshima among other places of mass destruction and enemy civilian loss of life led to periods of great unity, peace and harmony. The Bushes, Clintons and Obamas and their followers who seek to sacrifice Americans, as Clinton essentially chose to do before 9/11, are wrong. The argument for egoism as against altruism tells us why.
The disintegration of the U.S. government from the people is perfectly embodied by one of the worst American presidents, George Bush (the 41st commander-in-chief), who chose the occasion of both the looming takeover of Iraq by Islamic fundamentalists and the abnegation of U.S. veterans’ health care by the government to jump from an airplane for the eighth time to celebrate his birthday.
It is one of the most shameful acts by a former president in history.
Long, aimless wars in Iraq were set in motion by this Bush. The war for the sake of helping others, waged by his son, George W. Bush, upon the invasion of Iraq after 9/11, would not have been possible without his – and Norman Schwarzkopf’s and Colin Powell’s – unfocused, unfinished and totally unselfish military policy. Neither would the emerging Iraqi massacre and Islamic caliphate or thousands of murdered, maimed and, fundamentally, sacrificed American soldiers, generations of whom are lying in pain and agony without limbs, livelihoods or medicine thanks to the Veterans Administration’s systematic plan to allow them to be sick without treatment and die. Neither, frankly, would the monstrous Barack Obama, who (with whomever is helping him) presides over and coordinates the end of America.
The end of Iraq is happening as I write this and it started in earnest with George Herbert Walker Bush, though I know it started before Bush. That the president who goes by a number would with supreme narcissism pull a publicity stunt when men and women of the military face horrifying injustice is contemptible. The 41st president bears responsibility for the 20th century’s worst U.S. riots, massive new taxes, government controls and dictates, wrong wars and the worst act of war in U.S. history, so he should already be remembered for hastening America’s demise.
But he is also a forefather of U.S. appeasement of Islamic fundamentalism and Iraq’s takeover by jihadists. Of course, he fathered (philosophically, not just ancestrally) the welfare-statist 43rd president who made Obama possible. In fact, this skyjumping Bush is singularly more responsible for the horror of what we are about to witness – the rising Islamic Iraqi state – than any other person in history. When he ought to have been apologizing to Americans, especially to the brave soldiers and those who survive the dead, for the tax increases, bad laws and wars with no purpose, victory or national interest, Bush chose to publicize himself for the sake of a temporary thrill.
That Bush’s stunt happened under colors of a flag that represents the freedom fought for by soldiers he sent to be slaughtered for nothing, as Iraq and other war veterans now lie writhing in misery, dying while waiting for health care – while Americans flee for their lives from Iraq as it succumbs to Islamo-fascism and the U.S. slips into further decline – is America’s foremost example of presidential hubris.
America is not the world’s police and it ought to be unnecessary to have to declare let alone debate that an attack by the U.S. on Syria would be an outrage.
But the Obama administration, backed by every major Democrat and Republican and largely by the press, too, is on the verge of taking the U.S. to war with Syria. It’s bad enough that Obama is proposing to align with rebels that by credible accounts are allied with the Islamic terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9/11, and it is monstrous to subject this nation – having already been subjected to the longest war in our history – to another war with no purpose other than helping others. But the U.S. government has, to my knowledge for the first time, explicitly rejected U.S. self-interest as the cause for initiating the use of force against another country. Obama’s stated purpose for going to war is pure altruism – the morality of helping others for the sake of helping others – to the exclusion of self-interest and the fact that both sides of Syria’s civil war are jihadists for Islam. The altruism is the point, its proponents agree.
This war, currently being debated by Congress, is a crucially climactic, possibly ultimate, test in our lifetimes between the ethics of egoism and the ethics of altruism or between good and evil. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is right that the United States is “not Al Qaeda’s air force” when he argues that we should not go to war with Syria. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is right to declare as he did in Time that he refuses to “vote to send our nation’s best and brightest to fight for anything less than victory.” But these are deeply flawed Christian politicians who can go bad – and, on crucial issues, they have – because they have no moral defense for acting in our own self-interest. A nation hurling itself into war in solidarity with victims of chemical weapons won’t be stopped on practical, even Constitutional, grounds.
The ethics of self-sacrifice must be challenged, rejected and replaced with the ethics of self-interest, which ought to be our sole criteria for foreign intervention, as the Founding Fathers, who warned against foreign entanglements, understood.
The opponents and proponents of war with Syria are proving philosopher Onkar Ghate right that the fundamental political conflict of our time is not between left and right. The conflict is between the rational and the irrational, between reason vs. faith, with leftists and conservatives converging into a single, dangerous pre-dictatorship based on faith in the state – the NSA, TSA, ObamaCare, anything dictated by government – with Obama, McCain and Fox News leading us into submission. President Obama, a pure nihilist whom I’ve called the Nothing Man, openly expresses disdain and outright contempt for having to communicate anything about the issue of going to war with anyone for any reason. He embodies the nil, the nothing, in this sense; a kind of walking (or in his case loping) Grim Reaper.
Two years ago, I had a long discussion about war with John Lewis months before he died. I had studied under his instruction in war history and read his book, Nothing Less Than Victory, and Dr. Lewis was the best war historian I knew. We talked about 9/11, the jihad, Syria as a flashpoint, the prospect of Obama as a warmonger and the people treating someone like Obama as a deity in total faith. He warned against all-out world war born of our refusal to identify, name, confront, kill and wipe out Islamic jihad.
Attacking Syria brings America closer to total, nonstop world war and destruction of western civilization. Some Americans, including war veterans and other individualists, are awakened and emboldened by Michigan Rep. Justin Amash’s efforts and Edward Snowden’s heroic whistleblowing and they reject the emerging government-controlled society by speaking up against war with Syria. In ethical terms, the debate over Syria separates the selfish from the selfless. The question demanding to be answered right now is: which one are you?
Whatever the truth about the government’s latest claims that we may be under imminent threat of an attack by Islamic terrorists, the state-sponsored alarm rings false.
If, in fact, there is a serious, credible and specific threat, there’s no excuse not to stop it. That’s the government’s highest proper function (which it hasn’t performed in decades). If the supposed threat is unspecified – the State Department, which failed to anticipate, define and respond to the 9/11 attack on our consulate in Libya last year, declines to discuss details of the alleged threat – yet somehow may be reasonably believed to constitute a serious threat, there’s more evidence (besides Benghazi and Boston) that the Obama administration’s unchecked, mass monitoring of U.S. communications does not protect us from harm. The government’s mass scare campaign, which purports to warn but in fact does nothing but advertise what we do not know, merely serves the aims of our enemies.
How does sounding unspecified alarms and uprooting our entire embassy network, closing down embassies for days on end, notifying state and local police – but not the public – of purported details of some sort of vague, unspecified Islamic terrorist threat to the “homeland” protect Americans at home and abroad? Either the details are too vague to spread or they’re too specific not to spread and in either case they telegraph to the enemy, whom we refuse to name, confront and defeat, that we are more willing to destroy our freedom than we are to destroy our enemy. I suspect that is exactly the point of the government’s exercise: to further weaken our resolve to clearly identify the jihadist enemy and kill them before they kill us and to lull Americans into a false sense of security (via the TSA, the Homeland Security bureaucracy, the NSA, etc.) and insidiously drift the American people into silently accepting and dutifully obeying dubious commands in a state of fear, pain and confusion. Just like the government did in Boston, putting the city on lockdown, refusing to name the enemy – Moslems at war with the West – costing American lives, accomplishing nothing (one jihadist bomber was allowed to be killed by his comrade while another was discovered by an American released from curfew) and resulting in asinine, Big Brother boosterism such as “Boston Strong” which is the opposite of the truth (Boston has never been more weak; read my critique here).
I can’t predict whether there will be another major Islamic terrorist attack let alone where, when and under which dictatorship’s orders. But I can say with certainty that the United States of America has done nothing serious to stop it, everything serious to encourage it and that the actions of our government, which may already (or might as well) be infiltrated by jihadists, merit the highest levels of doubt, derision and alarm. The fact of the timing alone – coming as millions of Americans grow dubious of government spying on us – ought to make every American suspicious of the state.
National security is government’s most important function and our government has failed time and again, fostering, allowing or not stopping Islamic terrorist attacks from Benghazi to Boston. Inversely, the government continues to violate individual rights in the name of protecting Americans, despite government lies, scandals and failures and unsolved mysteries and apparent conspiracies surrounding those infractions against what was once and is no longer a free republic. Today, according to press reports, the United States of America announced that it will close an unspecified number of embassies around the world this Sunday over security concerns. A State Department spokeswoman said the closures are “precautionary,” but she refused to identify the threat or why American embassies are being closed, which underscores that this administration demands total faith, duty and obedience in and to the state.
In this context, a young whistleblower, Edward Snowden, whose cause I was among the first to write favorably about, has exercised his freedom of speech, disclosed certain widespread, unethical applications of the U.S. government’s unconstitutional Patriot Act in spying on Americans, monitoring most or all communications, including social media correspondence and other proprietary content. Snowden took refuge in Hong Kong, granted an interview to the press, was stripped of his U.S. passport, presumed guilty, and fled the Obama administration’s U.S.A. for Moscow, Russia, apparently seeking asylum there. Today, asylum was granted for one year from yesterday.
As I wrote earlier this summer, the relevant issue with Edward Snowden’s asylum acceptance is not what’s wrong with Russia. It’s what’s wrong with America. Here, under the past several but especially the Bush and most especially the Obama administrations, we have near total government control of every aspect of our lives: land, energy, medicine, food, education, insurance, banking, automotive, travel, speech, press and increasingly every other part of life. What Snowden did, defying the U.S. government to disclose information that under normal circumstances in a free republic with government generally performing its proper functions would probably be inappropriate and illegal, is no different than what a policeman in Boston did in disclosing photographs from the investigation into the Islamic terrorist attack on the city’s annual marathon in response to a leftist publication’s cover photo of one of the Islamic terrorists. Yet the cop is seen by many as a hero for acting in defiance of the government while some see Snowden as some sort of traitor.
Whatever the flaws in Snowden’s position, and whatever the motives of Russia’s dictator Putin, the crucial issue is rising U.S. statism not Russia or even Snowden. If Russia’s thugocracy repels you, America’s lost liberty – including the right to communicate without being tracked without cause by the government – ought to horrify you. If Snowden’s comments, acts and ideas alarm you, America’s government’s comments, acts and ideas ought to make you want to scream in outrage. That a government worker – and those who tend to accept whatever the government says should take note of the fact that Snowden was hired by and worked for government – would flee the U.S. to a nation run by a former KGB agent with a corrupt government indicts the current U.S. government. We have no evidence that Snowden is guilty of treason or collaborating with other countries to compromise U.S. interests. We have plenty of evidence that our government, led to our knowledge in this context by two anti-American government officials pictured here, is guilty of both. Those moved by facts, evidence and reason should desist having what amounts to faith in the state and denounce the American government, not the whistleblower or the convenient nation that harbors him.