('76 Contributor) American revolutionary Patrick Henry famously declared, “Give me liberty or give me death!” This month, furious mobs throughout the Islamic world decree death, a sentence they imposed on four Americans in Libya, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens — the first U.S. ambassador murdered in the line of duty since 1979. Before buying the spin that the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video, Think Again. According to Libyan President Mohamed Magarief, the video had “nothing to do with” the premeditated terrorist attack. Conducted on the anniversary of 9/11 in order to “carry a certain message,” the Benghazi attack and violent anti-American rioting elsewhere reflect the ascendency of radical Islam in the wake of the Arab Spring. By attributing unrest to false pretexts — not violent jihadists seeking to impose their totalitarian ideology — we incentivize further cycles of violence and legitimize the Islamists' tactics.As former Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S. Husain Haqqani explains, “Protests orchestrated on the pretext of slights and offenses against Islam have been part of Islamist strategy for decades.” Rather than condemn real victimization and powerlessness — like the Assad regime's slaughter of 20,000 Syrians; Saudi persecution of women, homosexuals and religious minorities; or the Taliban who spray schoolgoing Afghan girls with acid — Islamists stoke anti-Americanism and spread anti-Jewish and anti-Christian hate speech to consolidate power and distract “from societal, political and economic failures.” But if these failures are the root cause of Islamic rage, shouldn't we encourage the Islamic world to adopt the civil and economic liberties that are prerequisites for a humane society? If mutual respect is the goal, shouldn't American leaders denounce Islamic intolerance and stop bragging about Osama bin Laden's assassination? Despite recent foreign policies designed to promote American popularity and mutual respect — engagement, “resets” and “leading from behind” — America is still the “Great Satan” to Israel's “Little Satan,” and contradictions and questions abound. Yes, bin Laden is dead, but so is Stevens, whose diary reveals worries about diplomatic security and assassination. As the 9/11 anniversary approached, why weren't extraordinary precautions taken? Throughout the Arab Spring, America supported rebels in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen — sites of the worst anti-American rioting this month — but didn't secure power-sharing commitments to prevent Islamist domination. Having supported regime change in these countries, why didn't America support revolutionaries in Iran or its client Syria, both of which pose graver security threats to U.S. and global interests, never mind Middle East stability?As Iran's nuclear-weapons program nears completion, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised on Monday that Israel would be “eliminated.” Rather than characterize these existential threats to Israel as mere “noise,” shouldn't we “affirm America's dedication to blocking Iran's nuclear ambitions through military force if necessary,” as Alan Dershowitz encourages?Though opposed by our commanders in Afghanistan, America's military surge was precipitously undermined by a fixed timetable for withdrawal, giving the Taliban and terrorist organizations a date certain by which they could resume operations. But why commit U.S. forces to a conflict using tactics our military believes will undermine our mission? Compounding the uncertainty and heightening suspicions were assurances (caught on an open mic last spring) given to former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev by President Obama that he'd have “more flexibility” after the election. Being no longer subject to electoral accountability grants flexibility to do what beyond the already canceled missile-defense system our Polish and Czech allies had agreed to host? Rarely has America exhibited such uncertainty and equivocation nor diverged so dramatically from the bipartisan foreign-policy consensus forged over the past century. President Reagan called it “peace through strength,” and President Kennedy encapsulated it eloquently in his inaugural address: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” America's capacity to project this authority and secure our interests around the world is predicated on strength at home. Yet unable to live within our means and more indebted than any other nation in the history of the world, we've mortgaged our children's futures and jeopardized control over our destiny. At this critical moment, we must reclaim the America that inspires others to follow our lead.As a refugee from Nazi Germany, Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place to live in not because of the people who are evil but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” Americans have always been a people willing to do “something about” evil. If we're to continue, we must stand our ground in defense of our values. Think Again — without America as a bulwark of liberty, how will the Islamic world ever come to embrace freedom and modernity?Melanie Sturm lives in Aspen. Thie is from her Aspen Times column, which runs every other Thursday. She reminds readers to Think Again. You might change your mind. You can reach Melanie at firstname.lastname@example.org.
('76 Contributor) According to news reports, the Obama reelection campaign will take the offensive against likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney on matters of national security. It's an unusual ploy for any Democrat seeking the White House, and one utterly unsupported by the evidence in this case. Let's look at the record.
On January 20, 2009, President Barack H. Obama and Vice President Joseph R. "Joe" Biden, Jr. were sworn into office. They brought with them an ambiguous philosophy and a set of policies seemingly designed to make America weaker, less competitive, and less hopeful. It would appear they were determined to:
Tear down and diminish our Armed Forces and our alliances to render them unable to meet the threats of the 21st century. Lower standards in education and prevent accountability to public schools so that more children in America are left behind.
Raise taxes and block the entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens.
Weaken America’s “armies of compassion” by opposing faith-based and community groups.
Provide diminished support for America’s veterans and our Armed Forces.
Embrace the twin temptations of isolationism and protectionism by engaging the world with uncertainty and hindering free trade.
Hamper America’s innovative spirit to develop new energy technologies, increase our dependence on foreign oil, and thwart continued development of our traditional energy resources-coal, natural gas, and oil.
Damage our health care system, and make health care less affordable and less accessible for fewer Americans.
Foster a culture of death and to disavow in law the dignity of every human life.
Appoint judges who legislate from the bench and who do not respect our Constitution and laws.
Avoiding seemingly intractable challenges such as reforming our immigration system and Social Security.
Over the past three years, President Obama and his Administration have “worked” to meet these pledges. President Obama Bush also has shown repeatedly that he is unable to adapt to unex-pected crises. The greatest of these was the Fort Hood Massacre in November 2009. This was a mass shooting that took place at Fort Hood, the most heavily populated U.S. military installation in the world, located just outside Killeen, Texas. During the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others. It is the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base. The shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist and Palestinian-American, was influenced by the radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in late September 2009. In the months leading up to the tragic shootings at Fort Hood, al-Awlaki and Hasan exchanged as many as 20 e-mails and al-Awlaki considered Hasan to be a hero.
In December 2011, during a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee, U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood Massacre as nothing more than workplace violence. Sen. Collins also criticized the Obama Administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam. Furthermore, President Obama responded to the Fort Hood Massacre with a timid strategy to protect the American people. Instead of strengthening our homeland security, he reorganized the government in a questionable manner and weakened our defenses at home. He failed to rally allies to confront terrorists and their state sponsors abroad. And in 2009, he launched a historic Apology Tour which led to the Arab Spring of 2011 and a new era of tyranny and terror, especially in the Middle East and in North Africa.
Overall, when it comes to fighting the global war on terror, President Obama fails to understand that we are a nation at war, preferring instead to treat terrorism as a nothing more than a law enforcement matter instead of the extremely grave national security threat that it is. Less than a month after the Fort Hood Massacre there was the attempted 2009 Christmas Day attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 bound for Detroit International Airport. The Nigerian bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, attempted to bring down the flight with an improvised explosive. Thankfully, however, the device ultimately failed to detonate. Shortly after the Christmas Day attack took place, President Obama described Abdulmutallab as an “isolated extremist.” In addition, then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs asserted that the Nigerian bomber provided “usable” and “actionable” intelligence to American officials after his capture.
Time and again, President Obama and his national security team have failed to understand the intricacies of the global war on terror. Instead of trying terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in military tribunals, President Obama had committed to trying radical Islamic terrorists in civilian federal courts that will hinder federal prosecutors and limit the ability of U.S. intelligence agencies to gather critical intelligence. Over the past three years, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano calls the acts of terrorism that have taken place since 2009 “man-caused” disasters. In short, President Obama and his national security team should take the time to come to terms with the fact that this truly is a war on terrorism.
In conclusion, History will record that the 44th President avoided tough problems, so as to pass them on to future generations. He primarily based his decision-making on popularity or opinion polls. His charge, we must conclude, was to undermine the honor and dignity of the office entrusted to him by the American people and to leave America worse off than what was left to him by his predecessor. And that is a charge he kept - Keeping America Unsafe.
(CCU Student) How safe do you think you are? If there was an attack on the United States, do you think you would survive? What if it was a nuclear ballistic missile? How long do you think you would have to get to safety? A few days? A few hours?
What if you had only 33 minutes from launch time to get to safety?
What if the United States didn't have the technology to protect you?
These are serious questions, with serious implications. The film 33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age explores the answers to these questions. I went to a screening in Washington the other day.
A ballistic missile is simply the vehicle used to get transport materials to another location, usually far on the other side of the world. Only when a warhead is attached does the missile become a weapon. But a nuclear warhead is not the only thing that can be used with a ballistic missile; biological, chemical, viral, and even electromagnetic weapons can be deployed using a ballistic missile. Each of these could cause a wide range of absolute devastation; for example, if an electromagnetic weapon detonated high enough in the atmosphere, it could wipe out the electrical systems throughout the entire United States, essentially throwing our society back into the pre-electricity 1800s.
The major threat with these missiles today is the quickening pace of availability. Materials to make the missiles - and the weapons to go with them - are becoming increasingly popular and cheaper. These materials are falling into the hands of rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea. Once these nations have the capability to create these weapons, they also have the capability to pass them off into the even more dangerous hands of terrorist organizations.
During the Cold War, President Reagan suggested developing a system called Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI. This system was to allow the United States to be alerted of a missile's launch, track it, target it, and intercept it, effectively rendering any attack the Soviet Union might launch useless. Reagan believed SDI to be a better deterrent than detente. His efforts to attempt such a program, although the program during his time ended up being mostly talk, contributed to the end of the Cold War, obviously doing more than detente ever could. That vision is on its way to becoming a reality in the United States as a part of our defense system, but we do not currently have the capabilities to protect ourselves through a system like SDI. Therefore, if a ballistic missile was launched, we would have very little recourse to stop it.
"If America is held hostage, then the world is held hostage....American leadership is crucial. You know what you must do - so do the right thing." Lady Margaret Thatcher's words have never rung more true than today. As we consider massive budgetary cuts to defense spending, we must consider the true cost of those cuts - is it really worth a few billion in unnecessary cuts when there is the very real threat of the needless widespread loss of American life?
Sophomore political science major Erin S'humaker is doing a CCU Washington semester and filing frequently for ’76 Blog.
(Centennial Fellow) Give the left an inch and watch for a thousand miles of hyperbole, as in concluding mainly from a few instances of waterboarding that the United States under George W. Bush became a sadistic, Nazi-style torture haven for no productive reason.
That last assumption -- that nothing came out of the exercise to justify it -- has once more been seriously challenged, this time by the revelation that tough interrogation techniques produced information happily facilitating Osama bin Laden's exit from terrorism and other earthly activities. The left hates this idea so much that The New York Times did a front page story to muddy the waters.
Yes, the story conceded, maybe getting mean with a bad guy did give us clues "crucial'' in finally figuring out where bin Laden was, but it then went into some other contrary details at odds with the assertion of CIA Director Leon Panetta that waterboarding definitely helped finish this ugly career. On the one hand, you can believe the Times and its convoluted thinking, or on the other, you can believe the straightforward words of someone really, truly in the know.
The reason for saying all this isn't to encourage some sort of uncontrolled, fingernail-pulling, bone-breaking, limb-stretching, eye-gouging assault on every suspected enemy who happens into our care. Torture is an evil, and those who excuse it by noting all the other evils in war -- not the least of them being massive killing -- miss the point. The conventions against torture are a means of saying that even war ought to have some rules, some inhibitions, some semi-civilizing guidance.
But much of what the left describes as torture, such as sleep deprivation, leaves me less than horrified. If that's what we are talking about, shouldn't the emotional tenor of the discussion come down a notch? Waterboarding is different. If not as physically painful as something like a branding iron on flesh, it can be torture psychologically. But it can also be administered by degrees, and to say every instance of it produces grievous agony is like saying every shove equals a shove off a skyscraper.
Hey, some e-mailer will ask, would you like a dose of waterboarding, and my response will be yes, come and get me if I am an enemy combatant refusing to divulge information that might save innocent lives, nothing else has been effective and there's reason to be in a hurry. It's said that other, more reserved techniques work better, and with some people they might, especially if there is no rush, but with some others, they do not. Despite lots of blather to the contrary, history is full of evidence that being more the snarling dog than the meowing pussycat can reward the astute interrogator.
Keep in mind that the United States did not use waterboarding on thousands or hundreds or even dozens of people, but on three who were especially resistant to talking and believed to be especially dangerous. I think the Bush administration signed on to the practice for the same reason Barack Obama as president changed his campaign tune, deciding we should continue rendition, indefinite detention, Guantanamo operations and the Patriot Act. My guess is he was told by intelligence experts that the chances of successful, catastrophic terrorism would increase many times if we did not keep doing these things.
I do not deny there may have been times when our "enhanced interrogation techniques" went too far. I do favor caution in employing them, and I am definitely against cruel treatment of incarcerated citizens, as in the way the government until lately was abusing the soldier accused of handing classified information over to WikiLeaks. But let's quit the hysterical overstatements, and let's get real about being in a threatening anti-terrorist conflict that sometimes demands extraordinary measures.
Jay Ambrose, formerly Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers and the editor of dailies in El Paso and Denver, is a columnist living in Colorado and a Centennial Institute Fellow.
Here are my notes from a briefing by Dr. Bruce W. Assaf on “Understanding Radical Islam,” presented by the Centennial Institute on the campus of Colorado Christian University, March 9, 2011. An audience of about 100 students and community members attended.
1. Islamic Jihadists exist within Islam. Islam is not purely a religion but also a political program for world dominance. Jihadist leaders and their followers are sworn enemies of Western civilization. They seek to destroy the US especially because we represent the supreme achievement of Western/Judeo-Christian civilization, expressed in freedom and capitalism. They also seek our destruction because we are Israel’s principal supporters. The 9-11 attack was the Jihadists’ de facto declaration of war.
2. Islamic Jihadists want to impose Shariah law worldwide (“Triumphalism”).- Sharia law encompasses Mohammed’s views on God and government, not separable.- Unlike our religious tolerance, Islamic Fundamentalists do not tolerate any other religious practitioners, not even other Muslim sects.- All non-Muslims are infidels, to be eradicated.- Even moderate Muslims must be corrected.
3. Mohammed introduced Islam to unify and motivate Arabs,- Before Mohammed, Arabs were tribal and pagan, those tribes engaged in constant internecine battles and worshipping numerous local deities.- He recognized that a single compelling religion, defining all others as enemies, would unify them.- In those times, people expected/needed strong, unquestionable leadership, which continues to be Muslim cultural tradition.
4. Jihadist Muslims detest Jews and Christians.- Jews and Christians are Islam’s religious competition.- Jewish and Christian traditions promulgate individual freedom and democratic governments.- Jews and Christians share the same historic roots but gleaned a different outcome.- Jews and Christians share the same scriptural tradition but derived a different world-view.- Americans, Europeans and Israelis experience freedom and prosperity.- Islam
5. History documents Islam’s Anti-Western jihad.
a. After Mohammed, Islam overran the non-European lands from West Africa to north-central India, plus much of Spain.
b. The Islamic takeover of Europe was halted in northern Spain and in the Balkans.
c. Recently Jihadists have resumed their assault.- Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, encouraged Hitler’s “final solution.”- Yasser Arafat, a protégé of al-Husseini, instructed Arabs to vacate Israel upon its establishment, thus creating the persistent refugee problem which he then used (through his PLO) for leverage in the UN.- In 1991 GHW Bush tried for peace by pressing for recognition of Palestinian territory, but the PLO and its supporters want dominance, not peace.- Clinton and GW Bush have also tried, even compelling Israel to leave Gaza.- Now Obama (pro-Muslim whether intentionally or through naivete) openly proclaims his preference for the Muslim perspective and demands that Israel capitulate.- Because European nations host huge Islamic populations (see below), these nations’ policy-makers have become pro-Muslim, and thus UN decisions favor Muslim demands. - Appeasement a la Chamberlain only encourages bullies.- Jihadists use our tolerance and our freedom of speech to undermine us.- d. Current Mideast turmoil repeats the pattern of Iran in 1979.- Muslim Brotherhood and related Jihadist groups promulgate revolt, inviting media coverage (always hungry for “crises”).- Then they intensify the turmoil by haranguing protesters about their grievances and promising them freedom and prosperity if they follow these “leaders.”- Once the established government collapses, the fundamentalists (e.g., Khomeini, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood) take control to restore order but do so through totalitarian oppression.- The objective is dominance of the oil and gas fields and the Suez Canal, crucial for commercial shipping and naval maneuverability, thereby crippling Western economies.
e. Additionally, Muslim leaders encourage large families.- In impoverished regions, the resultant hunger fuels resentment.- Overpopulation motivates migration - “Fatwa” = immigration/infiltration as a technique for surreptitious conquest.
6. Quote from Omar Ahmad, Chairman of Council on American-Islamic Relations: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant.” – San Ramon Valley Herald, July 4, 1998.
7. Quote from then-Senator Barack Obama, “America is no longer a Christian nation.” – email to CBN News Senior National Correspondent David Brody, July 2007.
Born in Canada of Lebanese Christian parents, Bruce Assaf now lives in Atlanta. For more on his work, and to order his book, Behind the Veil of Radical Islam: The Coming War, go to www.blowthetrumpetintl.com.
In light of recent events in Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, and elsewhere, it is important to understand that the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is at the root of these events, and is simply following their strategic plan. The Global Islamic Movement (led by the MB) is now seizing power in these countries according to their World Underground Movement Plan (see below). What we are witnessing in Egypt is simple to understand when done so in light of the Brotherhood’s stated objectives, documents, and the writings/speeches of their key leaders.
These are the facts surrounding the events in Egypt that may be helpful in understanding what is actually happening there:
The Muslim Brotherhood was created in Egypt in 1928 as a global revolutionary Sunni Islamic Movement to re-establish the Global Islamic State (Caliphate) under which Shariah (Islamic Law) is the law of the land
All authoritative Islamic Law mandates Muslims to wage “Jihad” - only defined in Islamic Law as “warfare against non-Muslims” - until the world is claimed for Islam
The MB’s Creed is: “Allah is our goal; the Messenger is our guide; the Koran is our law; Jihad is our means; and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our inspiration.”
The Muslim Brotherhood has published strategic documents detailing how they infiltrate societies and replace the governmental systems (non-adherent Islamic systems and non-Muslim governments) with Shariah (Islamic Law)
The MB’s document, “Phases of the World Underground Movement Plan” defines five (5) phases of the MB’s infiltration into a society:
o I. Discreet / Secret establishment of elite leadership
o II. Gradual appearance on the public scene & utilizing various public activities
o III. Escalation phase, prior to conflict/confrontation with rulers, utilizing mass media
o IV. Open public confrontation with the government through political pressure approach
o V. Seizing power to establish the Islamic Nation
In October 2010, the international leader (Supreme Guide) of the MB, Mohammed Badie, accused Arab & Muslim regimes of not following Islamic Law, and called for Jihad against Israel & the U.S.
On January 8, 2011, Dr. Imad Mustafa (Al Azhar) issued a fatwa calling for “offensive jihad”
January 15, 2011: Tunisia in turmoil as the President flees
January 24, 2011: Protests break out in Egypt
February 2, 2011: Jordan’s King fires his Cabinet following public protests
February 2, 2011: Yemen’s President Saleh says he will step down in 2013
The “unrest” in Egypt is being orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood
Egypt is in Phase 5 of the MB’s Plan
The Muslim Brotherhood’s overt/violent operation in Egypt seeks to replace the current government with one which will fulfill the MB’s objective – to ensure the full implementation of Shariah (Islamic Law) in Egypt
In 1980, the Egyptian Constitution was amended to make Shariah (Islamic Law) the primary source of legislation in Egypt, therefore, Egypt is already an Islamic State
The greatest friction point between the MB and the Mubarak regime has been the regime’s failure to support the full implementation of Islamic Law in Egypt per the Constitution Senior U.S. leadership has stated Egyptians “want what we want.” Western media portrays the demonstrators in Egypt as people who want “democracy” and “freedom.” The Egyptians themselves, however, overwhelmingly support Shariah, and many support terrorist organizations (see below)
A 2010 Pew Research Poll revealed the following about Egyptians views:
o 95% believe Islam should play a “large role in politics”o 49% believe Islam only plays a “small role” in Egypt todayo 84% believe apostates from Islam should face the death penaltyo 82% believe adulterers should be stonedo 77% believe thieves should be flogged or have their hands cut offo 54% believe men and women should be segregated in the work placeo 49% have a favorable opinion of Hamaso 30% have a favorable opinion of Hizbollaho 20% have a favorable opinion of Al Qaeda
The aforementioned poll indicates a vast majority of Egyptians do not, in fact, believe in Western principles of individual liberties, human rights, or governance.
Egypt is a member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the second largest international body in the world - the UN is the largest. The OIC member states include all 57 Islamic States in the world, including Egypt
The OIC officially served the “Cairo Declaration” to the UN in 1993 which specifically defines “Human Rights” as those rights defined by “Shariah”
Critical Linkage: It can be demonstrated that many Muslim advisors to the U.S. government are Muslim Brothers or sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood cause. The most prominent Islamic organizations in the United States, with which the U.S. government outreaches, are all controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. These include hundreds of groups, but specifically all of the Islamic organizations working with the U.S. government including, but not limited to:
o Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)o Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)o Muslim Student Association (MSA)o Muslim American Society (MAS)o Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)o Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA)o North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)o International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT)o Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)
This document is meant to put the current events around the world in a new light for those who read it. What we are witnessing may be the overt revolutionary overthrow of governments around the world by the International Muslim Brotherhood and their collaborators. This is the same Muslim Brotherhood advising the U.S. National Leadership and our National Security apparatus on how to respond to the events in Egypt and elsewhere.
John Guandolo is vice president of the Strategic Engagement Group in Washington DC (www.StrategicEngagement.com), a former counter-terrorism expert for the FBI, and a Centennial Institute Fellow
('76 Contributor) As the latest Wikileaks saga unfolded I couldn't help but recall the scene in the film Sneakers where Martin "Marty" Bishop (Robert Redford) and Cosmo (Ben Kingsley) discuss the "code breaker.”
Cosmo: There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKprr3tEBew]
There is another scene in the movie where Marty utters the phrase "no more secrets." And that is increasingly what we are approaching as the global pseudo-anarchist organization Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange wage their own private war against the United States and its allies.
By their own deeds and actions this band of internet information warriors have taken it upon themselves to enact that creed of “no more secrets” and have set about to deliberately undermine the US government as well as a large number of other organizations, corporations, and even individuals. When it comes to the United States of America, this is what happens when people begin to believe their own propaganda that those who dare to confront and militarily engage rogue regimes, mass murderers, and blood-splattered Islamic barbarians are somehow evil and worthy of defeat. It is a twisted view of the world that defends genocidal regimes like that of the Husseins or the fundamentalist berserkers who seek to re-establish the caliphate and offer the infidel West the three choices submission, conversion, or death. All while viewing those who oppose such monsters as worthy of humiliation and defeat.
"On Sunday 28th November 2010, Wikileaks began publishing 251,287 leaked United States embassy cables, the largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public domain. The documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into the US Government's foreign activities." (Wikileaks homepage)
“WikiLeaks has released more classified intelligence documents than the rest of the world press combined.” (Wikileaks homepage)
Many in academia and the media have tried to defend Wikileaks as a journalistic organization merely engaging in “freedom of speech.” To obscure the truth of what has occurred by attempting to hide behind the skirts of legitimate newsgathering is pathetic and a poor excuse at best. Someone who purposely solicits and then publishes stolen secrets is no more a journalist than the street thug who pushes stolen goods is a legitimate and valued entrepreneur. Wikileaks does little more than engage in subversion of all it decides is unfit and wage full-scale, cyber warfare against all those who dare to oppose its efforts.
They may call themselves "journalists" but they have an agenda and political motives. This makes them not members of the media, but subversives waging a war of information obtained through espionage and the utilization of traitors to purposefully harm a country. One may agree or disagree with their goals, but let's define them for what they really are instead of trying to pretend they are no different than the editor of a small town newspaper.
Assange and Wikileaks have no problem with harming innocent people by their behavior “collateral damage, if you will” and though they proclaim to have a “harm-minimization policy,” they have published what amounts to death sentences for over a hundred US Afghan allies.
I may be a conservative who believes in limited and constitutional government, but I still believe in government. I also believe that my government’s ability to strategize, for example, about the fall of North Korea and engage in private conversations with Chinese officials about such possibilities does not need to be posted on every blog on the net for the psychotic paranoids running North Korea to read. Believe it or not, there are some secrets we don't all need to know about. But thanks to Wikileaks, we do.
We cannot be sure who Julian Assange thinks he really is. Spartacus leading slaves in revolt against their masters? An Alexander the Great conquering cyberspace? Napolean defeating his enemies on the newest field of battle? A Lenin leading the proletariat to defeat the bourgeoisie?
Or perhaps just a glorified hacker and his worshipful, anarchistic cabal waging their own private war against all forms of authority and capitalism?
“With its anonymous drop box, WikiLeaks provides an avenue for every government official, every bureaucrat, and every corporate worker, who becomes privy to damning information that their institution wants to hide but the public needs to know. What conscience cannot contain, and institutional secrecy unjustly conceals, WikiLeaks can broadcast to the world.” (Wikipedia homepage)
We are currently witnessing the wholesale dumping of over 250,000 classified State Department cables onto the web with apparently very little discretion at all. Just dumping raw information no matter what it is, is hardly heroic. And it is certainly not revealing ‘damning information’ that the ‘public needs to know.’ Quite the contrary, in fact. The idea that the whole world needs to be privy of every private conversation a diplomat partakes in is utterly ridiculous and illogical. It makes no sense. The concept that a world with no privacy, and no secrets, is necessarily a better one is a significant gamble based on theory, not fact. Some would even say fantasy.
This is a form of warfare. Some see it as a war for freedom of the press, but it is really a war of sabotage, espionage, compromise, and betrayal. There is no justice or honor in that.
There are secrets that should be made public, and some things public that should be secret, but it certainly should not be up to Julian Assange and the malcontents of Wikileaks to cast themselves as the ultimate god-of-information and make those decisions for the rest of us.
The problem is probably less about the secrets that have been revealed (though Yemen, Saudi Arabia etc. are not very happy about it at all) but that absolutely no one can trust that anything they ever say in confidence to an American diplomat in the future won’t be splashed across the Internet by some vengeful, arrogant Aussie. And therein lies the evil of Wikileaks. No more secrets means no more trust, no more honesty, and no more candor. And that makes for a more dangerous world.
David Huntwork is a conservative activist and independent columnist in Northern Colorado, where he lives with his wife and three daughters. You may view his bio and past columns at http://DavidHuntwork.tripod.com. Contact him at Davehuntwork@juno.com.
(CCU Student) "Air raid Pearl Harbor. This is not a drill," went the frantic radio message from Patrol Wing Two HQ on this day 69 years ago. Early on December 7th 1941, Japanese aircraft wreaked havoc on the majority of the United States Navy. The ships in the harbor of Oahu, Hawaii were close together and completely unprepared for an attack of the magnitude that startled the country out of its stupor. The Japanese knew the attack had to be swift and deadly; otherwise, the attempt to cripple the US would have been utterly useless. The attempt did leave the United States reeling, but it truly just served to awaken a slumbering resolve to win. The attack lasted for approximately two hours and killed or wounded about 3,500 Americans. The U.S. Pacific fleet was decimated in the two waves of attack by the Japanese. The USS Arizona was sunk by an 800 kilogram bomb that struck the forward magazine in the front starboard side of the ship. The resulting explosion and fires killed most of the marines and seaman on board. There were only 334 survivors documented from this battleship. The USS Oklahoma is yet another ship that shared the terrible fate of that day. She was moored alongside the USS Maryland and took three torpedo hits almost immediately after the attack began. She began to capsize into the Harbor while most of her crew was forced to abandon ship. She continued to be under attack from the Japanese. Two more torpedoes slammed into her already damaged frame, and the men trying to flee the danger were continuously being harassed by the strafing from Japanese pilots. Over four hundred of her crew died or were classified as MIA. Many of the others continued to fight on by swimming to the USS Maryland and taking on battle stations there. I will bet you never saw that in the movie. The Nevada tried to leave the harbor after being struck, but was beached instead to avoid blocking the harbor entrance after being targeted by the Japanese bombers with 113kg bombs. The California was sunk after taking hits from two bombs and two torpedoes. The West Virginia was incapacitated by seven torpedoes, and the Maryland was hit by two converted 40 cm shells (she didn’t take on any major damage). The USS Tennessee was hit by a bomb in the first wave, but most of the battleships were taken out during the second wave of the attack. The USS Whitney, much further away from Battleship Row, was one of the first ships to ready for the attack. The crew spotted one of the first Japanese aircraft as it flew right over the G-nest strafing the ship. The men were immediately called to their battle stations, and it only took five minutes to unlimber her .50 caliber machine guns. By 0810 she was unleashing her heavy antiaircraft guns. She also issued ammunition and ordinances to nearby ships as well during the battle. She did not receive any major damage and had no wounded aboard from the attack. These battleships were the main target, but that does not mean the Japanese force ignored the other ships in the harbor. They also did not ignore the land targets on Ford Island: the surrounding air fields and American bunkers. About half of the United States aircraft on the island had been destroyed or damaged. Some of the destroyers in the harbor were quick in launching a counter attack, including the USS Whitney, with antiaircraft rounds. There were relatively few vessels that day that escaped some sort of action, whether it was to be attacked or to counter the attack. Even fewer were able to do both as most were hit critically by bombs and torpedoes. That day around 2,402 personnel (American) were killed, another 1,282 were injured, and we had lost most of our battleships and aircraft in the Pacific. Among the Japanese it was another story. They only lost 64 men and 29 aircraft (less than 7% of their operating force). The remaining ships and crew that were relatively uninjured began to assay the aftermath and began the mission to recover the trapped, the wounded, and the dead. The USS Whitney sent out five lengths of hose and two submersible pumps to help the nearby Raleigh (CI-7) and her Doctors went to the Solace (AH-1) to assist with the wounded as there had been none on the Whitney herself. This attack sent the United States into the midst of world war. It launched the campaign that would, eventually, help put an end to the atrocities occurring in Europe and in the Pacific. The many men who died that day will be forever remembered by those who care. The men who survived that attack should be honored for their courage to remain in the fight and live from that moment on. The saddest part is that the day will pass by quietly without a blink or a nod of appreciation. The world moves on and forgets, but I pray that this year more will take just a moment to remember the fallen and the survivors of that day and the subsequent war. Please do not let them fade into obscurity.
Note:I feel strongly about this because my great-uncle,Herbert Wynn, Fireman First Class USN, was there that day on the USS Whitney. He died less than a year later on the USS Indiana while testing the engines in Norfolk, VA. Others in my family enlisted shortly after; some lying about their age. I am proud of each one of them.)
(CCU Student) Recently Kim Jong-un was deemed the prospective heir to replace the aging Kim Jong Il. Reading over the article on bbc.uk titled, “Boy Meets World”, I could not help but ask, “What IS the Obama administration’s plan for North Korea?” On November 23, 2010 the Korea DPR fired missiles onto a disputed territory (island) off the coast of the Korean Peninsula, and again on the 26th—yet our President appears to not have an elaborative and definitive response.
Lately it appears coverage of North Korea is seemingly decreasing in popularity—unless of course lives are lost: e.g., Yeonpyeong island (2010), Rangoon bombing (1983), shooting down Korean flight 858 (1987), or the ROKS Cheonan sinking (Mar. 2010).
Unfortunately, people forget this is the only sovereign nation using concentration camps. Chol-hwan Kang describes his life testimony in ‘The Aquariums of Pyongyang’, where he spends nearly a decade in Camp #2915. Here, besides undergoing coerced self-ridicule, wearing uniforms identical to Holocaust inmates, witnessing executions, and foraging for rodents, he meets one of the football players from the 1966 Korea DPR national football team. After defeating Italy 1-0 in group-play, the team lost 5-3 against Portugal in the quarterfinals (despite taking a 3-nil lead after the first 30 minutes).Popular media has the team listed as, “Having been welcomed home as national heroes”, but that appeared to be quite the opposite.
According to Chol-hwan Kang, he met one of these footballers in camp #2915. The man briefly told several inmates (Kang being one of them) that the entire team was welcomed; Kim il-Sung coerced the media to fabricate stories portraying them as heroines and then sending them to concentration camps. Interestingly enough, the 1976, 2006, and 2010 teams received reasonable amounts of media attention—none of which pertained to topics insinuating concern for the players’ safety.
Popular media covering and responding to the current attacks have forgotten two key elements as they devise plans to ‘come alongside’ South Korea’: (1) listening to defectors, (2) understanding their Juche system.
For starters, last week according to this article in BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11755258) the number of defectors successfully reaching South Korea just hit 20,000. Of these, the majority of whom are alive and talking—why does our administration not listen? I ask people ignoring the defectors, “Now that you understand the catastrophic event of the Holocaust more clearly, if you were to have met an escapee of Auschwitz in 1942, how would you have acted?” When Kim Yong, author of ‘Long Road Home: Testimony of a North Korean Camp Survivor visited the National Holocaust museum and saw the uniform worn in NAZI concentration camps, he said, “That is what I wore”. Although the conditions mimic gulags and not death camps, we have similar scenarios playing out in real-time (and in case you do not recall—MORE people died in Soviet Gulags than the entire Holocaust). We have 20,000 people to ask questions to—let’s utilize and learn from the important input they can provide.
Second, people creating any sort of plan must understand the true nature of the Juche ideology. What we see in North Korea is something never seen before (at least to this extent) in human history. Kim Jong Il, Kim il-Sung, and Kim Jong-un are literally viewed as deities. The 22 million citizens of the isolationist dictatorship view each of these men as gods! Recently there was a documentary filmed by National Geographic where a Nepalese cataract surgeon was permitted to enter Pyongyang to perform as many surgeries as he could in ten days. After completing his goal and curing the sight of just over 1,000 people, NOT ONE of these thanked him. In fact, the first thing each and every one of them did was stare at the portraits of Kim Jong Il and Kin il-Sung, weep, yell hysterically, and thank them (and only them) for restoring their vision. If you do not believe how passionate these citizens are in their beliefs, watch their reactions of the death of Kim il-Sung: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbM8Iu-547k.
I have been regularly watching news covering the North Korean situation for several days now, reading articles, and asking people their opinions. So far no one has suggested we take note of this. We arguably are dealing with 22 million people who will be hysterical and uncooperative if we do anything to disturb their ‘gods’. In addition, we have 20,000 defectors who for the most part will be extremely cooperative.
In conclusion, here are a few simple steps we could take to better insure this matter is handled more promptly and properly. Naturally, this is not a surefire panacea—but some basic principles one might want to keep in mind. Many current actions have actually followed several of these—so this is not by any means a criticism. There are obviously more than are just on this list:
1) Remember that they have nuclear capabilities and have no moral regard for anyone or anything outside of their isolated country. Anything one does, says, or does not do to them will be irrationally taken into consideration and then acted on—whatever that means is unclear to anybody.
2) Read: “Under the Loving Care of a Fatherly Leader”, “The Aquariums of Pyongyang”, and “Nothing to Envy”. They are books describing life inside North Korea—the life tourists are shunned from on privately guided tours—or witnessed by foreign embassies in Pyongyang.
3) Interview both concentration camp survivors and defectors (many people merely defect because the government wants them for petty crimes such as listening to South Korean radio, spreading a rumor, leaving their ‘area’ without a permit, etc.)
4) Have talks with L.I.N.K. (Liberation In North Korea)—a great organization who has done everything from follow media, interview defectors, and spread awareness of the horrors occurring in North Korea.
5) China! Keep talking with them and keep pressure reasonable (don’t aggravate them). Remember they are still communist. Additionally keep in mind where the defectors go first—China! Right now, they have repatriotism agreement with North Korea. The DMZ is impossible to cross; causing 99% of defectors to first go through China. They are also virtually the only allies of North Korea!
6) Most important to the Christian community: this country does not welcome Christianity. Of the 22 million citizens, we would be accurate to assume over 99% do not know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. In North Korea, even suggesting there are any other deities is punishable by death. This could mean a prison sentence, public execution, torture, or a myriad of any of such punishments. I implore Christians to PRAY!
('76 Contributor) As the Republicans take the House and try to regain control of those issues so many Americans felt were detrimental to the country, many conservative Christians are awaiting the political and financial rebound. As we watch the exchange on Capitol Hill and stay updated on issues, it is important to keep a cautious eye out for enemies of the state and of the church hidden within the Conservative party. One of those worthy of a weathering eye is Suhail Khan. I would like to take this time to encourage readers not to give him a “pass” just because of his seemingly spotless resume. There are several examples of individuals dangerous to the state that have made their way up the political chain of command in Washington; it is our responsibility to keep these individuals in check. In times of such grandiose corruption of language and abuse of flattery within the American political sphere, a vivacious vetting process is necessary.
With a wide array of experience on the Hill in DC, Mr. Khan holds a very impressive, and pubic resume. He is former Policy Director and Press Secretary for U.S. Congressman Tom Campbell (R-CA), and White House Office Public Liaison as a religious outreach leader. He was the Assistant to the Secretary for Policy under U.S. Secretary Mary Peters with the Department of Transportation where he received several metals. He is on the boards of several non-profit organizations and political action committees, including: the American Conservative Union, the Islamic Free Market Institute, the Muslim Public Service Network, the Indian American Republican Council, and the Buxton Initiative Advisory Council. He is known for his wide involvement in senior political and social organizations, including the Conservative Political Action Conference, the Council for National Policy, the Harbor League, and the National Press Club. He is also an occasional contributor to the Washington Post and Newsweek Forum on Faith. He is a vocal advocate for freedom of religion, for free market economies, and the Republican Party, and is currently the Chairman for the Conservative Inclusion Coalition.
The beginning of Khan’s suspicious activity begins with his fellowship for the Christian-Muslim Understanding at the Institute for Global Engagement. I encourage you to explore the website, you will find that IGE is a direct partner of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talaal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. Bin Talaal is the millionaire Saudi Prince, famous for wealth, and known more specifically for his offering of $10million to the city of New York just after the attacks of September 11, 2001. In 2003 it was found that bin Talal gave a $500,000 gift to proven Hamas entity, the Council on American Islamic Relations. As Hamas is a registered terrorist organization by the United States, and there is proof that Talal gave financial aid, he is an entity with hostile intentions toward the United States. Khan’s association with bin Talal is made clear through his deep involvement with IGE.
Mr. Khan was a representative and a board member for the Islamic Free Market Institute, founded by Grover Norquist, and supported by convicted terrorist, Abdurahman Alamoudi. Alamoudi was arrested in Heathrow airport after he was found with $340,000 meant to aid the assassination of the former Saudi Arabian prince. He was found to be an al Qaeda operative, with dangerous influence inside the White House and influential political circles. Norquist has similar associations, being tied to Alamoudi through political and business circles, yet Norquist has another factor of the story, as told by Frank Gaffney. Khan’s work with either of these men severely taints his reputation as a credible source; his declination of distance between himself and these alarming individuals is a red flag, especially due to their very public record of associations with jihadists.
Khan has supported other known terrorists in recent years; Sami al Arian was another example of a seemingly friendly face on the conservative front on Capitol Hill with hostile intentions for the United States. Throughout his investigation and trial, it became known that he was the leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in North America, and a secretary of the PIJ Shura Council.
On a more personal front, Khan’s mother, Malika Khan, was an executive committee member for the California branch of the Council on American Islamic Relations, giving him yet another tie to the terror organization, Hamas. On his father’s side, Mahboob Khan was a founding member of the Muslim Student Association in America, another branch of the terror support system for Hamas. He also founded the Muslim Community Association in California, where #2 al Qaeda operative, Aman al-Zawahiri, attended. Mahboob also served on the Majlis a’Shura Council for the Islamic Society of North America. Moreover, at an ISNA event in 2008, Jamal Barzinji, known Muslim Brotherhood leader and al Qaeda supporter, was presented with an award named after Mahboob Khan. All three Khans, Suhail, Malika and Mahboob, have all been involved in events sponsored or hosted by that same organization, the Islamic Society of North America, the umbrella organization created by the Muslim Student Association for the Muslim Brotherhood in America.
With connections like these, intentions can be difficult to determine. Khan‘s influence is impossible to deny, especially among policy makers, and his pedigree is questionable, at best. Khan politics on Capitol Hill for conservative ideals, claiming his stand for true American values including freedom, justice and peace; values not so different than those the Centennial Institute and Colorado Christian University proclaim. Khan’s affiliations and history draw a clear line where his loyalties truly lie. We have seen the effects of people like Suhail Khan within the American policy making arena before, with a gracious presentation of hostile information campaigns; these influences are deadly. It will be wolves such as these, dressed in sheep’s clothing, that will destroy our great republic. I encourage you to do your own research on Mr. Khan to fully understand his intellect. He is currently very active on Capitol Hill among conservative circles; make your representatives known of his past affiliations and keep his power limited.
Susan Brown is a Washington-based investigative reporter specializing in Muslim subversive activities here and abroad.