The one thing we wholeheartedly agree with here (see below) is the following statement by former CIA Director Michael Hayden:

“This [Iranian] government and its decision-making processes are incredibly opaque. And here we are, as a government trying to get them to change their mind, change their mind in a process that it is very difficult for us to identify where are the leverage points.”

Our ability or inability to understand the Iranian mindset, or for that matter the mindset of the Islamic world, will be the key factor in determining who emerges victorious from this clash of civilizations we’re engaged in today.

Yet we are so resistant to the idea that other cultures think differently or value different things. It never occurs to us, for example, that Islamic culture values death over life, or that a Muslim mother would be proud of a son who blows himself and innocent civilians to smithereens. In fact, to us, statements like these are judgmental or intolerant.

Well, news flash, people, not everyone thinks as we do. In that part of the world, hesitation (or lack of resolve) is perceived as weakness, and nothing invites more aggression than weakness.

At a news conference yesterday, our President announced the gutting of our military, while our Joint Chiefs of Staff stood behind him like bobbleheads acquiescing to every ignorant word he uttered.

A spectacle some of us will never forget, and in stark contrast to the brave men and women who’ve fought valiantly and given their lives to defending this country. So that intellectually-bankrupt folks like Mr. Obama could stand behind a podium and gut our defenses with nary a cut to out-of-control spending in Washington DC for pet projects, while the Joint Chiefs of Staff look on silently?

History has shown that deep defense cuts made after wars, when the country is war-weary, create a perception of weakness and lead to MORE wars. We’re facing today the people who invented the game of chess.That’s the game they’re playing, as we engage in hopey-dopey-changey talk and focus ad nauseum on things like the Iowa caucuses.

Much of the blame here is on us, i.e., the folks who elect such “leaders” or tolerate such nonsense, out of ignorance/apathy or because we have more important things to follow like American Idol or “reality” shows like the Jersey Shore.

Well, here’s a dose of reality, folks: Western civilization is standing on the precipice of its demise, and chances are history will wonder what we all were doing then…


For more information and to schedule an interview, contact
Travis Korson (202)-719-2421 or
David Reaboi (202) 431-1948

Center for Security Policy Calls for a Return to ‘Peace through Strength,’ Rejection of Obama’s Defeatist ‘Strategy’

Washington, DC January 6, 2012: The Center for Security Policy calls on the American people and their elected representatives – and those who seek to represent them – categorically to reject the plan for unilateral U.S. disarmament espoused yesterday by President Obama.

Mr. Obama’s so-called “revised defense strategy” is a formula for disaster. If even the defense reductions, downsizing and disengagement that it envisions come to pass – let alone those in prospect if the cuts associated with the pending sequestration legislation are imposed – the United States will not simply expose its people, allies and vital interests to attack. It will invite such an attack.

While the details of the Obama unilateral disarmament program remain to be fully fleshed out, the broad outlines are bad enough:

* Our military will be cut sharply in size.

* It will be denied vital modernization programs – the absence of which ensures the remaining force will be ill-equipped to contend with present dangers, let alone those in the offing.

* The retrofitting of existing equipment, much of it badly degraded in the course of a decade of war, will be stretched out or abandoned altogether. This will exacerbate the risks associated with the Obama failure to modernize the armed forces’ kit.

* The United States will no longer be present in the places and/or numbers necessary to safeguard our interests around the world.
Coming as such disengagement does – at the very moment that dangers to those interests in regions from the Middle East to North Africa to Central, South and East Asia to the Western hemisphere, the administration must be held accountable for creating (whether intentionally or simply as a practical matter) dangerous vacuums of power. These predictably will be filled as such “peace dividend”-induced vacuums have in the past: at our expense and to our detriment.

* The administration risks breaking faith with the men and women in uniform by reneging on commitments made in the way of health care, pensions and other benefits. When combined with other assaults on the culture of the military, pursued in furtherance of the administration’s domestic political agenda (and without regard for the impact on readiness, recruitment or retention), these changes may make a continued reliance on an all-volunteer force unsustainable.

* The nation’s nuclear forces will be allowed to atrophy further through: a failure to modernize, test and properly maintain them and further cuts in their numbers – including in all likelihood the elimination of an entire “leg” of the Strategic Triad. The result will be not the President’s stated goal, namely of “ridding the world of nuclear weapons.” Rather, it will simply be to rid the United States of its deterrent forces at a time when they are likely to be more needed than ever.

* This potentially disastrous aspect of the Obama program for unilateral disarmament is being compounded by the President’s continuing hostility towards missile defenses that might mitigate, at least somewhat, the danger posed by ballistic missiles now proliferating among states and even terrorist groups like Hezbollah that are virulently hostile to this country and our friends. Worse yet, the administration is reportedly determined to flout a statute governing the sharing of missile defense-related information and technology with the Russians. In the process, Team Obama will almost surely compromise what little there is of our capabilities to provide defenses against missiles delivering electro-magnetic and other weapons of mass destruction.

Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., who formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan – who, as president, was an exemplary practitioner of the philosophy he called “peace through strength” – said:

“Here we go again. Having basically written off the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr. Obama is falling prey to a temptation several of his predecessors found irresistible: Cut defense expenditures. Shrink the military. And hope the rest of the world will neither notice nor take advantage of our weakness.

“We shouldn’t kid ourselves. We can walk away from conflicts, but that doesn’t mean they are over. We can hollow out our military but that doesn’t mean that others won’t see it as an invitation to pursue their interests — at our expense.

“In the past, our so-called “peace dividends” have proven illusory. And we paid not just in national treasure but lives. We literally can’t afford to do that again.”

Mr. Gaffney also responded to the proposed military cuts in his nationally syndicated Secure Freedom Minute. The audio is located here.

This document can be found online at:

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit

The Center for Security Policy sponsors the Coalition for the Common Defense, an alliance of like-minded individuals and organizations who believe that without provision for the “common defense,” as articulated by the Founders, the freedom that has allowed unprecedented opportunity and prosperity to flourish in this country would soon be imperiled. In this new age of budgetary cuts, the Coalition rejects the false choice between military strength and economic health contending that economic prosperity depends on a strong national defense. Through a series of events and strategic partnerships, the coalition is calling on elected officials, candidates for office and others who share our commitment to the common defense to uphold these principles. We must return the United States to sensible fiscal principles without sacrificing our national security.

A full statement of principles can be located here. The Coalition of the Common Defense can be found online at


In a scathing letter sent to Barack Obama this morning, Senator Marco Rubio said that under the President’s first term in office, “more and more people have come to believe that America is becoming a deadbeat nation.”

Rubio went on to pledge that he would challenge any further increase in the debt ceiling, arguing that “we [Congress] need to make it routine to actually spend no more than we take in.” In the letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, the Florida Senator said that President Obama’s upcoming request to increase the debt ceiling by a whopping $1.2 trillion will cause the nation’s public debt to surpass the $16 trillion mark.

“I will oppose your request to continue borrowing and spending recklessly.”

President Obama is expected to request the new borrowing power from Congress once the Senate and House return from their holiday recess.

The president must notify Congress when the debt closes within $100 billion of the ceiling, according to the Budget Control Act passed in August. This triggers for Congress their only available option to block an increase, in this case $1.2 trillion, by passing legislation. However, even if the House and Senate do that, the president can still veto their objections. In short, there is very little Republicans can do in a Democratic-controlled Senate to block an increase.

If President Obama led the charge to reduce the country’s unsustainable debt in mid 2011 rather than punt the enterprise to a “Super Committee,” asserted Rubio, we’d already be on a pathway toward economic growth and prosperity. “Unfortunately, the first three years of your presidency have been a profile in leadership failure.”

The letter concludes: “America deserves leaders who will stand front and center, level with the American people about our challenges and offer real solutions to solve them. Instead of simply asking for another debt ceiling increase, I urge you to come forward with a real plan to tackle our debt in 2012.”

This is the latest salvo in the debt ceiling debate in Washington.


The question naturally arises: Will the US act in accordance with its role as guarantor of the peace and demand that the new Egyptian government give Sinai back to Israel? Because if the Obama administration or whatever administration is in power when Egypt abrogates the treaty does not issue such a demand, and stand behind it, and if the EU does not support the demand, the entire concept of land-for-peace will be exposed as a hoax.

The rise of the forces of jihadist Islam in Egypt places the US and other Western powers in an uncomfortable position. The US is the guarantor of Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel. That treaty is based on the proposition of land for peace. Israel gave Egypt the Sinai in 1982 and in exchange it received a peace treaty with Egypt. Now that the Islamists are poised to take power, the treaty is effectively null and void.


National Security: Portrayed as just a shuffling of priorities, the president’s defense cuts reduce our two-war strategy to maybe one war and cross your fingers. Champagne corks are popping from Beijing to Tehran.

Imagine a scenario in the not-too-distant future when an Iranian Shahab missile mated with an unexpectedly ready nuclear warhead is test-fired and detonates somewhere over the Indian Ocean. The next day Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz as China announces a blockade of Taiwan.

The administration’s defense cuts, or shifts in priorities as President Obama would have us believe, leaves us woefully unprepared for the unexpected in which our enemies, current and potential, are not disarming or cutting their military budgets. Certainly not China, which has been increasing its military spending by double-digit percentages for the last decade.

“We will be strengthening our presence in the Asia-Pacific,” Obama said, “and budget reductions will not come at the expense of that critical region.”

If creating a counterweight to an expansionist China is our goal, why aren’t we selling superior F-22 Raptors to Japan — not to mention building more for ourselves — and selling F-16s to Taiwan?

This defensive retreat will of necessity come at the expense of other regions. We used to have a two-ocean Navy and a military capable of fighting and winning two full-blown wars. We no longer have that ability and will be reduced to plugging holes in the dike while not having enough fingers.

China’s response to Obama’s announcement was hardly reassuring. “China should come up with countermeasures,” the nation’s Communist Party-affiliated Global Times said. “It should strengthen its long-range strike abilities and put more deterrence on the U.S. The U.S. must realize that it cannot stop the rise of China and that being friendly to China is in its utmost interests.”

This was said as China’s first aircraft carrier undergoes sea trials….READ MORE AT SITE


There sat Palestinian Authority chieftain Mahmoud Abbas in the front pew of the Church of the Nativity, reverently observing the Christmas midnight mass. He appeared so meek – the model of admirable moderation, good manners and high morals.

TV anchors and scribblers worldwide fell for his consummate act and expressed solemn appreciation for the affectation. Critical appraisal was conspicuously absent.

Abbas – the on-and-off and now on-again political ally of Hamas and Islamic Jihad – took great pains to quasi-usurp Christmas from Christendom and impart the impression that Christmas is intrinsically also a Muslim celebration, “a Palestinian holiday” from which bogeymen Jews alone deserve exclusion.

Significantly this aroused no protests – the subjugation of Christians in Muslim societies, and foremost in Bethlehem, notwithstanding.

This supposed Christian-Muslim front comprised the gist of the homily delivered by the Mideast’s most senior Roman Catholic, Patriarch of Jerusalem Fuad al-Tuwal, a Jordanian Arab.

He effusively welcomed Abbas, congratulating him for “his unfaltering efforts to achieve a just peace in the Middle East, a main thrust of which is the creation of a Palestinian State.” The patriarch commiserated with the Palestinians, who “recently turned to the UN in the hope of finding a just solution.” According to his monologue, “they were asked to reengage in a failed peace process,” which “has left a bitter taste of broken promises and of mistrust.”

Could Climate Change Create Deadly, Mutant Sharks Which Kill Us All?

It had to happen. As if the plight of the polar bear wasn’t punishment enough for our evil, selfish, refusing-to-change-our-lifestyle-because-we’re-addicted-to-oil ways, it now seems that Mother Gaia may have a deadly new weapon up her sleeve: KILLER MUTANT SHARKS!!! (H/T Brown Bess)

So far, admittedly, Mother Gaia is in the very earliest stages of her experimentation:

Scientists said on Tuesday that they had discovered the world’s first hybrid sharks in Australian waters, a potential sign the predators were adapting to cope with climate change.

The mating of the local Australian black-tip shark with its global counterpart, the common black-tip, was an unprecedented discovery with implications for the entire shark world, said lead researcher Jess Morgan.

HOT PICKS FROM FSM   1. 2 pictures worth 2,000 words 2. MUST WATCH VIDEO: “Unholy War” Christians under attack by Muslims in the UK [Threats to families, threats to chop off their heads…] Coming soon to the U.S.A.? 3. VIDEO: All 8,000 Chevy Volts being recalled. Each car has been subsidized by the federal government for $250,000. […]

As the campaign cycle progresses we are going to hear a lot about what one candidate or another is going to do about this or that. We will, to the point of weariness, be inundated with campaign promise after campaign promise, albeit, between gratuitous attacks, both political and personal. This is politicking and the American electorate – for better or for worse – has come to accept a certain amount of it from the people in the political class. But expecting grandiose pledges and believing in the unattainable, well, those are two different things. It is the truly foolish who believe half of what a political candidate says he can deliver, and the blame for that foolishness must fall on the shoulders of the individual voter.


A Day in the Life of Sharia Posted By Frank Crim The savage and barbaric torture of Afghan women continues under Islamic law in Afghanistan. …i

URL to article:

In December 2011, Sahar Gul, a 15-year-old Afghan girl and underage bride, was freed by Afghan police after having been severely tortured for six months by her in-laws in an attempt to force her into prostitution. During her captivity, Sahar had been kept locked in a basement, tortured with hot irons, her fingers broken and fingernails ripped out.

While Sahar’s horrific ordeal sparked justifiable outrage among many Afghans, her agony is all too commonplace in Afghanistan, a country in which violence against women and girls is both pervasive and growing.

The violent abuse used against Afghan females also entails the widespread and socially accepted practice of forced child marriage, a cultural and religious reality that has led to over half of the marriages in Afghanistan involving girls under the age of 16.

So, given that, it’s not surprising to find that in the decade after the ouster of the Taliban from power in 2001, Afghanistan still remains one of the world’s most dangerous places for women. According to the UN’s Gender Inequality Index, Afghanistan ranks as the world’s sixth-worst country for women due to violence — including domestic abuse — sexual harassment, poverty and lack of healthcare.

Moreover, Afghan women and girls — in addition to underage marriage — are also subjected to honor killings and the traditional Afghan practice known as “baad,” whereupon women are given away to pay family debts or settle disputes.

Unfortunately — despite the rise of scores of women’s advocacy groups and the enactment of laws guaranteeing women’s rights — both the Afghan justice system and its patriarchal society remain heavily stacked against Afghan women and girls.

For example, in April 2009 Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed the Shiite Personal Status Law, legislation which applied to Afghanistan’s minority Shiite populace. Provisions in that legislation allowed 14-year-old girls to marry as well as men to rape their wives.

After outcries by Afghan women’s groups that the government was legalizing marital rape, Karzai said the law would be amended to bring it in line with the Afghan constitution, which guarantees equal rights for women.

To that end, the Afghan government enacted later in 2009 the Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW) law which criminalized acts like early or forced marriage and rape.

Despite its passage, however, a UN report in November 2011 found that the EVAW act was rarely enforced, citing as an example the 2,299 crimes reported in 2010, of which only 155 cases, or just 7 percent, were prosecuted.
According to the UN report, “Judicial officials in many parts of the country have begun to use the law — but its use represents a very small percentage of how the government addresses cases of violence against women.”

Of course, it’s not terribly surprising that given the treatment of women in Afghan society the response by Afghanistan’s police and judiciary is to either ignore crimes launched against women or, in most cases, send the women back to their abusers.

Nowhere has that latter point been better demonstrated than in the recent case of Gulnaz, a 19-year-old Afghan girl who was raped by her cousin’s husband and imprisoned in 2009 for “forced adultery.”

After spending two and a half years in jail, during which time she gave birth to a daughter fathered by her defiler, Gulnaz was offered a pardon in December 2011 by Afghan President Hamid Karzai on the condition Gulnaz marry her rapist.

While Karzai’s decision may have engendered outraged disbelief from those in the West its foundation was deeply rooted in Afghan custom and Islamic law. Specifically, Gulnaz’s little girl, having been born in prison, is considered to be illegitimate, a disgrace to her family and, as a consequence, never to be accepted by Afghan society unless her parents marry.

Yet, whether prompted by domestic pressures or by a need to polish Afghanistan’s international image, Karzai graciously released Gulnaz without the precondition she wed her rapist. In a bitter irony for Gulnaz, however, she has now traded the relative safety of the jail cell for a life on the run.

To that end, Gulnaz currently resides in an undisclosed location, hiding from her own family, as reports have surfaced that her brothers have threatened to kill her baby daughter.

Tragically, Gulnaz’s ordeal is currently being shared by nearly 350 Afghan women and girls who are currently locked up in Afghanistan prisons, convicted for crimes of forced adultery or “zina” (extramarital sex). Like Gulnaz, many of these women have the added burden of sharing their jail cells with their children.

Most disturbingly, many of the jailed inmates are themselves children, evidenced by the fact that 114 of them are girls between the ages of 12 and 18, 80 percent of whom are serving sentences for either running away from a forced marriage or having extramarital sex.