Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 07, 2016, 08:12:46 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
92563 Posts in 2300 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 266
151  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: German woman speaks out on: January 03, 2016, 12:15:38 AM

That language is like  nails on a chalkboard, no matter what is said.
152  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Armed citizen saves officer on: January 03, 2016, 12:01:14 AM

As it should be.
153  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Well, this is embarassing , , , on: December 31, 2015, 04:18:56 AM

So he IS a democrat !
154  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: December 30, 2015, 03:59:38 PM
I see that for the third time Iran has test fired missiles near US Navy ships, this time a mere 1,500 yards away, and yet it appears we do nothing.   

Appeasement ends badly.   cry cry cry angry angry angry angry angry angry angry angry angry

Hey, Iran is a friend now!
155  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Looks like the arsonist was a member of the mosque , , , on: December 30, 2015, 03:58:31 PM

Neat clock, Achmed!

White house invite?
156  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Transgender Fascism in NYC on: December 29, 2015, 07:47:18 AM

Zero tolerance for thoughtcrime.
157  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 28, 2015, 05:13:24 PM
"The one who reminds me of a Reagan is you-know-who (not Cruz or Trump"

But Doug,
Bobby Jindal dropped out.   grin

2 term Governor, Asian immigrant family, Rhodes Scholar.  But no reality show experience. 
Don't tell me this country doesn't have its priorities straight...

Just looking forward to the Kardashian political dynasty.
158  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 26, 2015, 06:02:21 PM
So the answer is to unleash Donald Trump? 

What principles guide him over time?  Hard to tell with the many cognitively dissonant positions he has held in the last few years , , ,

What criteria would he apply to the selection of nominees to the Supreme Court? 

How would his approach to the Rule of Law differ from Baraq's?

It will be the top people.

His supreme court picks will be the greatest, most luxurious, most classy supreme court justices ever.

Rule of law?
159  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: December 26, 2015, 05:58:57 PM
It is not accidental.

It may be his intent - to trap millions in dependency - and there may be a Stockholm Syndrome effect of hostages supporting their captors, but for the most part being trapped in poverty is not the intent of the victims.  We need to at least try to reach them.

This government has decided to dissolve the American people and create a population more to their liking.
160  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: December 23, 2015, 04:14:59 PM

Muslim leaders worry about backlash from tomorrow's terror attack.
161  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: For minorities and women; (non minoirty men not invited) on: December 22, 2015, 08:41:53 AM
are at higher risk?   Huh?   Screw the white men who get this.......   Well women live longer than men.

It must be great to stand on a podium and call for a cure using other people's money for a terrible disease.   What a wonderful Godly saint she is.   I am voting for her (sarcasm at max volume):

Given her history of falls and signs of dementia, it is motivated by self interest.
162  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: In case no one notices on: December 22, 2015, 08:40:38 AM
In case no one notices, Lindsay Graham has dropped out of the race.

He wanted to spend more time with his pool boy Lorenzo.
163  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran is in our grid on: December 22, 2015, 12:29:58 AM

No worries, Iran is our friend
164  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Pay No Attention to the Disappearing Economic Indicators on: December 22, 2015, 12:08:36 AM
Hmm, Chinese economic indicator reports are suddenly not being issued:

Perhaps vestiges of a command economy remain and, if so, what does this signal censorship bode?

More or less crooked than the stats our government feeds us?
165  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 21, 2015, 04:50:38 PM
#Invalid YouTube Link#
You mean the "Democrat" Trump of 1988 who spoke at the Republican National Convention?


#Invalid YouTube Link#

I don't know, did he look like that guy in the YouTube video?
166  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 21, 2015, 02:23:55 PM
We can see the affect Trump has had on Cruz.  Ask Cruz a position question, he says,"I have the same view as Trump".

You are talking about the Trump of the past few months and not the liberal Trump of decades, right?
167  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Republican Blue! on: December 19, 2015, 09:59:41 PM
168  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process on: December 19, 2015, 09:55:06 PM

It's one thing to get screwed by your enemies, another to get it from those that are supposed to be on your side.
169  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: What Ryan's bill funds on: December 19, 2015, 09:41:42 PM

Total fcuking betrayal!
170  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Green Beret: Listen up you chicken hawk dipsh*ts on: December 18, 2015, 09:22:54 PM

Ah, that explains why every muslim country is such a nice place to live.
171  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The FBI’s problem with Muslim leaders on: December 16, 2015, 03:39:59 PM

The FBI’s problem with Muslim leaders
The imams are afraid to condemn terrorism

RONALD KESSLER: The FBI's problem with Muslim leaders
Federal appeals court voids ruling against D.C.'s restrictive concealed-carry gun law

Illustration on the difficulties of Muslim community cooperation against terrorism by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times
Illustration on the difficulties of Muslim community cooperation against terrorism by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times more >
By Ronald Kessler - - Tuesday, December 15, 2015
As we all know, the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving. We all have Muslim friends or co-workers who are admirable people. And a handful of terrorist plots have been rolled up by the FBI based on tips from Muslims.

But what the FBI finds disturbing is that Muslim leaders by and large are reluctant to cooperate with the FBI to let the bureau know of radicals within their midst. The FBI is not about to publicize this. But for my book “The Secrets of the FBI,” Arthur M. “Art” Cummings II, who was the FBI’s executive assistant director in charge of counterterrorism and national security investigations, opened up about the problem.


The FBI has outreach programs to try to develop sources in the Muslim community and solicit tips, but Mr. Cummings found little receptivity. He found that while Muslims have brought some cases to the FBI, Muslim leaders in particular are often in denial about the fact that the terrorists who threaten the United States are Muslims.

“I had this discussion with the director of a very prominent Muslim organization here in D.C.,” Mr. Cummings told me. “And he said, ‘Why are you guys always looking at the Muslim community?’ “

Mr. Cummings began laughing.

“OK, you know what I’ll do?” Mr. Cummings said. “I’ll start an Irish squad, or how about a Japanese squad? You want me to waste my time and your taxpayer’s dollars going to look at the Irish? They’re not killing Americans. Right now, I’m going to put my money and my people in a place where the threat is.”

Then Mr. Cummings told him to take a look at the cells the FBI had rolled up in the United States

“I can name the homegrown cells, all of whom are Muslim, all of whom were seeking to murder Americans,” Mr. Cummings said. “It’s not the Irish, it’s not the French, it’s not the Catholics, it’s not the Protestants, it’s the Muslims.”

In response to such points, Muslim groups have told him he is rough around the edges.

“I’m not rough around the edges,” Mr. Cummings has told them. “You’re just not used to straight talk.”

Mr. Cummings found they respond by getting angry at him.

While Muslims will occasionally condemn al Qaeda, “rarely do we have them coming to us and saying, ‘There are three guys in the community that we’re very concerned about,’” Mr. Cummings said. “They want to fix it inside the community. They’re a closed group, a very, very closed group. It’s part of their culture that they want to settle the problem within their own communities. They’ve actually said that to us, which I then go crazy over.”

On one hand, “They don’t want anyone to know they have extremists in their community,” Mr. Cummings observed. “Well, beautiful. Except do you read the newspapers? Everyone already knows it. That horse has left the barn. So there’s a lot of talk about engagement, but realistically, we’ve got a long, long way to go.”

At one meeting, a Muslim group suggested having a photo taken of their members with then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to show their community isn’t a bunch of terrorists and that they are partners in the war on terror.

Mr. Cummings responded, “Let me make a suggestion: When you bring to my attention real extremists who are here to plan and do something, who are here supporting terrorism, and I work that based on your information, then I promise you, I will have the director stand up on the stage with you.”

To Mr. Cummings‘ amazement, the answer was: “That could never happen. We would lose our constituency. We could never admit to bringing someone to the FBI.”

“Well, we’ve just defined the problem, haven’t we?” Mr. Cummings told them.

After September 11, according to Mr. Cummings, imams in as many as 10 percent of the 2,000 mosques in the U.S. preached jihad and hatred of America. In a 2011 Pew Research Center poll, 7 percent of American Muslims said suicide bombings against civilian targets are sometimes justified to defend Islam. But in more recent years, “Preaching jihad and hatred of the U.S. overtly has become more unusual and happens more in private,” Mr. Cummings said. Instead, “Radicalization on the Internet has risen to fill the void.”

“If you look at the websites of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, or the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, you see a passive, almost obligatory approach to condemning terrorism,” Mr. Cummings said. “The most prominent crisis for the Arab and Muslim communities is this perception that they’re terrorists, when only a small fraction of them are. Why wouldn’t you have a very loud, active program that says murder of anyone is immoral, illegal and not consistent with Islam, and anyone who supports terrorism or harbors a terrorist is a problem?”

FBI cases in such places as Atlanta, Lackawanna, N.Y., and Lodi, Calif., began with tips provided by individual Muslims. “But I don’t see the community doing that,” Mr. Cummings said.

While many Muslim leaders may be afraid to take on radical Islam publicly, providing tips confidentially to the FBI is another matter. And that is what the FBI needs to develop leads and roll up plots such as the massacre in San Bernardino and possible weapons of mass destruction attacks that could kill millions of Americans.

“I talked to a very prominent imam in the U.S.,” Mr. Cummings said. “We would have our sweets and our sweet tea. We would talk a lot about Islam. I would say we understand Islam and where they’re coming from. We’d tell him what our mission is, trying to keep people from murdering Americans or anybody else, for that matter.”

Months later, the FBI found out that the man’s mosque had two extremists who were so radical that they kicked them out. Clearly, those two extremists would have been of interest to the FBI. If they only engaged in anti-American rhetoric, the FBI would have left them alone. More likely they were planning action to go with their rhetoric.

Mr. Cummings asked the imam, “What happened?”

“What do you mean?” the imam asked.

“Why didn’t you tell me about this?” the agent said.

“Why would I tell you about this?” the imam said. “They’re not terrorists,” he said of the radicals. “They just hate the U.S. government.”

• Ronald Kessler, a former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal investigative reporter, is the author of “The Secrets of the FBI” (Crown Forum, 2012).
172  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Frank Cagle: Trump’s foes must appeal to supporters on: December 16, 2015, 03:30:13 PM

Frank Cagle: Trump’s foes must appeal to supporters

3:00 a.m.
If Donald Trump was a grocer he would throw chickens off the roof of his store, bury a stuntman in the parking lot and threaten to beat the crap out of panhandlers in front of his business.

Old-timers might remember these antics as a few of many from legendary millionaire grocer Cas Walker, a Knoxville city councilman and sometime mayor. The irascible Cas loved attention and had his own reality television show — on daily and featuring people like Dolly Parton, Chet Atkins and the Everly Brothers. He would say anything, usually crude, to attract attention, and people loved him for it. He was also a bully who used his show and his newspaper, the Watchdog, to attack anyone who opposed him. To this day there are people in Knoxville who are big fans and nostalgic for the days when he was a political force in East Tennessee.

Historian and author Bruce Wheeler has written about Walker standing athwart any sign of progress in Knoxville, a constant thorn to the establishment. Whether it was fluoride in the water or expensive sewer lines, Cas was "agin it."

What I don't understand about the Republican establishment these days is that they fail to recognize that Trump uses outrageous statements to garner attention, but he taps into issues of real concern to the American people. But if you want to stop Trump, don't attack him; appeal to the people who support him. Offer sensible solutions to problems he has identified, rather than his half-baked, unrealistic rhetoric.

For example, when the Syrian refugee controversy erupted Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz suggested that maybe we could take only Christian refugees from the Middle East. They were excoriated for the idea. President Barack Obama stood in the Oval Office and said America could not have a religious test for admission and it was un-American. He should know better.

The 1965 immigration reform act, which still governs, has specific criteria for the admission of refugees: people fleeing religious persecution. Who is facing more religious persecution than the Christians in Syria and other areas controlled by ISIS? Beheading, buried alive, machine gunned. Any country has the right to decide who can be admitted and who cannot. Until 1965 Third World immigration was prohibited. There are Christian relief agencies in the Middle East that could help vet refugees facing persecution and help them resettle here.

Did Bush double down, make the case and provide an alternative to Trump's bellicosity? No, he just attacked Trump's idea to stop Muslim immigration temporarily, instead of making the issue his own. Trump's plan? How would that work? Offer anybody getting on the plane a ham sandwich and bar anybody who didn't eat it? His half-baked idea is about as practical as his plan to have Mexico pay for the border wall.

I think a Trump presidency would be a disaster. While he talks a good game, he has no practical way to carry out his promises. Like Cas, he will say anything to grab attention, get a headline and get on television. But his success should be a warning to the political establishment. The American people are fed up with political correctness, and if you do not provide sensible solutions to the issues Trump has raised, don't be surprised when he stand on the podium as the GOP nominee.
173  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Red lines on: December 15, 2015, 09:20:39 PM

174  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump's speech provoking violence on: December 15, 2015, 06:10:15 PM

Obvious incitement.
175  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: DHS monitors Americans, but not visa applicants social media on: December 15, 2015, 05:51:35 PM

Tashfeen Malik’s Jihadist Social-Media Posts Were Deliberately Ignored by the Feds

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY   December 15, 2015 12:00 PM @ANDREWCMCCARTHY

San Bernardino mass-murderer Tashfeen Malik wrote social-media posts that endorsed jihad and expressed disdain for America. Yet, that did not cause U.S. immigration agents to question her admission into our country, much less deny it. In fact, our government consciously avoided learning about Malik’s Islamist rants. Commentators stunned by this dereliction are attributing it to “secret” guidance issued by the Department of Homeland Security. In truth, there is nothing secret about it. The instruction to refrain from scrutinizing social-media commentary, a precious source of intelligence, is a straightforward application of what passes for the official Obama administration “anti”-terrorism strategy, known as “Countering Violent Extremism.” Malik, a native Pakistani, who immigrated to the United States in July after living for a time in Saudi Arabia, joined her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, in slaying 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., earlier this month. The jihad’s Bonnie and Clyde were finally killed in a gun battle with police. Government officials now concede that Malik was inadequately screened before being permitted to relocate to the United States on a K-1 visa, issued because she was the fiancée of Farook, an American citizen. The couple married soon after her immigration. Malik’s visa approval was already the stuff of scandal even before the latest revelations — especially in light of President Obama’s plan to admit thousands of immigrants from Syria and other bastions of Islamic supremacism, which inevitably breeds violent jihadism. Right after the massacre, it emerged that Malik had provided government screeners with a fake Pakistani address. She may also have been educated in a notoriously anti-Western madrassa. Neither fact was discovered during the vetting process.

RELATED: Our Immigration Laws Should Screen Out Islamists, Not All Muslims ADVERTISING But as we now learn, that’s not the half of it. It turns out Malik was an active user of social media. Government investigators made this discovery only after the San Bernardino massacre. Malik’s actual posts were not published in the initial media reports (leaving us to wonder just how inflammatory they must be). But sources close to the investigation acknowledge that she championed jihad and condemned the United States. It is not enough to say that these signs of the Islamist mindset were missed by security and intelligence agencies. Our government chose to miss them. As a matter of policy, the Department of Homeland Security — the bureaucratic behemoth created after 9/11 to enhance protection of our country — avoids looking at, much less scrutinizing, the publicly available social-media commentary of aliens who seek visas to enter the United States, including from Islamic countries that are jihadist strongholds. You read that correctly.

RELATED: It’s Time to Start Profiling for Terrorists, without Apology Now that the story of shocking recklessness is out, the administration is scrambling for cover. The policy, officials stammer, was not really written down and was, in any event more like a loose guideline than a real rule. That is simply false. The guidance was mandatory, and it even ignited a furious intramural clash at DHS. In the end, Secretary Jeh Johnson personally refused to countermand the guidance, siding with DHS’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (the radicalism of which is on a par with the Justice Department’s infamous Civil Rights Division) over Homeland Security agents who were worried about, you know, security. Press reports suggest that the guidance was “secret”: adopted out of concerns about antagonizing civil-rights activists in the wake of the hysteria over surveillance provoked by Edward Snowden. Alternatively, the Obama administration floats the suggestion that scrutinizing the social-media commentary of visa applicants would be (a) too difficult because people like Malik use pseudonyms and privacy protocols, and (b) too time-consuming because there are millions of applications. Visa applicants are aliens. They have no right to enter the U.S. and no civil rights under the U.S. Constitution. Each of these rationalizations is bogus. The surveillance controversy, to the extent it was not entirely overblown, sprang from concerns over spying on Americans. Visa applicants, by contrast, are aliens. They have no right to enter the U.S. and no civil rights under the U.S. Constitution. In addition, even if we pretend they have privacy rights, we are talking in this case about speech that aliens voluntarily share with others, not personal property in which they might be said to have an expectation of privacy. Moreover, if social-media commentary is sometimes difficult to uncover, that is mainly because government examiners purposely refrain from asking about it. If visa applicants were routinely questioned about aliases and social-media practices, much would be revealed. The fact that some aliens might lie to examiners is no excuse not to ask questions. Many would tell the truth. As for those who would not, it must be remembered that entering the U.S. is a privilege, not a right. The burden is on the alien to demonstrate fitness, not on the government to prove dishonesty. Examiners are good at detecting duplicity, and the visa should be denied if they suspect it. Finally, the claim about there being far too many visas to allow for competent background checks is frivolous. The number of visas issued is supposed to be a function of our national interest and the resources available to process applications. Plainly, if investigative resources are sparse, the government should issue fewer visas, not skimp on background checks.

But let’s put all of the Obama administration’s panicked excuse-making aside. The fact of the matter is that Tashfeen Malik was issued a visa not because of an insane “secret” visa policy, but because of the Obama administration’s criminally irresponsible but quite public national “security” strategy — “Countering Violent Extremism.” I wrote about CVE when the new strategy was rolled out during Obama’s first term. In essence, CVE holds that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, or even with Islamist ideology that reviles the United States. According to President Obama, “Muslim American communities have categorically condemned terrorism” — as if that were an incontestable proposition or one that told the whole story. Thus, as I elaborated at the time, The real threat to our security, [the CVE guidance instructs], is not Muslim terrorist plots against us but our provocation of Muslims by conveying the misimpression that America is at war with Islam. Therefore, the key to security is “partnering” with the leadership in Muslim communities [much of which just happens to be tied to or heavily influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood]. Let them train the police, let them be our eyes and ears, and surely they’ll let us know if there is any cause for concern. If it is possible, the practice of CVE is even more of a national-security disaster than the theory. That is a central theme of an essential new book by Stephen Coughlin, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. CVE holds that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, or even with Islamist ideology that reviles the United States. Apart from being an exceptional lawyer, Steve is a trained military-intelligence officer who has studied our enemies’ threat doctrine, Islamic supremacism — the classic sharia-based Islam that is mainstream in the Middle East. The book is about how the United States government has systematically stifled the study of this doctrine since before 9/11. CVE is the paragon illustration of how the Obama administration has exacerbated this catastrophic failure. As Coughlin demonstrates, CVE is no secret. For example, DHS’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has worked with the National Counterterrorism Center (another bureaucracy created after 9/11 to improve security) to develop government-agency training programs that “bring together best [CVE] practices.” One product of this effort is a handy two-page instruction document of CVE “Do’s and Don’ts” [sic]. The “Don’ts” tell agents to avoid, among other things, “ventur[ing] too deep into the weeds of religious doctrine and history,” or examining the “role of Islam in majority Muslim nations.” The guidance further admonishes: Don’t use training that equates radical thought, religious expression, freedom to protest, or other constitutionally protected activity, with criminal activity. One can have radical thoughts/ideas, including disliking the U.S. government, without being violent; for example, trainers who equate the desire for Sharia law with criminal activity violate basic tenets of the First Amendment. This allusion to the First Amendment is patent nonsense. Free-expression principles protect Americans against laws that subject speech to penalty or prosecution (a protection, by the way, that the Obama administration seeks to deny to speech unflattering to Islam). But there is no free-speech protection against having one’s words examined for intelligence or investigative purposes. That is why, for example, speech is routinely used in court to prove crimes. And, to repeat: Aliens outside the United States do not have First Amendment rights at all. In sum, Obama’s CVE strategy expressly instructs our investigators to consider only violent or criminal conduct. They are told to ignore radical ideology, particularly if it has the veneer of “religious expression.” They are directed to turn a deaf ear to anti-Americanism and the desire to impose sharia, which just happens to be the principal objective of all violent jihadists and of the Obama administration’s oft-time consultants, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Our agents, furthermore, are cautioned to avoid doing anything that smacks of subjecting particular groups or people from select regions to heightened scrutiny. After all, that might imply that terrorism committed by Muslims has some connection to Islam — specifically, to the undeniable, unambiguous commands to violent jihad found throughout Muslim scripture. Obviously, this CVE guidance is exactly what DHS follows when it willfully blinds itself to social-media postings by visa applicants from Muslim-majority countries where anti-Americanism and jihadist sympathies run rampant. There is nothing secret about it. It is right there in black-and-white. Willful blindness is, furthermore, a guiding principle of Obama’s governance. It is, for example, the same rationale used to justify purging instruction about the Islamic doctrinal roots of violent jihadism from materials used to train our law-enforcement, military, and intelligence agents. The mulish determination not to “know thine enemy” is the intentional design of the Obama strategy. What happened in the case of Tashfeen Malik was not a glitch. It was foreseeable and inevitable. And now, 14 innocent people are dead. —

Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Read more at:
176  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: December 15, 2015, 05:34:00 PM
"For the record, the more I learn about Cruz's weakness on military budget the more concerned I am about this aspect of his candidacy , , ,"

Please post Bret Stephens column today - The Cruz Imposture - if possible.

A Stark Choice: Ted Cruz’s Jacksonian Americanism vs. Marco Rubio’s Wilsonian Internationalism

I. A Tale of Two Candidates

Here’s a question: During the recent Libya coup—that is, the Obama administration-orchestrated effort to topple Muammar Qaddafi from power in 2011—which prominent American made the following statement:

When an American president says the guy needs to go, you better make sure that it happens because your credibility and your stature in the world is on the line.

Was it a) Hillary Clinton? b) John Kerry? c) Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)2%

And the answer is, it was none of them. It was d) Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%
, quoted in The Weekly Standardon March 31, 2011. You know, the Senator from Florida. Yes, Rubio is a Republican, not normally thought of as a fan of Obama, but in this instance—and, as we shall see, in many other instances—he eagerly lined up behind Obama.

Lest there be any doubt as to Rubio’s Obamaphile views back in 2011, here’s how the Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes introduced the above-cited quote:

Senator Marco Rubio offered his full-throated support Wednesday for the U.S. intervention in Libya and called on President Barack Obama to be clear that regime change is the objective of America’s involvement.

Indeed, Rubio went further than just supporting Obama in this particular endeavor. He declared that it was vital that Obama succeed, so as to preserve “credibility”—that is, the credibility that Obama would need to launch future endeavors. As journalist Hayes, clearly a Rubio fan, explained four years ago,

In an interview yesterday afternoon, Rubio said that failing to remove Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, after Obama publicly called for him to go, would have grave consequences for America’s reputation in the region and in the world.

Although Obama, with the help of Rubio’s cheerleading, was successful in removing Qaddafi, as we know, the overall mission in Libya has not been so successful; the country has been in chaos ever since Qaddafi’s death. Indeed, it’s fair to say that the 2012 assassination of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi is the direct result of the Obama-Rubio intervention.

So why would Rubio be such a strong supporter of Obama on a key foreign-policy issue? That’s a good question, especially since Rubio is now running for president on a mostly anti-Obama platform.

So yes, by all means, let’s drill down on the question of how Rubio can support Obama so much on critical policy, even as he opposes him politically. We can ask: How does Rubio, in his own mind, make sense of that split?

The answer comes from a deep ideological current in American foreign policy, of which Rubio is a vital part. And this ideological current, as we shall see, elevates bipartisanship to near fetish-like status. Moreover, this current oftentimes seeks to subordinate, even ignore, America’s national interest—in favor, we might say, of abstract and arcane intellectual ideals. We will detail this ideology in Section II.

But first, another quote-quiz. Who said this, on December 5, about ISIS?

We will utterly destroy ISIS. We won’t weaken them. We won’t degrade them. We will utterly destroy them. We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. . . . We will do everything necessary so that every militant on the face of the earth will know if you go and join ISIS, if you wage jihad and declare war on America, you are signing your death warrant.

Who said that? Was it a) Donald Trump? Or b) the head of the Air Force’s Strategic Air Command? Or c) Bill O’Reilly, or some other tough-talker on Fox News?

Nope, it was d) Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
, campaigning in Des Moines, Iowa.

Thus we can see the contrast: While Rubio was talking about supporting Obama on a complicated mission that seemed—and seems—dubious to most Americans, Cruz was saying something much simpler: Kill the bad guys.

Indeed, Cruz is quite capable of expressing himself in such blunt terms. Yet, as we know, he is no simpleton: Once a national-champion debater, he went to Princeton and Harvard, and law-clerked for the Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist. So his simple words represent a great deal of complicated thought; he, too, can cite a distinct political tradition, which we will come to in Section III.

So yes, we can marvel at the difference between Rubio and Cruz, even as we note their similarities: Both are Cuban-American first-term senators from the Sunbelt, both are 44 years old, and both are smart men. Indeed, both are uniquely articulate advocates for their very divergent foreign-policy traditions.

Rubio, as we shall see in the next section, is a passionate and devoted exponent of the well-established foreign-policy school known as Wilsonianism, which traces its origins back to our 28th President, Woodrow Wilson, who served from 1913 to 1921.

And Cruz, as we shall see in the third section, is an equally passionate and devoted exponent of a much less well-known foreign-policy school, Jacksonianism, which can be linked to our 7th President, Andrew Jackson, who served from 1829 to 1837.

The differences between the two men, Rubio and Cruz, are important, and they deserve our close attention; they speak volumes about the difference in the way they would conduct foreign policy in the White House.


II The Wilsonian Tradition

When we say that Rubio is a Wilsonian, we are simply noting that he has chosen to identify himself with a tradition that emphasizes the high-minded but forceful application of American power around the world, often aimed at advancing democracy and human rights. Wilson was a Democrat and a progressive, but at the same time, he was nothing like, say, George McGovern; McGovern was virtually a pacifist. No, Wilson was not a dove at all—he was perfectly willing to use American military power to achieve his idealistic goals.

Yet Wilson, nevertheless, was an idealist. The son of a Presbyterian minister, he was a brilliant Ph.D. student, then a professor at Princeton, then president of Princeton University. And after a brief stopover as governor of New Jersey, he was elected president of the United States in 1912.

In the White House, Wilson set about improving the world. He launched a series of armed interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean; as he declared in 1913, “I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men.” That turned out to be an impossible mission, but his supporters admired and revered him for his devotion to duty as he saw it—even as critics derided him as a messianic zealot.

Yet the signature aspect of Wilson’s presidency, and of Wilsonianism as we know it today, was a seeming twist on the use of American power: We should use force, but we should not cheer for it, nor wave the flag on its behalf. And that’s what distinguishes Wilsonianism from plain old patriotic nationalism; that’s what makes it so counter-intuitive to Americans. Indeed, this element of Wilsonian policy was, and is, deeply confusing to the average American. Nevertheless, for nearly a century now, leading American intellectuals have loved it—perhaps, in its disdain for traditional patriotic trappings, because it is so different from conventional thinking.

Indeed, we can observe that Wilsonianism, shorn of traditional patriotism, even during wartime, is deeply appealing to elites, here and around the world. That is, the class that is normally embarrassed by patriotic displays usually loves Wilsonianism—because it seems to be higher, more cerebral, more intellectual. Without a doubt, Wilsonianism has snob-appeal.

Yet the yawning gap between elite Wilsonianism and mass-appeal patriotism can make Wilsonianism problematic politically.

The ordinary American, for example, might think that it’s a good idea for the US to win its wars and that it’s an equally good idea to rally ‘round the flag in wartime. Yet Wilsonians tend to have a different view. Back in 1917, President Wilson offered this curious articulation of US war aims in World War One: Yes, America should fight against the Kaiser, and yes, the goal was a military triumph—but the ultimate goal, Wilson told Congress and the country, was “peace without victory.” In other words, American doughboys should fight and die in France, but they shouldn’t savor the patriotic and nationalistic pleasures of such victory.

Yes, you read that right: Wilson wanted to win, but he didn’t want Americans to feel triumphant. He felt that excessive nationalism here in the US would make it harder to build the post-war multilateral peace that he hoped to achieve with the League of Nations, the forerunner to the United Nations.

Wilson’s vision was noble, many thought. And the president himself was astonishingly articulate and erudite. Moreover, he was acutely conscious of doing the right thing, as he saw it. He once said, “Tell me what is right and I will fight for it.” But of course, most of the time, Wilson already knew what was right, or at least he thought he did. And that’s one more reason why his adherents love him: To this day, he epitomizes the I’d-rather-be-right-than-popular spirit that animates many intellectuals.

And so, in the minds of his brainy supporters, it didn’t really matter that the average American didn’t quite get Wilsonianism; indeed, public confusion about Wilsonianism was something of a badge of honor—that is, proof that the Wilsonians were a higher species than mere Americans and their “boorish” values and folkways.

And yet because Wilsonianism was so difficult for the masses to comprehend, it wasn’t particularly popular. As noted here at Breitbart, Wilson’s idealistic vision foundered on the rocks of reality; in the 1918 midterm elections, just days before the Allied victory in the Great War, the opposition Republicans won the Congress, turning out Wilson’s Democrats. And in 1919-20, the roof caved in on the Wilson administration and its grand plans for a new architecture of international organizations.

Yet even so, Wilsonianism has been a strong strain of foreign-policy thinking ever since; the elites seem perpetually entranced by the idea that they are leading America on some grand national mission, the full complexity of which only they can understand.

Nevertheless, even if the details of Wilsonianism are hard to understand, the broad outlines of the doctrine easily lend themselves to sweeping statement. President John F. Kennedy, for example, was an unabashed fan of his predecessor; his 1961 Inaugural address was ringingly Wilsonian, as when he famously declared,

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.

Kennedy’s warmed-over Wilsonianism quickly ran into difficulty in Vietnam, but even so, everybody knows JFK’s famous speech.

Meanwhile, over the last half-century, old-style Wilsonianism has easily blended with a newer dogma, “neoconservatism.”

The neoconservatives, too, are eager to use military force around the world, and they, too, tend to express their policy objectives in non-nationalistic terms. To the neocons, the key issue isn’t that America should win, it’s that America should be right.

And so it is right, for example, that America should advance democracy and freedom around the world. Yet, as we have seen, this emphasis on changing the hearts and minds of foreigners—that is, getting them to embrace democracy and freedom—is far more difficult than merely winning a war. If the goal is simply to kill the other guy, the US military can do that. But if the goal is to transform the thinking of the other guy, well, that’s not what they teach at West Point.

Yet once again, the neoconservatives tend to see American power in abstract terms that oftentimes skip over practical difficulties, including the matter of costs. And interestingly, not all neoconservatives are, in fact, conservative.

For example, in 1996, Bill Clinton’s future Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, challenged then-General Colin Powell to answer her question about the looming commitment of US ground troops, simply for the purpose of helping to liberate Muslims in Kosovo and the Balkans. “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about,” she asked Powell, “if we can’t use it?” In his memoir, Powell wrote that when he heard Albright’s words, he feared that he was going to have an “aneurysm”; “American GIs,” he added, “are not toy soldiers to be moved around on some global game board.”

Yes, Powell, who served two combat tours in Vietnam, had strong feelings about civilians who would over-use US troops in willy-nilly missions. In his mind, the only valid reason for using the US military was to protect the national interest—and he did not see the US national interest at risk in the former Yugoslavia. But Albright and her boss, President Bill Clinton, saw things differently; to them, helping the Muslims in Southern Europe was a wonderful idea.

Interestingly, back then, in the mid-90s, Albright and Clinton had the strong support of many prominent neoconservatives, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)36%
, the editorial writers at The Wall Street Journal, and William Kristol, publisher of The Weekly Standard—the publication that would later admiringly extoll Marco Rubio.

Again, thinking back to the Clinton administration’s Balkan intervention, we are reminded that Wilsonian neoconservatism typically transcends party, as well as patriotism. That is, Wilsonian goals—starting with saving the world—are seen as larger than any mere parochial concern.

So Bill Clinton, the former McGovernite, who actively avoided the draft during the Vietnam era, sprouted into a Wilsonian as president; one could even say he was sort of a neoconservative. In fact, one of the strengths of Wilsonian neoconservatism is that it has a left wing, as well as a right wing. So Bill Clinton was a left-wing neocon, and his successor in the White House, George W. Bush, was a right-wing neocon.

And of course, Bush, who fused his right-wing Wilsonianism with Christian zeal, was infinitely more energetic and ambitious for his ideas than Clinton had been.

Indeed, after 9/11, Bush seemed to think he had a God-given chance to remake the world. And so, as a savvy politician, he was willing to play somewhat to nationalist passions in the wake of the attacks on America; yet ultimately, his Wilsonianism got the best of him. And as a result, he himself chose to communicate in the abstract language of Wilsonianism, fortified with his own born-again Christian theology.

So, on September 17, 2001, Bush assured Americans that “Islam is peace.” Those words must have been confusing to ordinary Americans, who knew that, just six days earlier, Islamic radicals had killed 3,000 of their fellow citizens.

So as a result, as was the case with Wilson nearly a century before, Bush was perfectly willing to send Americans to fight and die for fuzzy abstractions. We might note, in contrast, that during World War Two, Admiral Halsey had told his warriors in the Pacific, “Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs”; those were not politically correct words, but they encouraged our fighting men to kill, and thus defeat, the enemy. On the other hand, Bush was making the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan much harder: The mission was never just to kill the enemy; instead, it was to win the enemy over to our way of thinking.

As Bush said in his second inaugural address in 2005, it wasn’t enough for America militarily to defeat the terrorists; instead, we had to bring the terrorists, or at least their societies, around to our point of view. As the re-elected president said:

The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

In other words, Bush was setting a high, even impossible, standard. Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan couldn’t just kill bad guys; instead, they had to fight to expand freedom. So US warriors, trained in the art of kinetic warfare, had, instead, to become warriors for polemic ideology. We can recall that neoconservative intellectuals, well versed in the fine points of argumentation, adored Bush’s message—although the average American still simply scratched his or her head.

Indeed, at the time, back in 2005, Peggy Noonan spoke for many when she published an opinion piece, bluntly titled, “Way Too Much God.” If Noonan, a devout Catholic and one of the more visible champions of religion in the public square, thought that Bush had gotten carried away—well, she undoubtedly spoke for most Americans. Here’s how she put it:

The administration’s approach to history is at odds with what has been described by a communications adviser to the president as the “reality-based community.” A dumb phrase, but not a dumb thought: He meant that the administration sees history as dynamic and changeable, not static and impervious to redirection or improvement. That is the Bush administration way, and it happens to be realistic: History is dynamic and changeable, not static and impervious to redirection or improvement. . . . On the other hand, some things are constant, such as human imperfection, injustice, misery and bad government. This world is not heaven.

No, the world is not heaven. And in fact, it’s heresy to think that this world can be made perfect. But Bush, suffering from what Noonan called “mission inebriation”—her play on “mission creep”—had lost his once-sound perspective.

Thus the American people felt they had no choice but to restrain Bush’s remake-the-world impulses at the ballot box. And so in the 2006 midterm elections, voters put the Democrats back in charge of the House and Senate, and in 2008, they gave the Democrats another big victory in Congress, as well as dramatically awarding the White House to Barack Obama. With the benefit of hindsight, we might say that the voters made a mistake with Obama, but at the time, in their defense, Obama was an unknown, and Bush—and his anointed would-be successor, John McCain—were all too well known.

So George W. Bush’s right-wing Wilsonianism, or neoconservatism—like Woodrow Wilson’s left-wing Wilsonianism nine decades earlier—was soundly rejected at the polls.

Yet, as Obama has proven to be such a huge failure, we can observe that Bush 43 has made something of a comeback. Indeed, in contrast to the foreign-policy mess that we have now, even Bush’s neocon Wilsonianism has started to look pretty good.

In fact, given that the neocons, as a group, are not only highly academically credentialed, but also wealthy, we can see why an ambitious fellow such as Rubio would seek to come climbing onto their bandwagon.

So Rubio might think that he has chosen well. In embracing Wilsonian neoconservatism, he instantly found his speeches lauded by neocon pundits, and his campaign coffers filled by neocon donors—so what’s not to like?

As a result, Rubio was soon positioned as the Great Neocon Hope for the next presidential election. On October 6, 2014, National Review’s Eliana Johnson published an important piece, entitled, “The Neocons Return: Meet their 2016 candidate, Marco Rubio.” And there, big as life, was a picture of Rubio. As Johnson wrote,

Since his election four years ago, the first-term senator has consistently articulated a robust internationalist position closest to that of George W. Bush.

She added:

Rubio’s views are strikingly similar to those that guided George W. Bush as he began navigating the post-9/11 world.

So of course, Rubio supported Obama and Hillary on Libya and Syria. Wilson, too, as well as Bush 43, would have done no less.

Yet we can observe that one of the problems of Wilsonianism/neoconservatism is that in its ideological enthusiasm for remaking the world, it tends to be oblivious to such “small” issues as homeland security and border security. That is, in the minds of the Wilsonians, we should think macro, not micro. Up there in the Olympian heights, the best and the brightest should think about solving the world’s problems, not just tending to America’s little garden.

So yes, in the big-thinking minds of the Wilsonians, traditional American nationalism must yield to high-brow internationalism. After all, the thought-process seems to be, how can one let oneself get lost in the weeds of mere national self-interest, when the fate of the world is at stake?

Thus we come to a vital tool in the Wilsonian “arsenal”: immigration.

To the Wilsonian neocons, immigration to the US is indeed crucial. That is, if the issue is saving the world—and it always is—then part of the save-the-world plan means accommodating, and welcoming, refugee flows.

Yes, refugees from Somalia, Syria, anywhere—they all must come here, so that the US can “show leadership.” That is, we must take immigrants by the thousands, even millions, as a way of pointing other countries, as well, to the virtuous path. And in this way, the Wilsonian thinking goes, America will save the world.

Thus it should come as no surprise that National Review’s Johnson reports that one of Rubio’s mentors is former Bush 43 national-security adviser Stephen Hadley. In the White House, Hadley was a champion of open borders, and just recently, he signed a letter with 19 other foreign policy savants, from both parties, calling for the US to take in Syrian refugees.

Hadley and his fellow Wilsonians seem unable to come to grips with the nagging reality that Uncle Sam does a relentlessly poor job at “vetting.” As The New York Times reported on Saturday, Tafsheen Malik, one-half of the San Bernardino shooting couple, was open about her Islamic zealotry on social media. Yet even so, she passed no fewer than three “background checks.” Most likely, Hadley & Co. don’t really care about background checks: Yes, there will be some tragedies inflicted on Americans as a result of mass immigration, but the internationalist foreign-policy experts see a “greater good” that transcends mere Americans and their petty preoccupation with not getting shot.

In addition, the Wilsonians, always seeking to advance their doctrine of remaking the world, tend to have another troublesome blind spot: To them, concerns over national character and identity are just so much benighted “oldthink.”

That is, as a matter of ideology, the neoconservatives just can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that one culture is different from another culture, and thus, maybe, they shouldn’t be blended together suddenly, as happens with a huge refugee influx. Indeed, that happens to be common sense to traditional conservatives, but to the neoconservatives, well, such thinking is not allowed.

Here we might pause to note that such “post-nationalist” thinking is one reason why the Wilsonian neoconservatives tend to retain substantial support from the political left; as noted, there are left-neocons, as well as right-neocons.

Many progressives, in other words, admire the Wilsonians for their willingness to forsake the normal trappings of conservatism, such as national security and national sovereignty. In the minds of liberals, if the Wilsonians are willing to abandon patriotism and the the preservation of national identity, then they can’t be all bad.

And that’s a further reason why open borders is such a key element of neoconservative thinking: It unites the parties.

We might recall that George W. Bush was a champion of “comprehensive immigration reform,” aka, “amnesty.” Today, leading neocons, including McCain and his senatorial colleague, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)38%
 of South Carolina, are staunch supporters not only of expanded refugee programs, but also of “comprehensive immigration reform,” aka, “amnesty.”

And that’s why critics have summed up neocon policy as, “Invade the world/ Invite the world.”

But of course, the neocons would never let a low variable such as public opinion get in the way of their grand plan.

And so, in keeping with state-of-the-art Wilsonian thinking, back in 2013, Marco Rubio was a strong supporter of the “Gang of Eight” immigration reform, alongside such prominent Democrats as Sen. Chuck Schumer.

And although Rubio has supposedly backed off from the idea over the last two years, asBreitbart’s Julia Hahn has noted, the Florida Senator continues to push Gang of Eight talking points. Indeed, it’s perfectly fair to say that, were he to be elected president, he would resume the push for “comprehensive immigration reform,” aka, “amnesty.”

Indeed, Rubio has never stopped seeking to advance Wilsonian causes. Here, for example, is Rubio looking for new places to give away foreign aid money, in a speech to the liberal Brookings Institution on April 25, 2012:

In every region of the world, we should always search for ways to use U.S. aid and humanitarian assistance to strengthen our influence, the effectiveness of our leadership, and the service of our interests and ideals.

And just two months later, in June 2012, Rubio expressed his strong support for Obama’s Syria policy, which was indeed a half-hearted attempt to replicate the Libya coup. In his favorite publication, The Wall Street Journal, under the bold headline, “Assad’s Fall Is In America’s Interests,” Rubio wrote,

Empowering and supporting Syria’s opposition today will give us our best chance of influencing it tomorrow, to ensure that revenge killings are rare in a post-Assad Syria and that a new government follows a moderate foreign policy.

Of course, some have said that the Wilsonians are now biting off more than they can chew. One observer here at Breitbart has noted that the Wilsonians don’t seem disciplined when it comes to limiting American commitments. In other words, is it really possible that the US, with about 21 percent of the world’s economic output, and with less than five percent of the world’s population, can really do it all? The Breitbart author mocked the left-Wilsonians of the Obama administration for their attempted five-way containment:

So there we have it: the Quintuple Containment: The US seeking to contain Russia, China, Iran, terror, and the equally dreaded threat of climate change.

We might note that the right-Wilsonians of the Republican Party are more limited in their ambitions; they mostly disdain “climate change.” So for them, America need undertake only a quadruple containment, albeit with more military force applied to each of the remaining four objectives.

And yet we would do well to remember that Wilsonians of both stripes, right and left, put a huge premium on bipartisanship—so who can say for sure that Republican neocons, after all, wouldn’t yet be sucked into a deal on that fifth “threat,” namely “climate change”?

Again, we must remember that bipartisanship is a siren song to Wilsonians. That’s one reason why, for example, Sen. Joe Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, was such a hero to Republicans. Toward the end of his career, Lieberman was really a “DINO”—Democrat In Name Only—yet even so, Wilsonian neocon Republicans, hungering always for bipartisan cred, continued to trumpet Lieberman as a D.

Thus, because bipartisanship is so important to the neoconservatives, one can never say that Republican Wilsonians wouldn’t be interested, after all, in a “climate change” deal if they thought it would bring in Democratic support on other policy objectives. And by the same token, Democratic Wilsonians, who are totally obsessed with “climate change,” might find themselves supporting wars they wouldn’t otherwise support—if it could mean “building bridges” with Republican Wilsonians on stopping CO2.

Indeed, such bridge-building was the subtext of a remarkable joint opinion piece in the December 9 Politico, co-signed by Danielle Pletka, a neoconservative at the American Enterprise Institute, and Brian Katulis, a liberal at the Center for American Progress. In the piece, Pletka and Katulis, good Wilsonians both, lamented the “worrisome bipartisan crisis of U.S. leadership in the world.” And so the two, one on the left, one on the right, proposed to fix that policy gap, with a plan for collaborative action, starting with the US taking in more—many more—refugees. As Pletka and Katulis wrote, in words that must be cheering to the next Tafsheen Malik who wishes to come here and kill Americans,

Calls to close America’s doors to refugees risk undermining who we are as a nation. Instead of slipping into fearful isolationism, Republicans and Democrats should dedicate their efforts to enhancing the background checks on refugees fleeing conflict. This is eminently doable, and there is ample room for the Obama administration to negotiate a reliable system with Congressional leaders. At minimum, we should strive to achieve the Obama administration’s target goal of admitting 10,000 refugees from Syria in the next fiscal year.

And then, Pletka and Katulis added the usual ringing Wilsonian rhetoric:

Why do it? Because we are the richest and freest country in the world. If we lack the moral fortitude to dedicate resources to screen and admit those fleeing the horror of war, we cannot ask other countries to do the same.

That’s Wilsonianism for you: The national interest must come in second to the international interest. And out of that fusion, left and right, it’s not hard to see that the left-Wilsonians could talk the right-Wilsonians into a deal on “climate change.” And so both kinds of Wilsonians would be pulling in the same harness, leading America to oppose all the world’s bad guys and solve all the world’s problems.


III. The Jacksonian Tradition

But of course, not everyone in America is a Wilsonian. There are other traditions, too, in US foreign policy. Two other traditions are Jeffersonian and Hamiltonianism. We can look quickly at both:

The Jeffersonian tradition, of course, is named after Thomas Jefferson, our Third President. It is, in a word, liberal: George McGovern, whom we met earlier, qualifies as a Jeffersonian. To be sure, an historical purist might say that the real Jefferson, in the White House, wasn’t so liberal; after all, he started West Point, defeated the Barbary Pirates, and doubled the size of the US with the Louisiana Purchase. And yet even so, his writings—mostly from the period before he became president—have deeply inspired liberals, libertarians, and other peaceniks. Today, one might be tempted to think of Obama as being in this category, although it would seem, perhaps, that he is too quick to order drone strikes to be a true Jeffersonian. So we might count Obama as a diffident and uncertain Wilsonian; he might seem hesitant and incompetent, although in the end, he is perfectly willing to kill to achieve his policy ends.

As for the Hamiltonian tradition, it comes to us from Alexander Hamilton, our first treasury secretary. The Hamiltonians were, and are, commerce-minded. So when President Coolidge said, “The business of America is business,” that was a great statement of the Hamiltonian credo. A Hamiltonian today, for example, would be strongly in favor of lower taxes, and would also would likely support the Ex-Im Bank. Yet even as Hamiltonianism enjoys a revival on, of all places, Broadway, it’s easy for critics to make fun of “money-grubbing” Hamiltonians. And so while Hamiltonianism has arguably been the default position of the United States throughout its history, it is usually submerged behind one of the other two traditions, Wilsonianism and Jeffersonianism.

So having identified three traditions—Wilsonianism, Jeffersonianism, and Hamiltonianism—we can now espy a fourth, Jacksonianism. If the first category, Wilsonianism, seems best to describe Marco Rubio, it’s this fourth category, Jacksonianism, that seems best to describe Ted Cruz.

So what is Jacksonianism? Although the impulse goes back centuries, the name itself traces only to 1999, when political scientist Walter Russell Mead laid it out in a 13,000-word article in The National Interest. Mead, at the time a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, outlined this fourth tradition, “a warrior tradition,” in honor of Andrew Jackson, our Seventh President, who served in the White House from 1829 to 1837.

Jackson was Scots-Irish, a people whom Mead accurately described as “hardy and warlike,” toughened by life on the frontier. Thus we might say that Jacksonianism is all about ferocity in war.

Just as Jackson himself gained personal power in the early 19th century, so did his “ism,” because, frankly, Jacksonianism is useful in winning wars. And we have had lots of wars that we had to win.

To illustrate the Jacksonian approach to war-fighting, Mead recalled a moment in World War Two in which US armed forces inflicted staggering civilian casualties on Japan—and this was before the A-bomb. As Mead notes, “In the last five months of World War II, American bombing raids claimed the lives of more than 900,000 Japanese civilians.” He zeroes in on one particular date:

On one night, that of March 9-10, 1945, 234 Superfortresses dropped 1,167 tons of incendiary bombs over downtown Tokyo; 83,793 Japanese bodies were found in the charred remains—a number greater than the 80,942 combat fatalities that the United States sustained in the Korean and Vietnam Wars combined.

We can look back and ask: Were we too tough on the Japanese? And that’s a question that Jeffersonians, or Hamiltonians, or even Wilsonians, might ask—but not the Jacksonians. The Jacksonians weren’t the least bit apologetic; in their tough martial worldview, the Japanese needed killin’, and that was all there was to it. Our 34th President, Harry Truman, of Independence, Mo., the man who dropped the A-bomb on Japan, was a Jacksonian. And so it might not be a surprise that Truman was once the Presiding Judge (the equivalent of county executive) of Jackson County, Mo.—which was named, of course, after Andrew Jackson.

In his essay, Mead was moved to observe that this militarily tough tradition simply could not be ignored:

The American war record should make us think. An observer who thinks of American foreign policy only in terms of the commercial realism of the Hamiltonians, the crusading moralism of Wilsonian transcendentalists, and the supple pacifism of the principled but slippery Jeffersonians would be at a loss to account for American ruthlessness at war.

Indeed, surveying Andrew Jackson’s war record, we can see that he left a large impression in US history. Old Hickory, as he was called, was famously brave, famously effective, and famously ferocious—beating Indians and the British, both. His victory at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815 was the greatest American victory in The War of 1812. And a century-and-a-half later, it was still being celebrated; in 1958, the country & western singer Johnny Horton released a Top-40 pop song about the battle.

So yes, even though Jackson, unlike Wilson, was neither a scholar nor a speechmaker, he nevertheless created a tradition. As Mead noted,

Once wars begin, a significant element of American public opinion supports waging them at the highest possible level of intensity. The devastating tactics of the wars against the Indians, General Sherman’s campaign of 1864-65, and the unprecedented aerial bombardments of World War II were all broadly popular in the United States. During both the Korean and Vietnam Wars, presidents came under intense pressure, not only from military leaders but also from public opinion, to hit the enemy with all available force in all available places.

And yet still, if the Jacksonian tradition is less known, well, there’s a reason for that—the Jacksonians aren’t writers:

A principal explanation of why Jacksonian politics are so poorly understood is that Jacksonianism is less an intellectual or political movement than an expression of the social, cultural and religious values of a large portion of the American public. And it is doubly obscure because it happens to be rooted in one of the portions of the public least represented in the media and the professoriat. Jacksonian America is a folk community with a strong sense of common values and common destiny; though periodically led by intellectually brilliant men—like Andrew Jackson himself—it is neither an ideology nor a self-conscious movement with a clear historical direction or political table of organization.

So Mead, himself from South Carolina, which was also Jackson’s home state, took it upon himself to identify the key elements of the “Jacksonian Code”: These were, honor, self-reliance, and military meritocracy. As Mead put it, Jacksonians enjoy “a love affair with weapons.” And oh yes, he concludes, “Finally, courage is the crowning and indispensable part of the Code.”

So we can see, clearly, that Jacksonianism is a good deal different from Wilsonianism; to quote Mead again:

Jacksonian patriotism is not a doctrine but an emotion, like love of one’s family. The nation is an extension of the family. Members of the American folk are bound together by history, culture and a common morality.

In other words, Jacksonianism, based on the ties that bind kith and kin, is light-years away from the austere abstractions of Wilsonianism.

Needless to say, the Jacksonian spirit is big in in places such as Houston—which happens to be Ted Cruz’s hometown.

So let’s talk more about Cruz. Yes, Cruz is an Ivy Leaguer—he went to Princeton, in fact, the same as Wilson—but then, not every Ivy Leaguer comes away with Ivy League values; we might note that Mead went to Yale, and yet he freely volunteers in his National Interest essay that he is a fan of the Jacksonians. Why? Because, as he says, it’s better to win wars than lose them. And Jacksonians, in their single-minded focus on killing the enemy, are good at winning.

And Cruz, too, has that same keep-it-simple spirit. Whereas the Wilsonians are all about trying to master the nuances of the Middle East—never mind that they have never come close to doing so—the Jacksonians see things in starker, and sharper, terms. As Cruz says of Syria,

Instead of getting in the middle of a civil war in Syria, where we don’t have a dog in the fight, our focus should be on killing ISIS.

Yes, when Cruz argues for killing ISIS, he is talking like a Jacksonian.

Let others worry about democracy and human rights and all that jazz; Cruz’s view is, if they need to killed, then they need to be killed. Otherwise, let’s not worry about them.

Indeed, Cruz doesn’t seem the least bit interested in bringing “democracy” to such benighted countries as Iraq or Syria. The Texan is obviously passionate about constitutional democracy for Americans, and for others who yearn for it, but unlike, say, Bush 43, he doesn’t seek to impose “democracy” on hostile peoples at gunpoint.


IV The Wilsonian vs. Jacksonian Tradition in 2016

So we can see the gap between Rubio and the Wilsonians, and Cruz and the Jacksonians. On the one side, Rubio is channeling neoconservatism; on the other side, Cruz is channeling Jacksonian Americanism.

To look at the matter more deeply, we might even say that the Wilsonian neoconservatives have a stubborn belief in the perfectibility of man, whereas, by contrast, the Jacksonians have the more orthodox Christian view: We live in a fallen world, and, as the philosophers say, out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.

Of course, other factors, too, are likely at play. For example, Marco Rubio’s campaign seems to be extraordinarily well-funded; he won the endorsement, for instance, of Paul Singer, the New York City-based billionaire who combines support for gay marriage, open borders, and Israel into one juicy check-writing package.

To be sure, Rubio is free to seek out support wherever he can, but others are equally free to criticize; in October, Donald Trump tweeted out a jeering reference to Rubio’s relationship to another one of the Republican Party’s biggest donors:

Sheldon Adelson is looking to give big dollars to Rubio because he feels he can mold him into his perfect little puppet. I agree!

Of course, Rubio also has his ardent supporters. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, for example, is solidly in his corner. Yes, that page has made quite an ideological odyssey over the last few decades; in the 70s and 80s, when many believe it was at the height of its influence, the Journal edit page was virtually single-minded in its support for supply-side economics. Yet more recently, while still supporting free markets, it has become preoccupied with neoconservative foreign policy—which is great news for a neocon such as Rubio. Yet others have noticed this shift as well, and so the Journal’s impact has been diminished. As Cruz himself said recently, the Journal should change its name to “The Marco Rubio for President Newspaper.”

In fact, even outside of the Journal, the split between Rubio and Cruz has become evident. Under the headline, “Marco Rubio Gets Benghazi’d By Ted Cruz,” TalkingPointsMemo quoted Cruz as saying, “Senator Rubio emphatically supported Hillary Clinton in toppling [Muammar] Qaddafi in Libya. I think that made no sense.” Cruz added, “The terrorist attack that occurred in Benghazi was a direct result of that massive foreign policy blunder.”

Moreover, Cruz opened up on the Wilsonian neocons:

If you look at President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and for that matter some of the more aggressive Washington neocons, they have consistently mis-perceived the threat of radical Islamic terrorism and have advocated military adventurism that has had the effect of benefiting radical Islamic terrorists.

As the late Sen. Strom Thurmond liked to say, that puts the hay down where the horse can get it.

Yet Cruz had more to say on the topic. As the Texan told Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle on December 11:

On foreign policy, Sen. Rubio’s foreign policy judgments have been consistently wrong. When Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton made the decision to intervene in Libya, to topple Qaddafi, Sen. Rubio chose once again to stand with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. … And the result of that was that Libya was handed over to radical Islamic terrorists and is now a chaotic war zone of battling Islamists. And that is much, much worse for U.S. national security. The tragedy at Benghazi, four Americans murdered including the first American ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since the 1970s under Jimmy Carter, the tragedy of Benghazi was the direct result of the failed foreign policy in Libya that was championed by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and supported by Marco Rubio.

To be sure, Rubio has his responses to Cruz, but the plain fact remains: Rubio supported Obama and Clinton on Libya. Moreover, Rubio supported Obama and Clinton on Syria, too. That’s what Wilsonians do: They support whoever is in charge, regardless of party, if the issue is the use of force to “do good” overseas.

And so, for example, we can fully expect that left-Wilsonians—for example, Brian Katulis, whom we cited earlier, in league with the right-Wilsonian Danielle Pletka—would happily support a President Rubio on some new round of foreign-policy adventurism. And as we already know, Katulis-type Democrats stand ready to support a President Rubio in the cause of opening up America’s border to new immigrants—including, one supposes, the next Tafsheen Malik.

So as we have seen, Rubio’s invade-the-world-invite-the-world ideology is perfectly consistent with the Wilsonian tradition.

What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not the Republican Party, which is increasingly enamored of Trump-Cruz-type Jacksonian Americanism, is interested in seeing the elite Wilsonian internationalists regain power—so that they can continue their mission of saving the world.
177  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 15, 2015, 04:15:42 PM
If it puts innocents in harm's way with an unnecessary threat, and is an invitation to violence, then it has gone too far in my opinion.

She knew what was going to happen and prepped for it.

There is no absolute right to Freedom of Speech.

You do realize by rewarding violence you are creating an incentive system that rewards additional acts of violence to suppress constitutionally protected speech?
178  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Heckler's veto on: December 15, 2015, 04:13:40 PM

Heckler's Veto Definition:
(USA) A controversial legal position taken by law enforcement officers based on an alleged right to restrict freedom of speech where such expression may create disorder or provoke violence.
Related Terms: First Amendment, Freedom of Expression, Speech

In Roe v Crawford, Justice Riley wrote:

"The heckler's veto involves situations in which the government attempts to ban protected speech because it might provoke a violent response. In such situations, the mere possibility of a violent reaction to protected speech is simply not a constitutional basis on which to restrict the right to speak."

In Startzell, Justice Sloviter made the court's repugnance for an alleged heckler's veto clear by adopting these words:

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. In public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

"A heckler's veto is an impermissible content-based restriction on speech where the speech is prohibited due to an anticipated disorderly or violent reaction of the audience."

Similarly, in Hedges, Justice Easterbrook:

"The police are supposed to preserve order, which unpopular speech may endanger. Does it follow that the police may silence the rabble-rousing speaker? Not at all. The police must permit the speech and control the crowd. There is no heckler's veto. Just as bellicose bystanders cannot authorize the government to silence a speaker, so ignorant bystanders cannot make censorship legitimate."

Hedges v. Wauconda Community School District, 9 F. 3d 1295 (United States Court of Appeals, 1993)
Roe v. Crawford, 514 F. 3d 789 (United States Court of Appeals, 2007, at footnote 3)
Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, 533 F. 3d 183 (United States Court of Appeals, 2008)
179  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 15, 2015, 03:50:51 PM
Come on.........apples to oranges.............

Yes, James Meredith and others were engaged in legitimate protests, but the protests were not designed to provoke a violent response. That is the difference between them and Gellar.

Take BLM and Ferguson. That was absolutely a direct provocation with Freedom of Speech used as an excuse. Should BLM be forgiven?

So, protest is only legitimate if there is no reasonable expectation of a violent reaction. Yes?
180  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 15, 2015, 03:32:31 PM
There is a hell of a difference between cowering and self censoring, exercising Freedom of Speech, and with deliberating challenging and inviting them to attack.

Gellar did a deliberate act of provocation designed to lead to an attack. She knew what the expected response would be and planned for it.  Notice all of the people there who were armed and ready.  And the only two who died were the terrorists.

Again, what would have happened if innocents had been killed? Would Gellar also be held responsible? Should she be?

You don't and deliberately poke the bee hive...........

So, did the civil rights protesters murdered in the south poke "poke the bee hive"?
181  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 15, 2015, 03:15:10 PM
So we should cower and self censor lest the jihadis take offense?


I said that with Gellar, her actions were completely irresponsible and led to potential harm to the others with her, so it is all on her. Especially if there were participants who did not know that the objective was to in cite and invite threats.

Does Freedom of Speech allow you to directly put others into harm's way no matter what?

There is an assumption that the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct, and that each amendment applies in every circumstance. But the courts have ruled that there are instances when the amendment may be rendered moot.

What if in the ensuing gun battle that some innocents had been killed? Does Gellar have any responsibility especially if she knew that the threat of violence could occur?  Now Gellar is talking about another similar event. She knows the potential outcome. Should she be allowed to still conduct the event with the likelihood of violence?

There has to be common sense with the Freedom of Speech, especially since the threat of violence with Islamic nuts is likelihood, and even more so when the intent is to rile them up to commit violence. This is not intimidation succeeding as you suggest. This is plain common sense.

182  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The left dreams of disarmament on: December 15, 2015, 01:37:43 PM

183  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: December 15, 2015, 09:22:48 AM
So when the Donald alienates people, that's good, but when Cruz does it, it's bad?
184  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / No Fly List on: December 15, 2015, 09:02:38 AM
Ah, but despite the image they attempt to cultivate, they do not defend the constitutional rights of everyone, just those that fit their leftist agenda.

Lefties like Limbaugh and Nazis.  

The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei aka National Socialist German Workers' Party aka the Nazi party was pretty darn socialist and was praised by the American Communists that the ACLU sprang from until the Soviet-Nazi alliance fell apart.

The ACLU defending Limbaugh was a pretty clever gambit, was it not? Or do you think it was motivated by something other than a desire to cultivate the facade that the ACLU is a non-partisan defender of civil rights?

ACLU: Hey, sure, let’s strip constitutional rights without due process!

Share on Facebook 165 165 SHARES
Defenders of the ACLU argue that all Americans should support the group’s efforts to defend civil liberties and protect the Constitution. Critics respond that the ACLU spends its time defending the parts of the Constitution it likes, but otherwise it’s not terribly interested and sometimes outright hostile. That’s especially true for the right to bear arms — and perhaps for the 6th and 7th Amendments, too:

The American Civil Liberties Union sees no constitutional problem with preventing people on the watch list from buying guns, for example. But the means by which they are placed on the list, and their options for clearing their names, must be more transparent.

Congress recently voted down legislation to prohibit those on terrorism watch lists from buying firearms. President Barack Obama backed the effort in an Oval Office speech on Sunday night.

The legislative fight prompted contretemps from some leading voices of the intellectual left that had, until recently, warned of terrorism watch lists’ fundamental constitutional problems.

“There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform,” said Hina Shamsi, director of ACLU’s National Security Project, in an emailed statement.
Er, what? The issue here isn’t whether government can legislate “reasonable regulation of guns,” but whether the government can suspend constitutional rights without abiding by the Bill of Rights.

The no-fly list is by its nature merely a collection of people whom the government suspects of criminal activity. The only major reform possible would be to actually charge these suspects and prove their case in court, which would make any “list” irrelevant. When it comes to suspending a right explicitly provided in the Constitution — not just access to airlines — the government should have to comply with the due-process restrictions in the Constitution as well. That includes the 6th and 7th Amendments protections of a trial by jury and the right to see all of the evidence and confront all of the witnesses the government uses to propose denying those rights.

Let’s put this in a different context. The ACLU likes to point out that it defends unpopular positions by reminding people of their defense of the National Socialist Party of America’s (NSPA, a neo-Nazi group) right to peaceably assemble in Skokie, Illinois and march with swastikas in an attempt to humiliate the significant Jewish community there. Would the ACLU have switched sides if the government had argued that their secret list of potential domestic-terrorism threats included the NSPA’s leadership and/or several members who would be expected to participate (certainly a possibility), and therefore they had to be restrained from peaceable assemblies as guaranteed by the First Amendment? If not, how is this position any different? Part of the city’s argument in that case was that violence would be likely to occur, so it was also a question of public safety — and yet the ACLU correctly  stood on the side of the Constitution.

Or, let’s use an example closer to today. France shut down three mosques last week (Jazz will have more on this later today), based on “a pattern of radicalization.” Will the ACLU cheer that action in the US if the government claims that the leaders and/or the followers in a mosque are on the no-fly list but never charge anyone in relation to that? What kind of “major reform” of the no-fly list would make them support its use in closing down mosques … or synagogues … or churches? For “public safety” and/or “national security”? If none short of a public trial that again would make a “list” irrelevant anyway, then why would they support its use for denying other constitutional rights?

When it comes to the Second Amendment, not only can’t the ACLU be bothered to defend it (and due process guarantees of the 6th and 7th Amendments), they’re willing to torpedo the right to bear arms. It’s that kind of hypocrisy that generates animosity toward the ACLU, and reveals them to be not civil-liberties champions but an activist group for progressive causes.

Basically, the ACLU is endorsing a Precrime Division in federal law enforcement, for those who saw the film Minority Report. In my column today for The Week, I reference the film in arguing that not only is this approach an affront to the Constitution and due process, it’s also a complete non-sequitur when it comes to public safety:

Nothing requires the federal government to actually charge people on this list. Nor are there requirements to remove people even if they have been acquitted of charges relating to terrorism, as The Intercept discovered when they acquired the procedure manual for the no-fly list. “The rulebook justifies this by noting that conviction in U.S. courts requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas watchlisting requires only a reasonable suspicion,” Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux reported. “Once suspicion is raised, even a jury’s verdict cannot erase it.”

The courts have stepped in to stop this process. In June 2014, a federal judge ruled the process unconstitutional, a violation of the Fifth Amendment rights. Now Obama and his fellow Democrats want to use this unconstitutional process to deny Second Amendment rights too, and apply it to people who have never been charged or even perhaps questioned about the risk they supposedly represent.

And for what purpose? Which of the terrorist attacks cited by Obama in his speech — which included two he had never before acknowledged as such, the Fort Hood shooting and the Chattanooga attack on a military recruiting office — would a no-fly gun ban have prevented? None of them. None of the suspects were on the no-fly list. Farook and Malik flew last year with no problems, and Fort Hood terrorist Nidal Hasan was still in the Army. In fact, even after Russia warned the FBI about Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011, the U.S. allowed him to fly to Russia and back in 2012.

In other words, the no-fly list is not just unconstitutional, it’s also a red herring. Democrats want to change the subject from the failure of this administration to prevent these attacks. When government feels the need to strip Americans of their constitutional rights — including the right to bear arms — they should prove their case in court while allowing for full due process. That is precisely why our founders wrote the Constitution in the first place: to protect a free people against the whimsy of tyrants. And it doesn’t take a soggy precog to predict that the threat won’t stop with the Second Amendment, either.
It doesn’t take a soggy precog to predict the ACLU’s position on this, either.

Update: My good friend and guest blogger Gabriel Malor asks a fair question:

The ACLU argued that they want due process protections added too, but that gets things backward. A no-fly list, even with opportunities to challenge one’s status and gain removal, still operates as a guilty-until-proven innocent mechanism. Furthermore, even assuming one gets to challenge this and cross-examine witnesses (which doesn’t seem likely), it would still be a citizen suing to regain his constitutional right that was taken from him without a government conviction. And what would be the evidentiary level needed to restore one’s rights? Preponderance? Reasonable doubt? In which direction?

The only legitimate method for denying an explicit and foundational constitutional right is for the government to go to court and establish the facts beyond a reasonable doubt first, allowing the accused all of the protections that the Bill of Rights and precedent allow in prosecutions. And once you have that, what purpose does a no-fly list serve at that point? The no-fly list wouldn’t be the basis on which to deny any rights at all; a court decision would be that basis. And that should be the only basis on which to deny those rights.
185  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / DHS monitors Americans, but not visa applicants social media on: December 15, 2015, 08:34:15 AM

186  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Qualified! on: December 14, 2015, 04:59:47 PM

Fearing a civil liberties backlash and "bad public relations" for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end the secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, according to a former senior department official.

"During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process," John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis. Cohen is now a national security consultant for ABC News.
187  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Tibor Rubin on: December 14, 2015, 03:38:42 PM

188  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / We are losing on: December 14, 2015, 03:16:43 PM

OPINION: Why We’re Losing the War on Terror and How We Can Win
Is the United States Losing the War on Terror?

I think so. For some background, below is a brief synopsis of two strategies developed by the United States to combat/counter terrorism.

The Strategy and End State; 2003-2010
The United States 4D Strategy to Combat Terrorism from 2003-2010.

The United States and its partners will defeat terrorist organizations of global reach by attacking their sanctuaries; leadership; command, control, and communications; material support; and finances.
Deny further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists by ensuring other states accept their responsibilities to take action against these international threats within their sovereign territory.
Diminish the underlying conditions that terrorist seek to exploit by enlisting the international community to focus its efforts and resources on the areas most at risk.
Defend the United States, our citizens, and our interests at home and abroad by both proactively protecting our homeland and extending our defenses to ensure we identify and neutralize the threat as early as possible.
The End State:
Victory against terrorism will not occur as a single, defining moment. It will not be marked by the likes of the surrender ceremony on the deck of the USS Missouri that ended World War II. However, through the sustained effort to compress the scope and capability of terrorist organizations, isolate them regionally, and destroy them within state borders, the United States and its friends and allies will secure a world in which our children can live free from fear and where the threat of terrorist attacks does not define our daily lives.
Victory, therefore, will be secured only as long as the United States and the international community maintain their vigilance and work tirelessly to prevent terrorists from inflicting horrors like those of September 11, 2001.
The US Strategy; 2011-Present

In 2011 the Obama administration modified the Bush administration’s Strategy by developing The National Strategy for Counterterrorism.

Our Overarching Goals
The United States aims to achieve eight overarching CT goals. Taken together, these desired end states articulate a framework for the success of the United States global counterterrorism mission.
– Protect the American People, Homeland, and American Interests. The most solemn responsibility of the President and the United States Government is to protect the American people, both at home and abroad. This includes eliminating threats to their physical safety, countering threats to global peace and security, and promoting and protecting U.S. interests around the globe.
– Disrupt, Degrade, Dismantle, and Defeat al-Qa‘ida and Its Affiliates and Adherents. The American people and interests will not be secure from attacks until this threat is eliminated—its primary individuals and groups rendered powerless, and its message relegated to irrelevance.
– Prevent Terrorist Development, Acquisition, and Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The danger of nuclear terrorism is the greatest threat to global security. Terrorist organizations, including al-Qa‘ida, have engaged in efforts to develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD)—and if successful, they are likely to use them.
– Eliminate Safehavens. Al-Qa‘ida and its affiliates and adherents rely on the physical sanctuary of ungoverned or poorly governed territories, where the absence of state control permits terrorists to travel, train, and engage in plotting. In close coordination with foreign partners, the United States will continue to contest and diminish al-Qa‘ida’s operating space through mutually reinforcing efforts designed to prevent al-Qa‘ida from taking advantage of these ungoverned spaces.
– Build Enduring Counterterrorism Partnerships and Capabilities. Foreign partners are essential to the success of our CT efforts; these states are often themselves the target of—and on the front lines in countering—terrorist threats. The United States will continue to rely on and leverage the capabilities of its foreign partners even as it looks to contribute to their capacity and bolster their will. To achieve our objectives, partners must demonstrate the willingness and ability to operate independently, augmenting and complementing U.S. CT efforts with their unique insights and capabilities in their countries and regions.
– Degrade Links between al-Qa‘ida and its Affiliates and Adherents. Al-Qa‘ida senior leaders in Pakistan continue to leverage local and regional affiliates and adherents worldwide through formal and informal alliances to advance their global agenda. Al-Qa‘ida exploits local grievances to bolster recruitment, expand its operational reach, destabilize local governments, and reinforce safehavens from which it and potentially other terrorist groups can operate and attack the United States.
– Counter al-Qa‘ida Ideology and Its Resonance and Diminish the Specific Drivers of Violence that al-Qa‘ida Exploits. This Strategy prioritizes U.S. and partner efforts to undercut al-Qa‘ida’s fabricated legitimization of violence and its efforts to spread its ideology. As we have seen in the Middle East and North Africa, al-Qa‘ida’s calls for perpetual violence to address longstanding grievances have met a devastating rebuke in the face of nonviolent mass movements that seek solutions through expanded individual rights. Along with the majority of people across all religious and cultural traditions, we aim for a world in which al-Qa‘ida is openly and widely rejected by all audiences as irrelevant to their aspirations and concerns, a world where al-Qa‘ida’s ideology does not shape perceptions of world and local events, inspire violence, or serve as a recruiting tool for the group or its adherents.
– Deprive Terrorists of their Enabling Means. Al-Qa‘ida and its affiliates and adherents continue to derive significant financial support from donors in the Persian Gulf region and elsewhere through kidnapping for ransom and from exploitation of or control over lucrative elements of the local economy.
Many things are very wrong with our counter-terrorism strategy and have been wrong for a long time.  Neither the Bush nor Obama Administrations have had a successful strategy.  The Obama Administration’s strategy, although lengthy, sounds like a global community organizer’s touchy-feely plan to build a better community rather than a strategy to combat an enemy and keep American citizens safe.  One other huge problem with Obama’s plan is this statement in his strategy document (2011):

“The United States deliberately uses the word “war” to describe our relentless campaign against al-Qa‘ida. However, this Administration has made it clear that we are not at war with the tactic of terrorism or the religion of Islam. We are at war with a specific organization—al-Qa‘ida.”
When you read the Obama strategy, you’ll notice that he and his administration are really only interested in making al-Qa‘ida “irrelevant” and not defeating the true enemy.  The Obama administration sees the “terrorists” as criminals and not combatants.

Neither the Bush or the Obama administration has made good on its strategy to secure the homeland or take the fight abroad.  Our political and military decision makers have failed the American people.  The reality is that we’re not safer today than we were just after 911.  Why is that?

1. We do not have a strategy that clearly defines who our nation’s enemies are and what our end state is.
2. We fail to truly understand the ideology and culture of who we are fighting.
3. We have a terrible information campaign at home and abroad.
4. We have never mobilized our nation (its people or industrial complex) to deal with the threat.
5. We have not sealed our borders or made it harder for potential enemies to enter.
6. We haven’t figured out yet that we have no Muslim Allies.  Some of our so called “allies” are actually subverting us and we are continuing to allow them to do so.

The reality is that we are not fighting a war on terror, but a Global Islamic Insurgency.  This insurgency crosses borders because of a common Islamic ideology and theology that is outlined in the Quran and Hadith. Depending on the area of the world, this insurgency can be in any of the three phases outlined in the U.S. Army Counterguerrilla Handbook:

PHASE I: Latent and Incipient Insurgency. Activity in this phase ranges from subversive activity, which is only a potential threat, to situations where frequent subversive incidents and activities occur in a pattern. It involves no major outbreak of violence or uncontrolled insurgent activity. The insurgent force does not conduct continuous operations but rather selected acts of terrorism. An insurgency could achieve victory during this phase.
PHASE II: Guerrilla Warfare. This phase is reached when the insurgent movement, having gained enough local external support, initiates organized continuous guerrilla warfare or related forms of violence against a government. This is an attempt to force government forces into a defensive role. As the insurgent becomes stronger, he begins to conduct larger operations.
PHASE III: War of Movement. When the insurgent attains the force structure and ability to directly engage government forces in decisive combat, he begins to use more conventional tactics.
The fact that everyone will not admit that this is a Global Islamic Insurgency that crosses all borders is problematic. It’s problematic because Western nations really don’t know how to deal with it because they want to be politically correct.  The reality is we have no time to be politically correct and we need to make the Islamic world accountable for their own actions or lack of actions.

The United States has screwed around long enough during the last 14 years.  The world is more dangerous now because our decision makers continue to make poor decisions.  Can this be turned around?  Sure, but it will take a major shift in policy and the U.S. population needs to understand that this is about survival.  Their very way of life, socially and economically, is being threatened in more ways than one because they choose to be uninformed.  Our strategy for far too long has been focused on a defensive strategy rather than an offensive strategy.  When we have a president and administration who believes that climate change is the cause of terrorism, we have some real problems.  Our people can no longer be naive about the world or be complacent about their own security here at home.

If we are tired of war or unprepared as a nation to take this war to our enemies then we need to retreat home to the security of our self-declared “Safe Space”, continue our poor existence with blinders on and take what’s coming to us.  If we feel that this war is necessary for us to fight, then we need to get off our high horse and be prepared to get bloody because that is what it’s going to take to change their ideology.  Forget about nation building; that’s gotten us nowhere and has never worked until we brought a society to its knees and they capitulated.  We will not get the Islamic world to change their thought process by passing out money or building McDonald’s and KFC chains in their communities.  However, bringing death and destruction quickly and violently to bring their culture to its knees has worked all throughout history.  Some poor Islamic nation is going to have to be the example of that kind of horror that sends a message throughout the Islamic world that enough is enough.  They need to fully understand that with every transgression there will be horrific consequences.  When the rest of the Islamic world asks “Why?”, we need to be prepared to explain to them that “this was Allah’s will” and that they and their people had committed great sins for if not then why did their people reap such a punishment.


John Hurth is a former Special Forces soldier who served multiple overseas tours in support of the Global War on Terror.  He’s now the chief instructor at Tyr Group, which provides training to members of the military as well as civilians, and the author of the Combat Tracking Guide.
189  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Qualified! on: December 14, 2015, 03:07:19 PM

Strange, I can't imagine that the QUALIFIED Jeh Johnson would allow that to happen on his watch.
190  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Qualified! on: December 14, 2015, 03:00:33 PM

#Invalid YouTube Link#
191  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Sharia hurts on: December 14, 2015, 02:08:33 PM

Religion of peace.
192  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Psyops on: December 13, 2015, 06:43:12 AM

Fight back!
193  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: A little help please 2.0 on: December 13, 2015, 06:03:17 AM

90% of Muslims ruin it for all the rest.
194  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Feel good video of the day on: December 12, 2015, 07:40:57 PM

#Invalid YouTube Link#

195  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Background checks! on: December 12, 2015, 10:42:05 AM

196  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / I find myself liking Trump more and more... on: December 12, 2015, 10:18:30 AM

My response to the "Prince" would have been much more profane.
197  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: San Berdoo assassins apartment not dusted for fingerprints and more on: December 11, 2015, 01:50:18 PM

198  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Benghazi and related matters on: December 11, 2015, 10:55:55 AM
I know, I know, but in this case does its' response have merit or not?

No. Unless you believe that no Obama administration official would lie or engage in a cover up.
199  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Or maybe not , , , on: December 11, 2015, 10:39:11 AM

Media matters?  rolleyes
200  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Clinton News Network on: December 11, 2015, 09:56:17 AM
CNN - no surprise here.
GM did you see CNN's latest commercial for the upcoming Republican debate?  I thought it is totally obnoxious, money grubbing, disgrace. 
I loved Trump demanding 5 million from the liberal network.  I think all the Republicans should demand a percentage of the take.

I don't have cable.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 266
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!