Featured Post

The Coup Attempt Continues

Some eight days before Trump's inauguration, and in the midst of the Russia hysteria, I wrote I have never seen such a pile on as the ...

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

The Right of National Defense

Writing this post on Memorial Day, my thoughts, of course, turned to those who fought and died to preserve our country. My thoughts also turned to the issue of national defense, in general, and whether we still "get it." We all--well, most of us-- understand defending our nation when it comes under physical attack, e.g., Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and most of us--well, many of us--also understand that at times one must defend our country from threats that have not yet blown through our door, e.g., the Kaiser's and the Nazi Fuehrer's Germany, Il Duce's Italy, Kim's North Korea, and Saddam's Iraq come to mind.

The military provides the most obvious tool we have to defend our nation. For the better part of the past century the USA has kept a formidable military institution with a dazzling range of much-tested capabilities unmatched by any other nation in history. Even under the appalling Mr. Obama, the United States has the only military that can reach and blow apart any place on the globe. I hope that remains the case for many, many years to come. That, however, is nowhere near enough to defend the country from the threats now faced.

We have many other well-funded "defense" institutions, and I hope, for example, that my nearly 34 years in the State Department contributed in some small way to the national defense. As an aside, I have long thought that the Department of State should be renamed the Department of Defense, and our current DoD go back to its original and much more evocative name, the Department of War. The name changes might help members of both Departments with clarity of mission. Some of our national "defense" institutions are OK at their job, e.g., CIA, FBI, NSA; while others, such as State and Justice are highly erratic, and need to be pared down and refocused; and some such as the bloated and wasteful Department of Homeland should be broken up and many of the pieces outright thrown away.

None of our government institutions, however, can over the long term defend our nation without a major change in thinking within our nation about our nation. What kind of a nation do we want? What kind of Western civilization do we want? For that debate, let's go to the UK. There it seems, at least to this outside observer, that the debate has begun in earnest in the wake of the Woolwich savagery which saw two Muslims brutally murder a young soldier in the name of Allah. There are also reports of an attempted killing of a British prison warden by Islamic prisoners "radicalized" in prison. We now see growing outrage over Muslim violence in Britain and what, apparently, was a leftist attempt to alter radically the nature of British society by encouraging immigration from poor countries and have those immigrants become dependent on and vote for Labour. It appears from documents recently made available that this was a planned effort. The Labour politicians involved in altering Britain's immigration laws deliberately sought to change British society, and knew the country would see a rise in social pathologies such as crime as a result. A visitor to any major British city can testify that Labour's plan has succeeded, social pathologies and all. Some two to three million immigrants from the third world entered the UK in less than ten years. The Labour politicians understood that this radical attempt to alter British society would not have public approval, so they did what leftist politicians do best: lie and label as "racist" anybody opposed to this massive social engineering.

Sound vaguely familiar? This is not unlike what happened in the US with the horrid 1965 immigration law which significantly changed the source of our immigration away from Europe to the third world, put the emphasis on "family reunification," and created a whole new class of people dependent on the government and the Democratic party urban machine. The effect, however, has proven more dramatic in Britain for a number of reasons. The US, of course, is much larger and since its creation has been an immigrant-based country; while our founding political and ethical traditions come largely from England, we are used to a relatively high degree of racial, ethnic, and religious diversity. That was not the case in the UK or in the rest of Europe where nationalities were akin to racial groupings, or at the very least well defined tribes. Those European countries, consequently, were much less adept at incorporating immigrants into the life of the nation than the more heterogenous less densely populated USA. Massive immigration to Europe from Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean has proven more jarring and disruptive than in the US. With, however, the rise of  leftist multiculturalism in the US, and the extension of a vast social welfare state, our once vaunted ability to "melt" immigrants and recast them as Americans has suffered. We have begun increasingly to resemble the European nations as they struggle to retain their tribal identity.

VS Naipaul once remarked that Indian immigrants in Britain never make the final journey; they remain Indian. That is even more so for those followers of totalitarian Islam which insists that those who are not Muslim, must be converted, enslaved, or killed. Islam demands that visitors or residents in the countries where it holds sway pay its strictures and customs great heed or risk severe punishment. Islam also demands that those countries which allow Muslim immigrants to live there must also pay great heed to Islam's strictures and sensitivities or risk severe punishment. As I have said many times, try to build a church in Saudi Arabia, impossible; try to stop a mosque from being built next to Ground Zero in NYC, impossible.  

It seems that perhaps, perhaps, perhaps you can only push the English tribe so far. We perhaps are seeing the stirrings of a "backlash," in others words, of a demand that those who live in England, and enjoy its freedoms and benefits, comply with English law and tradition, or get voted and booted off the island. Before I go on, let me make clear that I am not English, and have no English or any other British ancestry. I, however, have great admiration for Britain and England, in particular, and am heartened to see that--it appears, it seems, just maybe--the British, and the English, in particular, have begun to reach their limit. We see, for example, the rise of the UKIP--somewhat similar to the Tea Party movement here in the US--calling foul on the EU and its socialist/totalitarian pretensions and challenging the increasingly ossified Tory party to stand up for Britain.

We also see the EDL (English Defence League) on the rise, again--I add "apparently." I know that the press habitually labels the EDL "far right extremists." I don't know if they are, and maybe the EDL originates as charged by its opponents with football hooliganism. Having read much of what the EDL has written and gone to its website, I am not clear what it is about their positions, remarkably well-written and thoughtful for a bunch of "football hooligans," that makes them far-right. I do not know what their economic policies are and what they think about socialized medicine and welfare payments or the size of government. The positions they take on defending England from Islamic extremism, however, seem very reasonable and something most Americans could support. I don't find them racist, at all. Again, I don't know them well, and might be embarrassed by some smoking gun firing "racist bullets," but I get suspicious when the media and the political establishment dismiss a grassroots movement as "far right extremists" and provide no evidence. We have heard that here in the US, too, re the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, and conservatives in general. I wonder, therefore, would that make those who favor Islamic immigration, left-wing extremists? Hmmm. Well, that part of the equation just might be true given the documents we see coming out of the Freedom of Information process in the UK.

This has gotten a bit long. Let me wrap up by saying that it does no good to have elaborate military and police organizations, and committees looking into extremism, if we let the enemy enter through our front doors. Make no mistake, as I noted before, "We should be at war; instead, we are under attack." It should be a total war, not just restricted to drones and incursions in far away hamlets in Pakistan and North Africa. We need to look, inter alia, at our energy policies that send billions of dollars to corrupt Islamist regimes, and at our immigration and public assistance policies that let the enemy into our countries and then pay them to live here, and transform our societies into a copy of the corrupt societies from which they came.

Islam is not a religion like any other. It is a totalitarian, life destroying creed that has been attacking us since the seventh century.

As we honor our dead on Memorial Day, we must ask, have we kept faith with those whom we asked to risk and even sacrifice their lives for our national defense?


  1. Since 9/11/2001, we have spent somewhere around 8 trillion dollars on our military? Have we gotten our moneys worth? Judging by results, not by a long shot. Whose fault is that? Different people have different answers, but the result is still the same,

    1. You "might find" some answers here:



    2. A "shortish" excerpt from the CRS report (embedded) from the link above:

      "A number of analysts have attempted to quantify the extent of fraud, waste, and abuse in U.S. government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Special Inspector for Iraq Reconstruction estimated that waste associated with Iraq relief and reconstruction efforts totaled at least $8 billion.33 The Commission on Wartime Contracting estimated that between $31 billion and $60 billion was lost to contract waste and fraud in contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.34
      While the total cost of contract fraud, waste, and abuse may never be known, there is general agreement that the billions of dollars squandered by numerous federal agencies as a result of insufficient planning, management, and oversight could have been used to achieve other operational priorities.

      "U.S. government investigations found that U.S. money for contracts in Afghanistan has been used to pay the Taliban in exchange for security. The Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Agency for International Development found “indications that Afghan subcontractors... had paid insurgents for protection in remote and insecure areas of Afghanistan.”39 The majority report issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs similarly found evidence that U.S. contractors made protection payments to local warlords to secure safe passage of supply convoys. The investigation further found that protection payments may even have gone to the Taliban.40 A Senate Armed Services Committee report found evidence of U.S.-funded prime contractors supporting the Taliban and subcontracting to warlords."


  2. Another superb posting, with clarity, reality, and wisdom, by Dip. Why can't all the politicians, be so plain and straight arrow? It is impossible for them. I agree in every detail, and make my attempt to elaborate, and flesh out a bit on the latter part of Dip's terrific screed.

    More people and sites, as above, are awakening to the above truths, slowly, agonizingly slowly.

    [And what I say is: Do you know of any "religion", ever, that has done and caused the murder of well over a quarter trillion souls, horribly, continuing well over onto a third trillion murdered and butchered souls, for over 1400 years, starting in medina, in about 632CE?

    Do you know of a "religion" that requires multiple acts of butchery and death, eternally, first to non-believers, and additionally as well to less-well believers, or other types of believers.

    Do you know of any "religion" that has a god? that actually requires, orders, and authorizes every unimaginable crime, including murder, lies, rape, pedophilia, cannibalism, etc. and a giant litany of crimes to be wrought to advance the conquest eternally and non-stop, of the "religion"? Do you know of "religions" that demand automatically, the death of anyone who decides to leave or to criticize the "religion", even if they came into it under lies and misrepresentations being committed to sucker them.?

    Do you know of a "religion" that authorizes beating, stoning to death, of disobedient only half a man's worth women of multiple wives and the murdering of same if they are raped? Do you know of a religion that authorizes or excuses, the rape of a child, or a baby, or the marriage of a child as young as 6, or the murder to correct imaginary family honor, if a woman doesn't behave, as a youth, or sibling? And authorizes slavery, sex and black, brown, and sometimes white slaves, etc.?]


    Would you personally, assuming the above just in the brackets, description is accurate by 100%, call such a group a “religion”, ever, or allow it to be described as a “religion”, just because the evildoer members say they must conquer by killing, raping, and pillaging, as theocratic imperialists, as is their "religion"?

    I know of no such "religion", just an overdone syndicated criminal group, that awaits being put in their permanent place, beside other failed destructive groups, or gangs, or cults, more permanently then with true heroes V. Tepes, C. Martel, J. Sobieski. I've read the history well, of these and other heroes.

    People are awakening to the overwhelming picture of unimaginable 1400 year reality, and the gigantic put on by a bunch of lying barbaric pagans from the desert.


    If this screed, makes me a mad man, too bad, deal with it, it isn't in the same universe as mohammad, whom far too many people have suffered from, within and without, under the evil hand of "submission"! It is long past time for the populace to awaken, and deal with mohammadanism.

    1. Heh, forgot to answer question in the negative, along with anon, "not by a long shot" especially with our heroes blood and suffering, and our dollars, both earned and borrowed, by hussein. Far worse and less, with this regime, but we didn't do as well as Bushes both might have, could have, had they understood mohammadanism, the muselman, islam, very well, along with whatever they understood. Jack

  3. Offered without (too much) comment - but be certain to read theirs:



  4. How about a greater threat to America than al Qaeda - Marco Rubio - The chief pusher, faceman and spokesmouth for The Comprehensive Plan To Destroy America?

    1. Rubio is kindergarten level, in comparison, anon, may28, 11:46.

      Only one group requires, absolutely requires to not assimilate when it does "hijra" conquering, that means conquering by emmigration swarming, and reproducing by herd and raping. Not even after generations in the host country. Only one. islam, only.

      All the rest will eventually assimilate, but not mohammadans under koranic requirement. Only islam makes all adherants to actually be effectively on a "mission to conquer", and force the host nation to convert, whether they know it yet, or care, or not. They will be made to understand that if they do not now. Or they can be murdered by their enforcers, just like mafia, if they vote with their feet and leave. Thank the real God, they do leave, anyway, and lots do.

      Read this for a take by one of many famous apostates,(a former muslim), now cartoonist and blogger-writer of muselmanic ill repute, and Western heroism, writing here (for the former radical, now excellent heroic conservative) site:


      Or read here at a realists blog, whom I know nothing about, except I agree wholly with his take. It may not happen tommorrow, but it must happen.

      Bosch commented that we did not speak such crazy nonsense as ...."“Radical Nazism”, “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism” in the past. “Militant Islam”, Political Islam”, etc., are redundant terms. Our pretending otherwise has proven disastrous. Thousands of American lives, both civilian and military, have been sacrificed because of policies predicated on the myth that “Islam means peace.” We didn’t try to reform Shinto or Nazism during World War II; the major changes in those cultures took place only after we thoroughly de-militarized them."...... This excerpt is from the Bosch article. Quality thinking, by Bosch.


      I have nothing against good people as immigrants. Especially well educated ones. Our immigration policy is a dangerous joke, badly wrong, by people, a mere regime, who have a dynastic agenda, only, not an American agenda! Immigrants are just pawns, nowadays, to be played into the socialist democrat's game of thrones. Which has nothing to do with America, the Constitution, or the Republic or Democracy. Just about their dynasty, at all costs.

      Rubio is better than some, but he doesn't get it, and is wrong. But he is kindergarten wrong compared to what Dip has written of, and the writers I have presented here, and what I have written about. And its about time more Americans and Westerns do the hard deed and learn, by researching for themselves. Start at Jihad Watch.


    2. In case a different angle might get our writers points across, this angle might help to understand the big picture, the perspective of the absurdity of islam as being imagined a religion. Only "nutters" might think it so, to paraphrase annaraccoon from arkie, above.


      This is how obvious it is, as an excerpt from above:

      ..."2. How many slaves did Jesus take (and rape)?
      5. How many poisoned swords named “Death!” did Jesus own and use to behead enemies?
      6. How many times did Jesus lie, say “God is the greatest deceiver!” and rob and extort people?".....

      This is how ridiculous is mohammadanism, everyone. This evil group can be compared to the sayings of Budha, and others, even the Dahli Lama. The starkness of contrast freezes one in shock!

      Only one is pure criminal master, along with hitler, mao, idi amin, lenin, pol pot, etc.
      Religion, my a** Not even a pretender, when you know it backwards and forwards.

      It is a dangerous fraud that deceives a gullible public, lying to America, while infiltrating and working on weakening prior to taking over from within, hopefully to them, like the slowly warmng to boiling, the soon to be boiled frog in the pot, they hope.

      Place people where can be done, get more in, then get the sharis, then trash the Constitution. Fait Acompli. Land of the Lost! Is that what Americans will let happen?

  5. Note to Diplomad: I wish you were in charge.
    J Motes

    1. Second that- I was also thinking that it would be nice to have a Republican candidate that served up the red meat as eloquently as Diplomad. Hey, he just retired- why not a run for congress? I will pledge 200$, no sweat.

  6. Judging from the timestamp I'm figuring Dip, you're not in my precinct - but heck, I'll kick in a couple hundred as well.


  7. Dip, you mentioned UKIP - sorry, meant to shine a "little light" where the English and UKIP are concerned. This from a friend of mine - he just turned 74 last week so I consider his enthusiasm general. The commenters are (the ones I know) range from 62 to about the same as David's.



    1. Have you tried Google URL Shortner? http://goo.gl/ It shortens the URL and it makes it dynamic. Max.

  8. @Jack--I was a consular officer and administered immigration law on a day-to-day basis. Frankly, I have nothing against a lot of LEGAL immigrants, including "Third World" (horrible term) ones. I live in a community where a lot of people are from various parts of Asia and even a lot of white people speak English as a second language. I teach ESOL in an even more heavily neighborhood that is largely Hispanic and African (fresh off the plane, that is). A very large number of immigrants of any color are American wannabes, and slowly but surely getting their wish.

    Yes, there are pathologies that excessive immigration has brought us. But I'm more for enforcing laws we now have on the books (including personnel to do the job) than for any comprehensive immigration reform.

    And, Mr. Mad, often, when I read a column by Pat Buchanan, I leave a note that he left the good old cause that gave us our freedom, [Protestant] religion, and laws for allegiance to a deluded Italian (now Argentine) prince, and sarcastically suggest we'd be better off with the Korean Presbyterian, Latin Evangelical, and Dutch Reformed Cape Colored immigrants of today than with the "Teagues" of yesteryear with whom he's thrown in his lot (remembering earlier anti-immigrant sentiment).