RUTHFULLY YOURS

Those of you who visit the Voltaire Press Facebook site should be advised that I have been permanently blocked from leaving comments on it that contradict the premises, assumptions, and conclusions of the pro-open borders and pro-open immigration narrative, and, indeed, from even visiting the Voltaire Press Facebook site.

Also, the new manager of Voltaire Press remains anonymous, and has refused multiple times to identify himself. It is certainly not Gary Hull, who has vanished, but who would never upbraid me for providing links to news stories that contradict that narrative (I am aware of the particulars of his status, as some of you might be).

Most of the patrons who do leave posts on the Voltaire Press page are what I call rationalizing, picayune “bean counters” and dabblers trying to reconcile Objectivism, a philosophy of reason, with a variety of straw men issues, and who deny the perils of an Obama-staged invasion of illegals, not only from Mexico and Central America, but now, it has been reported by Texas and the FBI, by Islamic jihadists from the Mideast and Africa. This is aside from their erroneous premise that the U.S. it not at war with Islam (contrary to what President Obama said in Cairo and elsewhere, Islam is at war with us), and so immigration restrictions of potentially hostile immigrants are not morally justified. This is tantamount to residents of a burning building discussing the nature of fire, about who might or might not be the arsonist, and having a coffee klatch to discuss shades of meaning, instead of escaping from the conflagration or attempting to put out the flames.

It’s the caliber of intellectual discussion that gives intellectual discussion a bad name.

Anyway, visit Voltaire Press on Facebook and see for yourself the character of the discussion. I’m done with Voltaire Press, and it with me. I’ll continue to fight the battles that need to be fought, and Voltaire Press can go on bean-counting and erecting scarecrows.

Another person’s posts whose arguments against the unrealistic policies of open borders and open immigration were also deleted. I do not know if he has been banned, as well.

Seeds of tyranny also grow where political correctness reign

The Islamic State (usually called ISIS) and the other advocates of Shariah law are growing rapidly, along with their zeal to eradicate or convert all “infidels.” For those who are asleep at the wheel, in the opinion of these fanatics, most of Western civilization — including America — fits into the infidel category.

I normally encourage conversation and compromise where possible, but how does one negotiate or compromise with someone who desires your elimination? Maybe if you meet some of their demands, they will only dismember you or kill you more slowly. Obviously, the expansion of groups like the Islamic State represents an existential threat to our own nation and our way of life. If ever there was a time to work together for self-preservation, the time is now. There really is no time to squabble about who was right and who was wrong in the past regarding our activities in the Middle East. Our enemies will use every opportunity to divide us and distract us, which will make their jobs of destroying us much easier.

In order to prevail in the war on terrorism, we must have an overall strategy, the goal of which is annihilation of the terrorists, as opposed to simply winning battles with them here and there. This means paying much more attention to military preparedness, both offensive and defensive. That means significantly increasing our covert operations, without blabbing to the world about what we will or will not do. It means cultivating strong and trusting relationships with our allies and never leaving them to worry about abandonment for political reasons. It means helping other countries in the region to realize that they, too, will soon be targets of the Islamic State, which will radically alter their comfortable lives.

When it comes to elimination of those trying to destroy us, we have to be smart enough to realize that we must have airtight borders to prevent easy access for terrorists. Some say this is too difficult. I guarantee that it is easier than trying to rebuild a nation that has been destroyed because we thought logical defense was too difficult. There is no question that unpleasantries brought about by our own forces will be necessary to accomplish our goals and defeat terrorism, but you cannot win a politically correct war.

Our enemies’ desire to establish a caliphate is no joke. Their convert-or-die doctrine parallels some of the social philosophies enforced by the political correctness police in this country. Either you must accept their interpretation of what is moral and correct or the name-calling starts, and they attempt to destroy your business or your reputation. We despise the Islamic State, but do not see the same ugliness in our own tactics. The truth hurts, and it is much easier to ignore it or try to demonize its bearer. Unless integrity, courage and common sense result in the ability to honestly examine our own hypocrisy, we will lose the war of ideas and identity, and the land of the free will become a distant memory.

I’ve been privileged to get to know some incredibly smart and talented military leaders, as well as covert operators and innovative engineers. I am confident that with our talent and faith, we cannot only win this war, we can show the world a better way.

There’s chatter, and there’s chatter, and only a trained intelligence ear can tell the difference. The trained ears are trying now to determine what to make of the chatter about a new attack on the United States, here or abroad and perhaps coordinated by the Islamic State (usually called ISIS).

If there’s anything to the chatter (and sometimes there is), we may soon be treated to what happens when Barack Obama employs his famous tactic of “leading from behind.” We have to call it a tactic and not a strategy, since the president says he doesn’t have a strategy.

He might one day get one, but he says he “doesn’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet.” He might not have the cart yet, either, and there’s certainly no sign of a horse. Such hope is based on the works of Alfred E. Neuman, the famous comic-book philosopher, celebrated for how he deals with disaster: “What, me worry?”

Certain national-security officers, who have heard the chatter and measured it against what they think they can expect, based on painful experience, do worry. They are not so carefree and cheerful as Mr. Neuman might be. “We’ve noticed a significant increase in chatter among Islamic terrorist organizations both on the Internet and telephone lines,” a U.S. government security officer tells the Blaze, an Internet news site.

Intelligence officers won’t say whether they think an attack is imminent, the officer says, but “agencies did see this kind of increase in chatter before the September 11 attacks.” The anniversary is upon us.

If such an attack occurs, it may surprise the White House but it won’t surprise governments elsewhere. There are hints across the world that would be starkly revealed as having been portents, not mere hints.

Britain has unique reasons to worry about terrorism, with its thousands of new Muslim immigrants flocking from the British Commonwealth. It’s the price Old Blighty is paying for centuries of colonialism, and the government has raised its warning level from “substantial” to “severe,” the second-highest indicator of concern. “Severe” means a terrorist attack of some kind is “highly likely.”

SNAPSHOT SPENDING
SALARIES * PENSIONS * VENDOR SPENDING
ILLINOIS SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Download Open The Books Executive Summary here

Download your SNAPSHOT Report- 928 districts.
(Chicago Public Schools Coming Soon)

What did we find?
READ FRONT PAGE OF WASHINGTON TIMES
Click Here Read Today’s Washington Times
Generous teacher pensions continue as
Illinois’ financial crisis worsens
By Investigative Reporter Kelly Riddell | September 2, 2014

At OpenTheBooks.com, today, we released our SNAPSHOT™ Spending Report for 928 IL school districts. Each report covers pensions, salaries, and vendor spending. Each individual school district is bench marked on spending vs. consumer price index (CPI) inflation.

There are few weapons as deadly as the Israeli house. When its brick and mortar are combined together, the house, whether it is one of those modest one story hilltop affairs or a five floor apartment building complete with hot and cold running water, becomes far more dangerous than anything green and glowing that comes out of the Iranian centrifuges.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UkDgfB5IZEI/UL7ScIe5jPI/AAAAAAAAKTs/uQ6-9M-LI1k/s1600/article-construction2-1130.jpgForget the cluster bomb and the mine, the poison gas shell and even tailored viruses. Iran can keep its nuclear bombs. They don’t impress anyone in Europe or in Washington. Genocide is a minor matter when in the presence of the fearsome weapon of terror that is an Israeli family of four moving into a new apartment.

Sudan may have built a small mountain of African corpses, but it can’t expect to command the full and undivided attention of the world until it does something truly outrageous like building a house and filling it with Jews. Since the Sudanese Jews are as gone as the Jews of Egypt, Iraq, Syria and good old Afghanistan, the chances of Bashir the Butcher pulling off that trick are rather slim.

Due to the Muslim world’s shortsightedness in driving out its Jews from Cairo, Aleppo and Baghdad to Jerusalem, the ultimate weapon in international affairs is entirely controlled by the Jewish State. The Jewish State’s stockpile of Jews should worry the international community far more than its hypothetical stockpiles of nuclear weapons. No one besides Israel, and possibly Saudi Arabia, cares much about the Iranian bomb. But when Israel builds a house, then the international community tears its clothes, wails, threatens to recall its ambassadors and boycott Israeli peaches.

Angry British men in red Keffiyahs hold up signs about the Holocaust in front of Jewish cosmetics stores in London. Marginalized French youth, by way of Algeria and Tunisia, hurl stones at synagogues. John Kerry interrupts a speech on the dangers of Global Warming as an aide notifies him of an even bigger threat to the world. David just made a down payment on a two bedroom in Gvaot.

You can spit on the White House carpets and steal all the gold in Greece. You can blow up anything you like and threaten anyone you will, but you had better not lift a drill near the hills from which Balaam tried and failed to curse the Jewish people. Where the old Mesopotamian warlock failed, his successors in the United Nations follow in his footsteps by cursing Israel every day of the week.

Some may think that nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapons, but as we see, time and time again, the ultimate weapon is a hammer and a fistful of nails in a Jewish hand.

Despite its reputation as the month known for its “dog” days, August historically has been anything but somnambulant. After all, it was the “guns of August” 100 years ago that marked the end of the Victorian and Edwardian ages, which had done so much to bring scientific, commercial and artistic advancements to the civilized world – along with murderous weapons of war and some of the more odious consequences of colonialism. August was also the month, in 1664, when the British fleet appeared off New Amsterdam, causing the city to change its name to New York. One hundred and fifty years later the British were back, this time burning the White House in 1814. And, of course even if we weren’t there, many of us remember the summer 45 years ago when what was termed an “Aquarian exposition” was held on Max Yasgur’s farm. The festival took the name “Woodstock,” a town 40 miles to the northeast.

This August has brought the despicable and public beheading of an American by the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group, ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). Despite the remarkable admission by Mr. Obama that he has “no strategy toward ISIS in Syria,” there have already been airstrikes in Iraq, followed by a nominal number of “boots on the ground,” and it seems increasingly likely that a similar strategy will have to be pursued in Syria, if the dragon is to be slain in its lair.

While we may wish it no longer existed, evil remains very much with us. All of the politically correct euphemisms and denials – “workplace violence” for the Fort Hood shootings; “man-made disasters” for terrorism; “it was the video,” for Benghazi; “red lines” in Syria; “Outliers” for rogue states; “overseas contingency operations” and “kinetic military action” for whatever it was Mr. Obama was trying to obfuscate; “Osama bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is in decline” to help win the 2012 Presidential election; and ISIS as the “junior varsity” last January – are being shown as not only wrong, but deceptive. While we will never hear President Obama express it, what we are seeing is the reality that President Bush acknowledged over a decade ago – that Islamic terrorism is not limited to one organization and that the war against Islamic extremism will likely last generations.

A “militant” anything-Feminist, Zionist, environmentalist- is a person who is defined as-activist, radical, zealot, extremist, -in political ideas

A “terrorist” is one who uses violence, brutality and murder to further a political goal…

It now appears that the plan was for these terrorists to shoot down a Russian passenger flight over the Ukraine in order to create a casus belli [cause for war].

Putin repeatedly claims that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons as a “de-escalatory measure” even against non-nuclear states.

The evidence that this war was preplanned is overwhelming. The planning for this Ukrainian operation started in 2006, when Putin offered to “guarantee Crimea’s territory.”

The forces fighting in Kiev consist not mainly of “separatists” or rebels, but of trained Russian army, intelligence and paramilitary officers, as well as Russian and some Ukrainian “volunteers” recruited by Moscow.

Putin would incite disturbances in Crimea, then graciously offer to take over Crimea to solve the problems.

For the Russians, and particularly for Putin, Ukraine can have no future other than as a Russian colony. This is indeed a phased invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. did not accept Russian aggression before; it should not accept it now.

If “truth is the first casualty of war,” Russia’s war against Ukraine, illegally launched by Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, is no exception.

One of the saddest developments of this war is that on all political sides, in both Europe and the U.S., an entire army of Putin defenders has emerged, for whom the United Stares can do little right and Russia can do little wrong.

On the “right,” for instance, Patrick Buchanan has discovered that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is supporting both Christian values and U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Consequently he asserts we should not be worried about his illegal annexation of Crimea and aggression in Eastern Ukraine in violation of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, in which Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for Russian and American assurances that the use of force or threats of military action would not be taken against it.

In just the last five or six years the world has been fundamentally transformed. Instead of the old accustomed Western-inspired postwar global order, crafted and ensured by the United States and its European and Japanese partners, there is now mostly chaos, from Ukraine to Syria to the South China Sea. Or, rather, there may be emerging new rules, given that we are still frozen in a Wild West moment, when everyone in the saloon has drawn his six-shooter, paused, and is wondering what happened to the sheriff — and wondering, too, who will be the first to dare start shooting.

The general cause of the unrest is that, fairly or not, the world senses that the United States is tired after its recent interventions, cutting back its defenses, and all but financially insolvent. We might scoff at Neanderthal notions like a loss of deterrence inviting aggression, but Neanderthals do not.

Barack Obama apparently believes that such a retrenchment was both inevitable and to be welcomed. He thought that most U.S. interventions abroad had been either wrong or futile or both; he questioned the world’s status quo and certainly felt, for example, that the widespread persecution of Christians in the Middle East was not nearly as much of a problem as Islamophobia in the West. He came into office believing that Iran, Hamas, and Russia had all been unduly demonized, especially by George W. Bush, and could be reached out to by a sensitive president whose heritage and attitudes might not appear so polarizing.

To Obama, old allies like Britain and Israel either did not need unflinching U.S. support or did not necessarily warrant it. The postwar world that the U.S. had once ensured was no fairer a place than is America at home, and certainly did not justify the vast investment of American time and money — resources that could be far better be spent at home addressing inequality and unfairness. A program of higher taxes, huge budget deficits, and enormous increases in entitlement spending did not have budgetary space for the sort of defense required to keep things calm abroad.

Revitalizing the nation’s seapower should be a top priority for any president.

In 1987, the United States Navy numbered 594 ships. On, above, and below the ocean, the Navy reigned supreme, granting the commander-in-chief a flexible tool to secure the world’s economic maritime highways and project power ashore from the sea at the time and place of the nation’s choosing.

More than a quarter century later, the Navy has shrunk to just 288 ships and sits poised to shrink still further in the coming years. The naval buildup of the 1980s was so large and so enduring that it allowed the U.S. Navy to thrive for the next three decades. But succeeding presidents and Congresses have failed to sustain the fleet that President Reagan built. As this fleet retires in the decade ahead, the Navy will begin experiencing serious shortfalls in the minimum number of attack submarines, amphibious ships, and large surface vessels required to execute its mission.

The Navy’s relative decline cannot be measured simply by numbers of ships. The last 20 years have been a hiatus in the development of key capabilities and the maintenance of important skills. Areas like anti-submarine warfare, long a specialty of the U.S. Navy, have been neglected. Anti-mine warfare, which is critical in waters like the Strait of Hormuz, has been similarly ignored. And today the rapidly modernizing Chinese navy has developed anti-ship missiles that can “out-stick” our own missiles.

With 90 percent of global trade carried by sea, and the vast majority of international financial transactions conducted via undersea cables, the U.S. Navy is the backstop for securing a stable global financial system for the U.S. economy to operate in. In addition, the Navy is a highly versatile force that can generate sovereign, forward-deployed military power to do anything from strategic nuclear deterrence to humanitarian assistance. Whether it is launching air strikes against Islamist militants in Iraq or evacuating civilians from conflict zones, this flexibility makes naval power uniquely suited to an international security environment that requires scalpels in some instances and axes in others.

Past buildups of our naval power during periods of relative international peace, from the late 19th century to the 1930s to the Reagan era, can teach us much about the process of revitalizing American seapower today. In each of these cases, a far-sighted president, aided by like-minded members of Congress, was able to undertake the investments needed to rebuild U.S. naval power, often in difficult economic times. Yet a future effort to reinvigorate the Navy, while still requiring presidential vision and congressional leadership, must also be uniquely suited to the circumstances of our time.