Tag Archives: Paris

FLASHBACK: What Works in Mumbai Might Work in D.C.

EDITOR’S NOTE: While diving into my archives, I came across a piece I wrote and published seven years ago this week. Because direct links to a newspaper report and a public opinion survey cited in the article were “dead,” I replaced them with Wayback Machine links. Considering recent terror events such as the ones in Paris last month and the one in San Bernadino, Calif., yesterday, I think the article remains worth sharing. See if you agree.

Click on image above to view article via Wayback Machine.

Click on image above to view article via Wayback Machine.

After reading a British newspaper report about plans law enforcement officials in Mumbai have to use truth serum on the only Islamic terrorist captured following last week’s attacks, I couldn’t help but think this “narcoanalysis” might come in handy as a tool for cleaning up the mess being being made of this country by our elected officials in Washington, D.C.

Though the use of truth serum is, according to the TimesOnline report, banned in most democracies, I think most Americans would approve an exception as long as it is applied in a bipartisan fashion as follows:

• First in line to have truth serum administered would be President-elect Barack Obama.  He would, of course, set the example for others to follow as he answered questions that required him to tell the truth about where he was born, about his core beliefs and about the plans he has for this country.

• Next up, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).  They would be asked a series of questions aimed at determining, once and for all, whether either is truly smarter than a fifth grader.

• Finally, the other 433 members of Congress — who, as a group, garner an approval rating of only 19 percent — would be given the opportunity to come clean about any skeletons they might have in their closets.  Members who disclose illegal and/or unethical behavior would be given two options:  resign or face prosecution.

For those who think the use of truth serum constitutes a step too radical for the planet’s longest-lasting constitutional republic, I offer a final thought for your consideration:

What’s more damaging to the nation’s long-term interests: An attack by radical Islamic terrorists from some distant land that does millions of dollars in damage and kills a few hundred or a few thousand lives OR the seemingly-endless assault on American citizens — let’s call it “domestic terrorism” — by elected officials who, with each passing year, drift further away from the intent of the nation’s founding fathers? I say the latter.

Now how do we get this ball rolling?  Ideas?

ENDNOTE: At the time I wrote the piece above, I had not yet begun the four-year investigation of the federal government’s use of so-called “credibility assessment technologies” that would result in the publication of my second nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo. If you’re interested in learning about a painless and touch-free tool that has already been used with great success to interrogate detainees at Guantanamo Bay, members of Saddam Hussein’s “Deck of Cards” and members of both al-Qaeda and the Taliban, you should order a copy of the book. Likewise, if you’re interested in learning why the Department of Defense banned the same tool from use by our warfighters, you need to order a copy of the book.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Guest Writer Says Obama ‘Should Be Forced to Resign’

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

As one who had never felt as though George H.W. Bush was a man of presidential caliber and, if nominated and elected, would be a one-term president, I was more than happy to serve as deputy campaign manager in the presidential exploratory committee of former White House Chief of Staff, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who had a far more impressive resume than Bush and was a far more capable, competent, and decisive leader.

Unfortunately, the combined efforts of conservatives were unable to deny Bush the nomination and, as predicted, he was no match for the Democratic congressional leadership. He allowed himself to be lured into a political trap by the Democrats in which he reneged on his “no new taxes” pledge and was defeated for reelection in 1992. His poor performance in office caused me to write what was the first of many “Must Go” columns titled, “George Bush Must Go.”

The “George Bush Must Go” column was followed in subsequent years by columns suggesting that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) “must go.” However, lest I be accused of rejecting only members of my own party from positions of power and influence, I should point out that I have also called for the resignation or impeachment of former Attorney General Eric Holder. But now it’s Barack Obama’s turn.

In a Nov. 14 column for the New York Post, columnist Michael Goodwin assessed Barack Obama’s approach to the war against radical Islam. He wrote, “In any time and place, war is fiendishly simple. It is the ultimate zero-sum contest… you win or you lose.” True, but that’s not how Barack Obama sees things. In his childlike world view he sees things not as they really are, but only as he wishes them to be. As Goodwin describes it, “President Obama has spent the last seven years trying to avoid the world as it is. He has put his intellect and rhetorical skills into the dishonorable service of assigning blame and fudging failure. If nuances were bombs, the Islamic State would have been destroyed years ago.

“He refuses to say ‘Islamic terrorism,’ as if that would offend the peaceful Muslims who make up the vast bulk of victims. He rejects the word ‘war,’ even as jihadists carry out bloodthirsty attacks against Americans and innocent peoples around the world. He shuns the mantle of global leadership that comes with the Oval Office, with an aide advancing the preposterous concept that Obama is ‘leading from behind.’ He snubs important partners like Egypt, showers concessions on the apocalyptic mullahs of Iran, and calls the Islamic State the ‘jayvee team,’ even as it was beginning to create a caliphate. Having long ago identified American power as a problem, he continues to slash the military as the enemy expands its reach. In a globalized era, the Obama doctrine smacks of cowardly retreat and fanciful isolation.”

Goodwin reminds us that, in an accident of timing that demonstrates his profound cluelessness, Barack Obama expressed his view of the current status of ISIS in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos just hours before radical Islamists staged a bloody attack on Paris. He said, “I don’t think they’re gaining strength. What is true, from the start our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq and in Syria.   They’ll come in, (then) they’ll leave. But you don’t see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain.”


ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

The interview (above) aired at approximately 8:00 AM (EST) on Friday, Nov. 13, on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” The first bomb exploded outside the Stade de France, a football stadium north of Paris, at 9:16 PM Paris time (3:16 PM Washington time), followed almost immediately by volleys of gunfire and explosions at the Bataclan Concert Hall, the Le Carillon Restaurant, the Le Petit Cambodge Restaurant, and two other locations in Paris. In a matter of minutes, 132 innocent people were killed and 350 others wounded by Islamic terrorists.

The coordinated ISIS attacks in Paris began just 7 hours and 16 minutes after Obama declared ISIS to be “contained.” Even as he pontificated for the TV audience, the terrorists were likely pacing the floor in their rented safe-houses, inspecting their AK-47s and their Kalashnikovs, loading ammo clips, and making last minute adjustments to their suicide belts.

It was the most deadly attack on Paris by enemy forces since World War II, prompting French President Francois Hollande to condemn the attacks as an “act of war,” vowing that France will be “merciless toward the barbarians of the Islamic State group.” He said, “We will lead the fight and we will be ruthless.” Sadly, those are the words we expect to hear from Barack Obama.

Goodwin concluded, “The time has run out for half measures and kicking the can down the road. The enemy must be destroyed on the battlefield before there can be any hope of peace. If Obama cannot rise to the challenge of leadership in this historic crisis, then, for the good of humanity, he should resign. Those are the only options and it is his duty to decide.”

Yes, Goodwin is correct in his call for Barack Obama’s resignation. But is it even remotely possible that he… addicted as he is to the narcotic of holding power… would even consider the possibility of resignation? Unlike the Nixon example, wherein Republican congressional leaders… Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott (R-PA), Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), and House Minority Leader John Rhodes (R-AZ)… went to the White House for the purpose of informing Nixon that his support in Congress had all but evaporated and that, if he chose to fight impeachment, there was not sufficient support in the U.S. Senate to avoid conviction and removal.

Is there a man or woman alive who can honestly visualize their Democratic counterparts of today… Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)… going to the White House to tell Barack Obama that his presidency is over and that he must resign to avoid impeachment? Let’s face it. The sort of patriotism that Republican leaders have demonstrated over and over again… i.e. Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc… just does not exist in the Democratic Party. The desire to put the country’s best interests ahead of party interests is just not present in the Democratic DNA.

At the outset of Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, every one of the 45 Senate Democrats went to the well of the Senate, raised their right hands, and swore: “I solemnly swear that in all things pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, now pending, that I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. So help me God.” Yet, every one of those 45 Democrats made that solemn promise to God, knowing that they intended to violate that oath. In spite of mountains of irrefutable evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors” on Clinton’s part, every one of the 45 Democrat senators voted to acquit. The only member of the U.S. Senate to be seriously punished for voting “not proven,” in spite of irrefutable evidence that Clinton had perjured himself before a federal judge, was Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who was turned out of office in a primary election by Republican voters.

And while impeachment is the most logical solution to the problem presented by Barack Obama, it is clear that, if Republicans had the stomach to impeach Barack Obama, who has to his credit a long list of impeachable offenses, would they not already have done so at some time since Jan. 20, 2009? The fact is, Obama continues to serve for no other reason than the color of his skin. As a black man, he relies on the collective guilt of white liberals to engage in whatever “high crimes and misdemeanors” he feels are necessary to his political agenda. It is indisputable that, if he were a white man, he would have been removed from office long ago.

The one remaining alternative is for the military to remove him… non-violently, if possible; by force, if necessary. The Framers created a constitutional republic in which the military was, by design, made subservient to the civilian branches of government. However, Thomas Jefferson knew that there were no guarantees where governments instituted by men were concerned. In the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, in referring to the right of the people to enjoy the benefits of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, he wrote, “… that to secure these rights, governments are institutes among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…”

Inasmuch as Barack Obama has been, from the first day of his administration, destructive of our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and since he has repeatedly violated his oath of office by failing to “faithfully execute” the office of president of the United States, the American people are left with no alternative but to bring an abrupt end to his presidency, even at this late date. And since congressional Republicans lack the courage to impeach him and leaders of his own party demonstrate insufficient love of country to call for his resignation, it is left to our military leaders to advise him that it is time for him to do the honorable thing.

If the joint chiefs of staff were to request an audience with Barack Obama, accompanied by a delegation of the most highly respected retired flag and general officers… such as General Tommy Franks, General Paul Vallely, General Stanley McChrystal, and General Ray Odierno… to remind him that, inasmuch as he no longer enjoys the loyalty and the respect of members of the military services, from the top generals and admirals down to the lowest of enlisted ranks, he should summon up the courage to do what is in the best interests of the nation and its people.

If we were to judge our 44 presidents by their failures and their accomplishments, several would receive very low grades. Barack Obama would be the only one to receive a grade of less than zero. He has been, by far, the worst president in American history. And if we stop to consider the damage that has been done, globally, by radical Islam in just a matter of months, imagine the damage that an embittered Obama can be expected to do in the remaining 14 months of his presidency. For the good of the people, he should be forced to resign.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Bloody Massacres Generate ‘Solutions’ to Muslim Problem

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

The word balloon of the cartoon that appeared on the cover of the Nov. 3, 2011, issue of Charlie Hebdo -- renamed Charia Hebdo ("Sharia Hebdo") -- reads "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter!"

In French, the word balloon of the cartoon on the cover of the Nov. 3, 2011, issue of Charlie Hebdo — renamed Charia Hebdo (“Sharia Hebdo”) — reads “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter!”

The recent bloody massacres at the offices of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, and at a kosher grocery store in Paris, have spawned a number of solutions to the “Muslim problem,” some totally useless and pointless and others quite draconian.

Typical of the useless and pointless solution was that offered by Pope Francis as he spoke to reporters aboard a recent flight from Sri Lanka to the Philippines. Referencing the atrocities in Paris, he first took both sides of the issue, expressing the belief that, while “freedom of religion and freedom of expression are both fundamental human rights,” if someone says something unkind about your mother the normal reaction is to “punch him in the nose.” He concluded by saying, “You can’t provoke, you can’t insult the faith of others, you can’t make fun of faith.”

In other words, Christians and Jews are not to show disrespect for Islam or Mohammed, but we must accept that Muslims will continue to slaughter Christians and Jews at will. If such atrocities represent what the pope might consider akin to an “unkind comment about one’s mother” by radical Islamists, then what would he suggest as a proper “punch in the nose?”

On the opposite end of the spectrum we have the comments of conservative rock star, Ted Nugent, a board member of the National Rifle Association and an outspoken critic of liberals, Democrats, and Barack Obama. In a Jan. 14, 2015, blog, titled “Save the Planet: Kill the Muslim Third Reich,” Nugent refers to his solution as “anti-rabid dog common sense.”

Setting the stage for his final solution, Nugent tells us, “I personally don’t care if you stand on your head and recite Shakespeare backwards, marry your beagle, stack BBs, French kiss rattlesnakes, or swan dive into a shallow vat of goat urine. If that’s what turns your religious crank, party on. Just do it downwind from me, and don’t bill me for your rehab.” He goes on to say, “But when it comes to the pure demonic evil of murderous savage Islamic terrorists, the line is universally drawn by good people worldwide. We all know instinctively that there is no virtue in slaughtering innocent people. No God smiles or rejoices in this.”

Introducing his solution to the problem, Nugent writes, “I’ll admit I’m not opposed to putting hollow points to the back of the heads of human cockroaches and various other vermin who wish to imprison me with their brain-dead, toxic ‘values.’ Truth is, I want to eliminate them from planet Earth and erase them from the history books of the human race… Everyone knows that there is no cure for rabid dogs except a bullet. The question the free world needs to ask is whether we are going to shoot the rabid dog or have the rabid dog chew our faces off.”

He concludes by saying, “My advice: kill ‘em all and let Satan sort ‘em out… Make no mistake; the world is in a race to the finish with crazed, rabid radical Muslims. The choice is simple: It’s religious freedom or subjugation, persecution or death… No more kicking the can down the road for the next generation. There comes a time for all good men and women to rise up and oppose evil. That time is now. It is our time. Americans must show the world the difference between respecting choices in lifestyle versus bending over and welcoming an evil takeover. This rabid, voodoo threat is very real and right in front of us. We must not shoot just one or two rabid dogs, but to save the human race we must kill them all…”

Clearly, the approach recommended by Pope Francis does nothing more than to postpone the ultimate demise of the civilized world, while the approach suggested by Nugent hardly merits discussion. To think that we could declare open season on Muslims and then proceed to kill more than two million of them is sheer madness. Instead, we must resolve to find a solution that is doable and effective, in spite of the weaknesses of our national leaders.

In their joint press conference Jan. 16, President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron expressed a desire to continue working toward multicultural societies in their respective countries. The Prime Minister expressed a willingness to spend two generations attempting to fully assimilate their Muslim immigrant population. Obama agreed, although he was still unable to use the words “Islamic” and “extremist” in the same sentence.

Neither man was willing to recognize that western nations have been attempting to assimilate Muslims for at least seventy years, more than three generations. Instead, while they continue to speak glowingly about “assimilation,” Muslims view their migration to western nations as “infiltration.”  What Obama and Cameron fail to acknowledge is that they live and work inside security “bubbles.” Unlike their fellow countrymen, they don’t have to worry about the swarthy-complexioned man in the bulky jacket at the shopping mall, or the burqa-clad Muslim woman seated next to them on a bus. They don’t have to wonder whether their clothes are just bulky, or if they conceal a suicide vest capable of killing dozens of people.

Hoping to learn a bit more about the motivation for attacks such as those on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish grocery store, Daily Beast reporter Dana Kennedy traveled to several Parisian suburbs heavily populated by French-Algerian Muslims. She interviewed a cross section of young men who were convinced that the attacks were a conspiracy by Jews designed to make Muslims look bad. One Muslim told her that the Jews who staged the attacks were not just “regular” Jews, they were “a race of magical Jews, shape-shifting Jews,” who were “master manipulators” and who could be “everywhere at the same time.”

It is fanatics such as these who are motivated, in part, by the promise that they will each receive 72 virgins upon entering Heaven. How does one accommodate such ignorance? The answer is, we can’t.

If we are to find a middle road between what Pope Francis and Nugent suggest, our first goal must be to reach consensus on who and what the enemy is. Unlike the opinion of apologists for radical and moderate Muslims, Islam is not a religion as we understand the term. Rather it is a complete political, legal, economic, military, and cultural system with a religious component. Its adherents refuse to assimilate into host-country cultures, insisting that they be allowed to exist as an independent entity, not subject to the laws of their host countries. In order to accomplish their ends, they regularly preach the overthrow of their host nations, by violence if necessary.

Accordingly, western democracies must resolve that Islam is incompatible with cultures built on Judeo-Christian principles. In the United States, we must resolve that, “What is sauce for the (Communist) goose is sauce for the (Islamic) gander.” In order to neutralize and reverse Islam’s cultural infestation, a good starting point would be to tailor the language of Section 2 of the Communist Control Act of 1954… a law that has not been struck down by the courts and which is still on the books… to read as follows:

The American people are determined to eliminate from their midst organizations which, purporting to be ‘religious,’ in the accepted sense of that term, are conspirators dedicated to the destruction of our form of government by force and violence…

“The Congress hereby finds and declares that Islam, although purportedly a religious sect, is in fact an instrumentality of a foreign conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to individuals of other religious denominations, but denying to all others the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution…

“As a segment of the U.S. population, Islam is relatively small, numerically, and gives scant indication of its capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful means. The peril inherent in the existence of Islam arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present system of government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign ideology renders its existence a clear and present danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of Islam, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the organization known as Islam shall be outlawed in the United States.”

With that statute on the books, making the practice or the promotion of Islam illegal, we can make it very uncomfortable for radical Islamists. We can make their presence in our country so unpleasant that they will long for a return to whatever hellhole they and their predecessors crawled out of; they will self-repatriate in increasingly large numbers. With eyes and ears planted in every mosque and every Muslim cultural center in America, radical Imams such as the late Anwar al-Awlaki could be readily identified and FBI agents could quickly make arrests.

According to the story of the Tower of Babel, beginning in Genesis 11:6 (NKJV), God was displeased by efforts of a Hebrew tribe to build a tower that would reach the heavens, God looked down upon the Earth, and said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.

Inasmuch as radicalized Muslims have let it be known that all non-Muslims must either submit to them or die, and so-called “moderate” Muslims have refused to restrain their murderous brethren, perhaps it is time we reenacted the story of Babel, quarantining all Muslims to a portion of the Earth in which all of the competing tribes of Islam can settle their differences… peacefully or violently.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.