Cleaning America’s house after the Islamists’ next attack in the U.S.

The previous piece published here (18 November 2015) and a subsequent interview on Michael Smirconish’s CNN program have drawn a surprising number of irate if juvenile comments, not to this site but to CNN, the Huffington Post, and a considerable number of other apparently defeat-loving websites. Now widely tagged by these folks as a “sociopath,” I am encouraged to write a bit more as a follow-on to the piece that drove these Obama-like, arrogant adolescents into vituperative snits that demonstrated nothing so much as that they share Obama’s profound historical ignorance and a daft believe that the United States can continue to exist without acting to defend itself via all-out war or — preferably — neutrality and non-intervention.

As a starting point it is worth noting an eternal truism: When your nation is attacked and is at war, you and your nation will be killed unless the attackers are either eradicated or diverted to less difficult and more lucrative foes. Therefore, the enemy, his supporters, sympathizers, and infrastructure — all of it — are legitimate targets. Unless America is devastatingly attacked — a major attack unlike the recent skirmish in Paris — my own preference is not to fight this war overseas but stop our unnecessary and mujahideen-motivating intervention in the Muslim world, remedy the proliferation of domestic Islamists and the other domestic problems noted in the previous article, and leave the enemy abroad to continue to drift into an utterly catastrophic region-wide sectarian war.

A resolve by the United States to henceforth be a neutral and non-interventionist power would have the added benefit of bringing an end to European interventionism in the Islamic world and thereby deprive the Sunnis and Shias of the U.S.-NATO-manufactured interventionist glue that has long held together their movements. Europe has unilaterally disarmed since the demise of the USSR, brings little to any struggle save rules-of-war that ensure it loses, and has courage to fight only so long as they are confident America is in the lead, ready to pay for the endeavor, and will pull their chestnuts out of the fire if need be. And, in any event, the Europeans will soon need to get home to fight the domestic Islamist insurgencies that gradually will emerge as pay-back for decades of mad — that is, multicultural — immigration, refugee, and open-borders policies.

If the Huffington posters’ argument — Americans want more intervention but do not want to defend the republic by destroying its enemies — is representative of the citizenry’s consensus, the aftermath of the next Islamist attack in the United States ought to be considered and prepared for. On that issue, I have some suggestions.

Since 9/11, I have thought that most important result of the next significant attack in the United States would be some level of violence against Muslim or Muslim-looking Americans. The human, physical, and economic damage caused by the next attack may be great or small, but it is almost certain that it will include Islamist fighters who are U.S. citizens, residents, and/or illegal aliens, as well as non-Americans who have illegally entered the United States across the open southern border. (NB: As Islamist leaders, on average, are light years smarter than U.S. leaders, they are more than likely to recognize the internal discontent and perhaps violence they will cause in the United States by using — or even appearing to use — the open southern border as a point of entry for the attack.)

The bulk of U.S.-citizen Muslims will have nothing to do with the next attack and many may not even have sympathy for it. But other Americans will be enraged that after twenty years of war the U.S. government has utterly failed to annihilate the Islamists abroad, control U.S. borders, or — the best and most security-producing bet — stop intervening in and caring about what goes on in the Islamic world. Lashing out verbally or violently against Muslims or Muslim-looking people seems a likely and perhaps a natural response.

But such a response — while understandable — would be wrong from the legal, societal, and commonsense viewpoints. When the next attack occurs, Americans must count ten while totally ignoring the politicians’ lying claims that the Islamists have nothing to do with religion and attack because they hate freedom, voting, democracy, etc. The focus of Americans must be on ridding themselves of those who enabled the attack. The Islamists who attack will be the actual trigger pullers, bombers, and killers. Hopefully, they will die or be executed on the domestic battlefield and save us the cost of trials and the sorry but inevitable spectacle of much of the Democratic Party coming to their defense.

But the vile villains, the real cause of the next attack in the United States, will be those prominent Americans who have willfully refused to defend the United States either by exterminating the Islamist forces or, better yet, by stopping their arrogant and bloody campaign to impose their abstract and inapplicable values and lifestyles on Muslims who do not want them and will to fight to be left free to decide their own future, even if that future is not what the seemingly racist U.S. governing elite demands of those it deems to be its little brown brothers.

So when the next attack hits, the following U.S. leaders and groups ought to be the focus of the legitimate rage of American citizens. Such a focus will inform the citizenry why the United States is in its current disastrous position vis-a-vis Islam and point toward precisely the kind of man or woman — ones whose motto is America First — that they ought to vote for to begin to brake the nation’s slide toward hell. (NB: The following folks know they are guilty of the deliberate negligence and deceit that has cost immense amounts of American blood, treasure, and social cohesion. That is why so many are supporting the neutering of the Second Amendment; they justly fear well-merited retribution from the governed. It is not a coincidence, moreover, that Europe’s leaders cracked down on gun owners immediately after the recent Paris attacks. They, too, know that they enabled the Islamist attacks. The crack-down was protect themselves not to prevent the Islamists from getting guns.)

So here are a few of the enemy-enablers to focus on after the Islamists’ next attack in America:

  • President George H.W. Bush and his foreign-policy advisers for starting a quarter century of losing wars for the United States with their madly Wilsonian, enemy-making, war-causing, Neocon-empowering, and bankrupting doctrine of a “New World Order”.
  • President Bill Clinton for not using the multiple chances he had to kill Osama bin Laden in 1997-1999, thereby knowingly sheltering and nurturing bin Laden and the Islamist movement until they matured into a lethal national security threat to the United States.
  • George W. Bush and his Israel-First advisers for invading Iraq; sending U.S. Marines and soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight and die in wars he never intended to win; and opening an easy westward road from Afghanistan for the Islamists, a road that now has reached the Atlantic Ocean.
  • Barack Obama for being a close and reliable ally for both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, and refusing — like Bush, Clinton, and Bush — to explain to Americans that unrelenting U.S. government intervention overseas means unending war with Islam. If he was an Islamist, Obama could not have been more help to the Islamists and their increasingly effective campaign to mobilize young Muslim men to fight the West.
  • The Neoconservatives, Israel-Firsters, and their media abettors for corrupting the U.S. political process with money and media-power and making America a war-mongering nation and the eternal protector of Israel, which is utterly irrelevant to U.S. national interests. Listing the names of those suborned by the lucre of the Neocons and Israel-First would take hours, but it at least should be noted that all the presidential candidates save Trump, Fiorina, and Paul are on-board with these disloyal citizens, and that Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton have signed up to be the bought-and-paid-for personal presidential candidates of Jewish-American billionaires who are pro-Israel zealots desperate to keep the United States mired, spending, bleeding, and, indeed, dying on Israel’s behalf in the Middle East. Rubio, in fact, may have enslaved himself, and potentially all Americans, to two such people.
  • The U.S. Department of Education, the members of the nation’s teachers’ unions, and most universities’ social science faculties for training young people to be ignorant of, or hateful toward America’s history; to be unable to recognize that there are absolutes when it comes to right and wrong; to believe that the 1st and 2nd Amendments and much of the rest of the Constitution are expendable and that the resulting minority rule-based tyranny will be a better form of government; and to disregard the melancholy fact that if your nation unnecessarily intervenes in the affairs of other states, it invariably generates war, and, in wartime, a nation dies if it does not employ every tool at hand to destroy its enemies. The Department of Education and America’s teachers at all levels produce young people who are not citizens, but permanently immature automatons who have been and will be preyed upon by demagogic, race-baiting, palsied-by-theory Democratic politicians. On this issue the choice is simple, eliminate the Department and the teachers’ unions or return the voting age to at least twenty-one years.
  • The craven leaders of the U.S. Muslim community for refusing, when testifying before Congress, to tell the truth, which is that Muslim-American youngsters are not “brain-washed” by evil unIslamic men into becoming mujahideen, but are motivated by their understanding of their faith’s requirement that they join fellow Muslims on the battlefield to defend Islam against the U.S.-European military interventions that kill Muslims, wreck Muslim societies, protect Arab tyrants; seek to impose secularism; and allow Israel to do as it pleases.

So that’s a bit of a scorecard that provides grist for assessing who is to blame for the next Islamist attack in the United States. It could be much longer and more detailed, but it is enough to provide focus while Americans wait for and then watch the next attack and its aftermath. The much-needed, two-step, post-attack recipe for American citizens is (a) to cheer for those who kill every attacker who does not blow him/herself up in the attack or tries to surrender, in other words, raising what the great Virginian, Thomas Jackson called the “black flag” of war, and (b) to then launch a campaign to rid the republic of the influence of those who follow and perpetuate the ideas and plans of the Islamists’ above-listed U.S.-citizen enablers, doing so completely and also wholly peacefully, if at all possible.