Obamination: Ignoble Prize

President Obama said some interesting things in Oslo, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Some of those young men will die because of idiotic rules of engagement which you imposed upon them. The relationship between war and peace is that of polar opposites. Replacing peace with war is relatively easy, replacing war with peace requires victory; an overwhelming victory that breaks the will of the aggressor so that they will not soon repeat their imperialistic adventure.

Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Individual terrorists may be motivated by rage or revenge, but Jihad is driven by doctrines enshrined in the Qur'an and exemplified in the sira & sunna. What does it matter to the innocent victims whether they were killed by one, ten or a thousand men? What does it matter to them what weaponry was used in their murder? The fact of killing innocents is important, not the scope, scale, method or manpower involved. Islamic doctrine requires "great slaughter"; killing "many of them".

There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

For Islam, imperialistic conquest is required by Allah and justified by our status as kuffar, rebels against Allah. If you search for O9.1, O9.8 and O9.9, and add my byline as a qualifier, you will find posts in which I have quoted Islamic law which requires annual attacks upon Jews & Christians and pagans.

A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

A violent movement could have preempted Hitler's aggression. Nobody had the requisite courage, will & resolve to take action. Nothing short of death can convince mujahideen to lay down their arms. They seek death, and when one is killed, another steps forward to take his place. 'Martyrdom' is their their ticket to Paradise.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.

Torture was already prohibited. Water boarding as practiced by the CIA is not torture. What is the difference where you confine unlawful combatants? Gitmo or Thomson; what is the moral difference? Our adversaries are not signatories of the Geneva Conventions nor do they abide by them. They are not entitled to the protection of conventions they do not recognize. Geneva Conventions are not the ideals we fight to defend. Those ideals are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

What sanction would have stopped Hitler? What sanction will stop Iran? When an enemy is dedicated and devoted to genocide; when they believe that genocide pleases their demon, they will engage in it, regardless of sanctions. Only death will deter them.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

Unilateral disarmament is suicidal. Dreaming of a world without nuclear weaponry is suicidal idiocy. Avaricious dictators are constantly probing for weakness, seeking opportunities for exploiting those unable or unwilling to defend themselves. Pandora's box has been opened, the demons are loose, and they can not be recaptured. Public expressions of suicidal insanity such as Obama's present temptation to aggressors, inviting war.

Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

They want nukes, give them a few, like we gave them to Japan. Nothing less will stop those who dream of ruling the world. The megalomaniacs and their supporters must be eliminated. What if Hitler had developed the bomb first? Any weapon loses its deterrent effect if those who possess it lack the will to use it.

And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

Case in point: Somalia; President Clinton sent our armed forces, with suicidal rules of engagement and insufficient material. He pulled them out when too many got killed, telegraphing weakness and lack of resolve to the enemy. The results ain't pretty. Predation is not entirely about the biggest fangs, it is also about attitude: the will to kill. If you don't have it, don't get involved! A Security Council resolution said that Hezbollah would be disarmed. How did that work out? The 'peace keepers' are too timid to disarm Hezbollah. The meek will inherit the earth; only if the aggressive kill each other without first killing the meek.

America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens.

Hitler was elected. The Roman Empire had a Senate. Some people just can't get a clue. Form and substance are not the same. Hamas won an election a few years ago; majority rule decided to perpetuate terrorism. The result would have been the same if their rival had won the election.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

So, what did you do to aid the dissidents in Iran? How effective were your efforts? If those dissidents had prevailed, would their regime be any better than that of the Mullahs? Most revolutions do not produce liberal democracies, they replace one tyranny with another.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

President Obama will be surprised to discover that a few people can analyze his statements and determine their true meaning. He is demanding re-distribution of wealth & income on a global scale. He is demanding that we submit to global taxation for that purpose. President Kennedy's economic development policy had a consequence: foreign competition cost American jobs. Got a clue yet?

And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades.

I will use two words most others won't: International Socialism. That is what President Obama is up to, in plain, direct language. He intends to impoverish us and ruin our standard of living for the benefit of others, so that they can build up great armies and conquer us. Islam does not wage war because it is poor, it wages war to get more. It was founded for the purpose of enriching its founder through accrual of spoils. It is now known that the 'scientists' fudged their data to establish a lie as 'scientific fact' for political purposes. We can't educate our own children & care for our own sick, but President Obama has decided that we must pay to educate and heal the rest of the world. He is a prime example of cranial-rectal juxtaposition.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Tribal & religious conflict long preceded globalization & modernity. Islam has been engaged in it for nearly 1400 years. President Obama slyly puts the onus on Europe for slowly awakening to the fact that Muslims are taking over their continent.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan.

How many times will he repeat that damn lie? Islam has not been defiled, nor has it been distorted. It was designed for genocidal warfare using terrorism as a tactic. Its mission is mercenary and its method is martial. Read Surah al-Anfal, paying particular attention to verses 1, 39, 41 & 67. What does Allah want? What did Moe want? To whom do the spoils belong? What did Allah command Muslims to do? President Obama assumes that nobody will recognize and point out his deception.

Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

When I see a Gd'd lie, I call it, without fear or favor. I don't care who is offended! President Obama is a liar! Islam is a war cult, not a religion. The purpose of Islam is to enrich its founder through the professional practice of piracy. This fatal fact is fully documented in Islam's Mercenary Mission. Here is the concluding paragraph from that blog post. It summarizes the major points documented therein.

What keeps a war from being holy? Embezzling the spoils. That says it all! A summary follows in the form of an outline.

• The spoils belong to Allah and Moe.
• Allah & Moe get the top 20%.
• Allah granted special dispensation to take spoils.
• Allah promised abundant spoils.
• Embezzling the spoils:
  • condemns the embezzler to Hell
  • makes war unholy.
• Allah gave Moe the keys to the treasures of the world.
• Allah made Moe wealthy through conquests.
  • Moe got his income by his spear.
• Moe wanted the spoils & ransom; Allah wants genocide.
• Rome & Persia will be defeated and their treasures spent in Jihad.

Each of those points is based on explicit text in an ayat or hadith. Links are provided so that you can verify the quotes and explore the context. Next time, do due diligence and examine the ideology, character & associations of the candidates before voting. We can not afford to repeat the mistake we made in '08!