The ISIS Blitzkrieg: Still Developing, Not Finalized, but....it 'Don't Look Good'

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/isis-battle-plan

It looks like hard-fought gains will have to be hard-fought for once again. It is currently unclear who will do it, since many in the Iraqi Army and police have abandoned their posts. I also don't know when it will happen, but eventually someone will have to fight. A lot of someones.

And a lot of them will die doing so. They'll either die or die trying, as they try to retake Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, and Fallujah, Ramadi, and Tikrit. All of these cities have fallen to the islamic State of Iraq and the Sham. Samarra, home to the important shine to Shia Muslims, the al-Askari mosque, is also now under attack by the ISIS Sunni jihadis. That is also where Iraq's surviving security forces in the area have retreated. Time will tell.

As a result of the rapidly-evolving situation, someone else may have to draw new lines on a map - for example, the National Geographic Atlas team may have to make a few edits to line-work in the Middle East region. That is, if all those other someones died and were ultimately unsuccessful in trying to defeat ISIS, who has made huge territorial gains in northern and western Iraq as well as Syria.

Without the ability to exert influence on the regional outcome, all Americans can do is hope that Baghdad will not fall to ISIS. Let's hope that in six months time Baghdad will still be on the "better" side of a new map line. Let's assume that Baghdad will survive, and pivot to something specific in order to illuminate possible future realities:

Women, living in Baghdad, on the "good" side of a new boundary line, despite the territorial onslaught into their country by Islamic Jihadists, will hopefully find the courage to continue reaching for a western notion of equality in society. Women on the other side of the line, however, will not have the luxury to think about equality; they'll be thinking about their lives. They'll simply be hoping for much more basic things. For example, their main issue, beyond staying alive, might be that the new ISIS government secure a 5% conviction rate for men who pour acid on women for minuscule offenses of religious non-compliance. You see, they may be forced to accept that acid pouring on women for major offenses is legal, but might hold out hope for limiting such acts as punishment for lessor crimes against Islam. To them, such a compromise would be a new definition of 'progress' - similar to parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Such 'progress' was made possible 2 years ago by the Commander-in-Chief of American Progressives. That's Progressives for you - fucking over common people from which they publicly seek support and pretend to champion, yet privately loath, and the audacity to blame the other side of the political aisle for their own gross incompetence. Yep, they've been practicing pompous, out-of-touch elitism since 1912.

However, if their 'stupidity' remains unchanged despite the harsh realities of the results, which we will continue to see unfold in the months and years ahead, there must come a point at which it will become hard to argue that their 'stupidity' wasn't on purpose. See image of the stained glass window at the London School of Economics (birthplace of Fabian Socialism).

Heating up world up, so they can reshape it, by acting as wolves in sheep's clothes. If this is true, and their organization hasn't abandoned their founding principles, are they the ones at work in the Middle East at present? If so, are they working to benefit our interests.....or their own? Who stands to lose the most? One thing is certain - in the Middle East, women stand to lose the most. Men can retain their freedom so long as they nod and sway in approval of the ruling power.

And for us, western serfs, what will be our fate against forces which seek to heat things up? I argue the same thing as people in the Middle East. Political leaders seek to divide us more and more each day. We'll be fine if we nod and sway in approval of those in power.

But if we don't agree with their rhetoric, if we persist in our demand to be treated as citizens, refusing to live in serfdom, I think there will come a day when their costume comes off...and the Western ruling power elites begin to show themselves as the wolves they truly are.

No One Gets Left Behind

The Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi appear, by all accounts, to have fallen to an affiliate of Al Qaeda: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS).

Prediction: In six months, after Iraq slips into full civil war, the New York Times will publish an exhaustive investigative piece detailing how the militant attack was actually not preplanned; they'll say it also wasn't planned when ISIS raised the black flag of Al Qaeda over the main government building in Ramadi, Provincial capital of Anbar Province. They would probably have us believe that ISIS is not directly affiliated with Al Qaeda. They will attempt to make a distinction where there is no difference, just as they have done in their recent reporting on Benghazi.

Politically-motivated readers will never be told that the stated long-term objective of both ISIS and Al Qaeda is identical. The Progressives will be quiet and stand in line to receive their Kool-Aid. All to give the appearance that their party is smarter than all the experts and all the folks with any common sense. "There are enough life boats!" they'll say. But surely there are not enough. It is becoming more and more obvious. The world is on fire.

Two of the strongest examples of Obama's incompetence are on fire right now in western Iraq. America lost roughly 1,500 of its best fighting for Anbar. And now…for what?!

I'm pissed. No, not enough…I'm full of rage. Pure, unmitigated fucking rage. To willingly give up leverage that could have secured these hard fought gains is akin to leaving a comrade on the battlefield because an impromptu shopping opportunity suddenly became more important.

And so it's official, I'm done being tactful (if I ever really tried in the first place). You are nothing more than a narcissistic, smug, divisive man. You have no foresight whatsoever. You know nothing of the real world. For you, everything is theoretical. And you love your theories as much as Valerie Jarrett loves you.

Obama's Audacity

I didn't read Dreams From My Father, nor did I read The Audacity of Hope. Not because there is nothing of value between the hard covers-- certainly Dinesh D'Souza found value in pouring over the pages-- but I have built my image of Obama based on his actions rather than his (rather, his ghostwriters') carefully crafted syntax.

And what an image I have. It's truly telling when the President of the United States cancels 62% of his daily intelligence briefings in 2011 and 2012, including the briefing the day after the American Consulate in Libya was attacked, which resulted in the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans murdered, so that he could attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his reelection campaign. 

It's telling when the President uses the full force of his power to create and pass the destructive health care law that gives the government control over one-sixth of the private sector, yet neglected to meet with his "jobs council" (the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness) that he established in January of 2011. He let the council expire in January of 2013, after the organization only met four times in two years (but he did manage to hit the links 33 times within that same time frame).

And it is telling when Obama's own ATF sold 2,000 guns to suspected criminals thought to be linked to Mexican drug gangs in an effort to trace those guns as part of an investigation of the violent cartels, which came to light tragically when two such guns showed up at the scene of a shootout that killed a U.S. Border Patrol agent.  Meanwhile Obama's own IRS doggedly investigated Catherine Engelbrech, an American citizen who did the unthinkable and submitted applications for tax-exempt status to establish her own conservative organizations:

In December 2010 the FBI came to ask about a person who'd attended a King Street Patriots function. In January 2011 the FBI had more questions. The same month the IRS audited her business tax returns. In May 2011 the FBI called again for a general inquiry about King Street Patriots. In June 2011 Engelbrecht's personal tax returns were audited and the FBI called again. In October 2011 a round of questions on True the Vote. In November 2011 another call from the FBI. The next month, more questions from the FBI. In February 2012 a third round of IRS questions on True the Vote. In February 2012 a first round of questions on King Street Patriots. The same month the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms did an unscheduled audit of her business. (It had a license to make firearms but didn't make them.) In July 2012 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration did an unscheduled audit. In November 2012 more IRS questions on True the Vote. In March 2013, more questions. In April 2013 a second ATF audit.

In both situations we are asked to believe Obama when he says he knew nothing. For the President of the United States, the contrast could not be more stark: what is and what is not worth investigating.

And with daily congressional hearings unveiling more and more dirt under the White House Persian rugs, we only need to wonder what's inside the closets. Rarely are blood-stained hands caught the first time. 

Though many Americans believed that Obama was a danger to our country pre-2008 elections, the "I told you so" has lost muster when lives have been lost and billions stripped from the economy while "low information" voters carry on about the surprising "Dancing with the Stars" finale. The "I told you so" crowd should put its efforts to speak loudly and carry a media stick-- speak now or never. Just Google "NSA Utah Data Center." 

Speak on, Americans. But actions still speak louder than words. 

...With NO Warrant!

http://independentprinciplesapplied.blogspot.com to watch the video.




This thing pivots on the warrant. 

If this happened to me, and the police show up to my house with a warrant....I stand down peacefully and let the legal system run its course. But if they show up to my house the way they did in this case, without a warrant.....I safeguard my child in a hard room and refuse them entry into my home.

Honestly, at what point should resistance to the State involve total non-compliance? What is actually so sacred that you would defend it with your life? If not this, then what?

The Age of Sustainability?

"Our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."

~ New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, April 22, 2013

THIS......IS NOT......A GOOD DEFENSE. It is not sustainable if we desire to maintain the liberal freedoms we cherish.

I wonder if New York and the elite writ large will set future trends for interpreting Constitutional Law for the rest of the country? You know, the same way they set fashion trends? I wonder if the definition of freedom will be reduced to fashion choices, menu selection and music preferences? My guess is that in time, the media will shun people as extremists who do not subscribe to our liberties being violated on a regular basis.

I believe the dial will only turn increasingly higher with time....to add pressure that forces these people (libertarians) to be isolated from the mainstream. And for the record, Lindsey Graham and John McCain are not libertarians. They are about 180 degrees off (or so) in their approach, but who's counting ticks on the compass, right?

The video above is a prime example of why the best defense is not letting terms be dictated to you. People suffer as a result. The best defense is a good offense. The video shows what our society will be continually subjected to so long as we remain in our current mode of dealing with threats using a reactionary approach. This cannot go unchecked indefinitely.

We need to be on offense. This offense need not include military occupation, counterinsurgency, or nation building. Let humanitarian organizations do nation building. An offensive strategy does not need to be verbose in its objectives or come flailing with unclear mission statements. It just needs to define the enemy, locate him, and take him out. No bullshit. Just go to MEMRI TV to see an example of target selection out in the open around the world (MEMRI does an amazing service to the world with the translations they provide).

If these enemies happen to be a naturalized American citizens, well, then we have to treat them with the protections afforded to citizens under the Constitution. Not doing so essentially negates liberty for the rest of us. But dammit if we might review our naturalization protocols to deny our enemy from using our liberal society as protection! If we fail to take these steps, you can expect to see empty metro streets on non-holiday workdays, curfews, and even the elderly escorted from their homes for cordon and search operations coming to city near you.

And should you live in a metro area, it is likely that renegade terrorists fleeing from the law and looking for a hideout will find it wherever there is a home not defended by a gun. So instead of the police being alerted to their presence by your shots fired in defense your family, they will be alerted (likely once the terrorists are long gone) when your neighbor screams bloody murder after finding the bodies of your family shot execution-style. Again, this is another example of why offense is better than reacting; reacting only serves to clean up mess after mess. It also is an example of why individual liberty saves the day against the bad guys.

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, shall have neither liberty nor safety."

~ Benjamin Franklin

Local vs National Control: let's do some critical thinking, people

If you're viewing this post via email notification, you may have to go to http://independentprinciplesapplied.blogspot.com/ to view the photo.

Above is exhibit A. I see this sort of thing all over the People's Republic of Madison, Wisconsin.

This begs the question, would you rather donate to a local charity or the United Way? Why? If you would rather donate to a local charity than a national one, let's apply the same principle to the overall rate of taxation in America.

I am such a nice guy. Really, I am. I believe the world is a harsh place, therefore I believe overall taxation rates need to be kept at current levels in order to help the "little" man in his battle for social justice. Therefore, let's give local government 30% of our income. After all, they know how best to help the diverse types of underprivileged people living in their unique community. Let's keep the state taxation rate at its current level. And lets give the federal government a flat-rate amount roughly equal to what municipalities receive from local property taxes.

Local is better, right? Come on buddy, be honest! Yeah! Slap hands! If you won't slap my hand, this means you are a big government hypocrite! You are voting to defeat the expertise that local community organizations can give to local people with local problems! It means that all the propaganda has fooled you into believing that ONLY national government can solve our problems!

With warm weather around the corner, I'll soon be greeting everyone I meet at the local farmer's market with a big grin on my face. My philosophy means that I am consistent in my approach in wanting to help local people directly rather than allowing elites to skim money off the top.

Deny my logic, and you deny truth. Power to the People. No, really. Very truly yours,

A. Critical Thinker

P.S. I offer free training if you are interested. I also believe in free education.

Dr. Maya Angelou, Freewoman

I encourage you to watch the entire interview. At about the 3:20 mark she discusses her views on firearms. This is the mark of a Freewoman.

All her comments considered, it hit me how sad it is that we must waste time discussing the firearms issue. She has so much more to offer; a grace and presence that is becoming increasingly rare in this world. While it is valuable know Dr. Angelou's opinion on the matter of guns, this is only so because our Rights have recently come under attack.

Her comments remind me how much the firearms rights issue should be an open and shut case. It is the mark of the free-thinking individual to be able to exercise the freedom to defend their life whenever it is threatened. Of course they should not need the permission of government in order to do so. It is so unnatural to consider any alternative that isn't consistent with a living being's natural instinct of self-preservation. And of course we should practice with the gun we carry regularly. It is common sense.

Dr. Angelou is proof that a citizen who wishes to exercise this right is not a killer, but rather a protector of life. Never allow yourself to be painted as the former; take pride in standing up for yourself as the latter!