The Ideology of ISIS


Intro Michel Wyss’ ‘The Ideology of ISIS

Edited by John R. Houk

Intro date: 6/24/16

 

I found a very interesting PDF written by Michel Wyss circa 2015 while he was attending the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy located in Israel. I took it upon myself to convert the PDF into a Word document in order to cross post Mr. Wyss’ analysis of ISIS.

 

Michel Wyss

Michel Wyss Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy photo

 

There is not much accessible info on Michel Wyss but what I did find shows him to be a very interesting young man. Apparently his native language is German yet proficiently speaks English and French. He claims to have a lesser knowledge of Hebrew and Arabic but still uses the descriptive word “proficiency” when adding them to his language skills. He has gone to school in Europe, Israel and the USA to develop his expertise. Wyss’ last entry at LinkedIn (2015-16) shows has moved beyond student to an expert researcher:

 

Ragonis Scholarship for 2015/2016

 

Ragonis Foundation, International Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), and the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC)

 

July 2015

 

Recipient of an initial grant for a research proposal on Iranian Proxy Warfare in the Middle East (research to be conducted within a year).

“Promoting Research in Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security

The International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) and the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC), are pleased to announce an annual scholarships awarding to promote research in counter-terrorism and homeland security.

The scholarships will be given in memory of Architect, Major Eyal Ragonis z”l, for his military and civilian accomplishments. The scholarships’ aim is to promote research in counter-terrorism and homeland security by IDC Herzliya students as well as IDF soldiers and officers.”

 

Michel Wyss 2

Michel Wyss LinkedIn photo

 

Now I share this to demonstrate that Michel Wyss is well qualified to make the insightful analysis he has made about ISIS.

 

I don’t know if this was Michel Wyss’ intention, but his essay brings a bit of understanding how Multicultural Leftists seem to be way more supportive of Islamic ideology than they should be.

 

Enjoy the read.

 

JRH 6/24/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

The Ideology of ISIS

 

By Michel Wyss

January 1, 2015

PDF version located: Academia.edu

MA Program: Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy

University: Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya – Israel

 

Introduction

 

 

This research paper examines the ideology of the Salafi-Jihadist organization ISIS (also known as Islamic State, ISIL, Daesh). It offers a brief description of the Salafi-Jihad doctrine and discusses the four core functions of ideology and how they apply in the case of ISIS. It further describes how the ideology of ISIS shares many similarities with modern ideologies, in particular Marxism-Leninism, and examines what distinguishes it from other ideologies, mainly its incorporation of religious motifs. Finally, the paper concludes by arguing that the Salafi-jihad ideology of ISIS is a synthesis of the characteristics of modern ideologies and a very particular interpretation of Islam and discussing some of the ensuing counter-terror policy implications.

 

Defining Salafi-jihad ideology

 

 

According to Drake, ideologies are “the beliefs, values, principles, and objectives – however ill-defined or tenuous – by which a group defines its distinctive political identity and aims” (Drake 1998, pp. 54-55). More to the point, ideologies are “links between thoughts, beliefs and myths on the one hand, and action on the other hand” (Moghadam, 2008, p. 14).

 

The ideology of ISIS can be described as “Salafi-Jihad” (cf. Moghadam, 2008) or “jihadist-

 

Salafism”, the combination of “respect for the sacred texts in their most literal form [with] an absolute commitment to jihad” (Kepel, 2002, p. 220). In its essence, Salafi-Jihad contends that the Muslim world is suffering from a conspiracy by the West and as a response, it advocates the return to the practices and beliefs of the first three generation of Muslims, the salaf al-salih (pious ancestors), by means of violent jihad; the latter characteristic distinguishing jihadists from non-violent Salafists engaging in dawa (the call to Islam) which are essentially non-violent proselytizing activities (cf. Moghadam, 2008/2009).

 

The core functions of ideology

 

 

Modern ideologies fulfill four core functions: They raise awareness, diagnose the situation, form identity, and formulate a remedy (Moghadam, 2008). All of them can be applied to the ideology of ISIS: True to its Salafi-Jihadi creed, the organization alleges that the Muslim world is in a sorry state. ISIS statements cite Quranic verses that describe the pre-Islamic Arabs as the “[most] miserable nation, [fewest] in numbers and [the most] divided” (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014) and their propaganda videos refer to the purported humiliation and suffering Muslims have to endure in the lands of the “infidels” (kuffar) (cf. Eye of IS, 2014). According to the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the reason for this predicament lies in a conspiracy by the “Jews”, “Crusaders” and their Arab “apostate” allies (Van Ostayen, 2014). Al-Baghdadi also praises its soldiers as “heroes of Jihad […] who defy humiliation and injustice […] and will never abandon fighting”, even if “only one soldier of them remained” (ibid.). Hence, ISIS attempts to instill in its adherents a new identity that offers belonging to a supranational entity, which can offer comfort and security, for recent converts who feel experience an identity crisis, but also to those who feel disoriented by modernity (Moghadam, 2008). Indeed, many Western foreign fighters of ISIS are often recent converts (cf. Kohlmann/Alkhouri, 2014). Finally, Al-Baghdadi, the self-declared caliph and “leader of the believers” (amir al-mu’minin), rules that every Muslim has the obligation to wage violent jihad in order to defeat the infidels (Van Ostayen, 2014). This obligation is known in the Salafi-Jihad doctrine as fard ayn (individual duty) (Moghadam, 2008/09).

 

The modern roots of the ISIS doctrine

 

 

Even though ISIS advocates establishing a society mimicking the times of Prophet Muhammad and that is based on a strictly literal interpretation of Quran and Sunna purified from any religious innovation such as the incorporation of rationality (Haykel, 2007), its Salafi-Jihad doctrine is very much a product of modernity and shares many traits with other modern ideologies, especially revolutionary socialist ones such as Marxism-Leninism (Rabasa et al., 2006). Like Marxism-Leninism, Salafi-Jihad exhibits an internationalist outlook with a complete disregard for the borders of countries that are envisioned as part of the Islamic caliphate. ISIS’s breaching of the border between Iraq and Syria, which was lauded by its propagandists as “the end of Sykes-Picot”, exemplifies this (Black, 2014). Both Marxism-Leninism and the Salafi-Jihad are essentially universal, with the establishment of the caliphate, a goal shared by all Salafi-Jihad organizations (Byman, 2013), being “the religious equivalent of Marx’s Communist utopia” as Steven Holmes puts it (from Moghadam, 2008, p.

 

15). Both Marxism-Leninism and ISIS claim to be inspired by a quest for “justice”, a theme that is regularly mentioned in ISIS statements, for example calling its adherents as “fighting against injustice” (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014; Van Ostayen, 2014).

 

More to the point, both ideologies divide the world into two irreconcilable camps; capitalists and the proletariat in the case of Marxism-Leninism, whereas Salafi-jihad insists on the dichotomy of Muslim believers on one hand and infidels and Muslim apostates (which are not considered “real” Muslims) on the other. Insisting on the unbridgeable difference between the in- and the out-group is an important feature of ideologies; the latter is perceived not only as different but also as opposed and even hostile to the former and hence becomes a legitimate target (Drake, 1998; Moghadam, 2008). Baghdadi’s audio message from November 2014 serves as a case in point. In it he sets forth a priority list of ISIS’s targets, beginning with rafidah (a derogatory term for Shiites), followed by the tawagith (the Arab “apostate” regimes) and finally the West (Van Ostayen, 2014). He justifies violence against these enemies with their alleged enmity against Islam, or rather what ISIS perceives to be Islamic (ibid.).

 

Ideological groups demand from their adherents a great amount of commitment and loyalty (Moghadam, 2008). Individual members have to submit completely to their doctrines. ISIS is no exception in this regard. The group is said to have killed in less than two months at least 120 foreign fighters who wanted leave to Syria/Iraq and return home (Tufft, 2014).

 

The role of religion

 

 

While ISIS and the Salafi-Jihad doctrine in general share many similarities with modern secular ideologies, they also exhibit certain features that distinguish them from them, mainly through their incorporation of religion. Salafi-Jihad refer to themselves and their enemies in religious terms, they frame their strategies and goals as being religious in nature, and they use their very particular interpretation of religious sources such as the Quran and Sunna as a justification for acts of violence (Moghadam, 2008). Baghdadi’s audio message may again serve as an example. He refers to ISIS fighters repeatedly in religious terms, calling them

 

“heroes of Jihad”, “lions of tawhid” (the oneness of god) or “people of wala w’al barah”

 

(allegiance and disavowal, the exemplification of Salafi-Jihad’s “with us or against us”-mentality). Similarly, he labels ISIS’s enemies as “Jews”, “Crusaders”, “infidels”, and “apostates” (Van Osstayen, 2014).

 

As mentioned above, the Salafi-Jihad doctrine frames waging violent Jihad as fard ayn, and Baghdadi claims this to be the individual duty of each and every Muslim (ibid.). According to him, this is the only way to defy humiliation and suffering and to restore the glory of Islam. In particular, and the Quranic ban on self-murder notwithstanding, Salafi-jihadists promote suicide attacks as “martyrdom operations” (cf. Moghadam, 2008/09), reframing them as permissible sacrifices for the sake of Allah (fisabillah), and they believe that for this very reason, their eventual victory is inevitable (Hafez, 2007). ISIS makes sure to praise its suicide bombers and urges others to follow in their footsteps (Bell, 2014). Some of its propaganda videos depict suicide attacks from multiple angles while anasheeds (religious vocal chants) praise the attackers sacrifice for Allah (ertyanna, 2014).

 

Finally, ISIS, like other Salafi-Jihadi groups, selectively cites religious sources to justify their violence (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014; Van Ostayen, 2014). This justification is especially important when it comes to violence against other Muslims. Salafi-Jihadists vindicate their violence by declaring the targeted Muslims to be apostates, a process that is known as takfir.

 

Whereas Al Qaeda has used takfir to justify its fight against the moderate Arab regimes but has refrained from the “most extreme takfiri approach” (Byman, 2014, p. 458), ISIS has embraced it in a way that is reminiscent of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria (Zelin, 2014) and was accused by a high-ranking Al Qaeda official – who was later assassinated, allegedly by ISIS – of “too much takfir” (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014a).

 

Conclusion: The ISIS doctrine as a synthesis of modern ideology and a particular

 

interpretation of Islam

 

 

As was shown above, the Salafi-Jihad doctrine of ISIS exhibits the traits of any modern ideologies such as drawing a sharp distinction between its adherents and those who oppose it (essentially everyone who does not completely agree with it), but additionally incorporates a set of religious themes based upon its distinct interpretation of Islam emphasizing violent struggle against the “infidels”. Hence, it needs to be understood as a religious ideology (Moghadam, 2008).

 

 

This entails certain counter-terror policy implications: On one hand, combating ISIS and Salafi-Jihad in general has to be understood as fighting against an ideology, and not a whole religion (ibid.). On the other hand, taking into account the religious themes of this particular ideology demands that security agencies not only have to deal with ISIS itself and its members but also with organizations, in particular in the West, which disseminate the same ideology without being violent themselves or breaking the law. Finally, the fact that ISIS, like any other group adhering to ideologies, chooses to ignore any information that contradicts its doctrine, should be used against the organization. As Moghadam rightly argues, it needs to be pointed out that groups like ISIS and other Salafi-Jihad adherents, who claim to defend

 

Muslims, first and foremost engage in killing Muslims themselves (Moghadam, 2008).

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Bell, S. (2014, June 16). Canadian ISIS member’s online ‘wake up call’ urges muslims to follow example of calgary suicide bomber. National Post, Retrieved from http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/16/canadian-isis-members-online-wake-up-call-urges-muslims-to-follow-example-of-calgary-suicide-bomber/

 

Byman, D. (2013). Fighting Salafi-jihadist Insurgencies: How much does religion really matter? Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36(5), 353-371.

 

Byman, D. (2014). Buddies or burdens? Understanding the Al Qaeda relationship with its affiliate organizations. Security Studies, 23(3), 431-470.

 

Drake, C. J. M. (1998). The role of ideology in terrorists’ target selection. Terrorism and Political Violence, 10(2), 53-85.

 

ertyanna. (2014). Isis filmed two suicide attacks by car. Retrieved December 31, 2014, from http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da6_1393495276&use_old_player=0

 

Eye of IS. (2014). Islamic state caliphate eid greetings from the land of khilafah 720p.

 

Retrieved December 30, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuZ7oGptwb8

 

Hafez, M. M. (2007). Martyrdom mythology in Iraq: How jihadists frame suicide terrorism in videos and biographies. Terrorism and Political Violence, 19(1), 95-115.

 

Haykel, B. (2009). On the nature of Salafi thought and action. In R. Meijer (Ed.), Global Salafism: Islam’s new religious movement (pp. 33-57). Columbia: Columbia University Press.

 

Kepel, G. (2002). Jihad: The trail of political Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Kohlmann, E. & Alkouri, L. (2014). Profiles of foreign fighters in Syria & Iraq. CTC Sentinel, 7(9), 1-5.

 

Moghadam, A. (2008). The salafi-jihad as a religious ideology. CTC Sentinel, 1(3), 14-16.

 

Moghadam, A. (2008/09). Motives for martyrdom: Al qaeda, salafi jihad, and the spread of suicide attacks. International Security, 33(3), 46-78.

 

Rabasa, A.; Chalk, P.; Cragin, K.; Daly, S. A.; Gregg, H. S.; Karasik, T. W.; et al. (2006).

 

Beyond Al-Waeda. Part 1. The Global Jihadist movement (No. MG-429). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

 

SITE Intelligence Group. (2014).  ISIS spokesman declares caliphate, rebrands group as

 

“Islamic state”. Retrieved December 30, 2014, from https://news.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/isis-spokesman-declares-caliphate-rebrands-group-as-islamic-state.html

 

SITE Intelligence Group. (2014a). Message attributed to zawahiri’s arbiter in syria gives advice to ISIL. Retrieved December 20, 2014, from http://ent.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/message-attributed-to-zawahiri-s-arbiter-in-syria-gives-advice-to-isil.html

 

Tufft, B. (2014, December 29, 2014). Isis ‘executes up to 200 fighters’ for trying to flee jihad and return home. The Independent, Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-executes-at-least-120-fighters-for-trying-to-flee-and-go-home-9947805.html

 

Van Ostayen, P. (2014, November 14, 2014). Audio message by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – even if the disbelievers despise such. Message posted to https://pietervanostaeyen.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/audio-message-by-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-even-if-the-disbelievers-despise-such/

 

Zelin, A. Y. (2014). Al-Qaeda disaffiliates with the Islamic state of Iraq and Al-Sham (Policy Alert. Washington: Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Retrieved from http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/al-qaeda-disaffiliates-with-the-islamic-state-of-iraq-and-al-sham

 

________________________

Wikipedia has a bit more detail about IDC Herzliya located in Israel:

 

The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (Hebrewהמרכז הבינתחומי הרצליה‎‎Ha-Merkaz ha-Bentehumi Hertseliyya; abbreviated IDC Herzliya) is a private, not-for-profit, and nonsectarian, research university in Israel founded in 1994 by Uriel Reichman.[1] It is located at Herzliya, in the Tel Aviv District, and is classified as an independent non-budgeted academic institution.[2]

 

IDC Herzliya has 8,000 students currently enrolled for undergraduate and graduate degrees, including 2,000 international students from 86 countries around the world.

 

In 2014 the IDC Herzliya was ranked the most successful academic start-up institution in Israel and outside of the United States, ranking first in Israel and twenty one in the world.[3] In the same year IDC law graduates achieved the highest passing rate at the national bar examination of all Israeli academic institutions.[4] Moreover, the IDC Herzliya has been ranked first of 66 Israeli academic institutions in terms of student satisfaction for four consecutive years.[5] In addition, the IDC Herzliya has been the only academic institution in the world who has won the international Jean Pictet International Humanitarian Law competition, organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross, in consecutive years, winning it twice in 2010 and 2011.[6]

 

READ THE REST (Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 8 June 2016, at 13:45.)

 

 

Fascists to the Left and Right


On June 12 I posted an amalgamation of Justin Smith thoughts – that are preceded by an intro by me – he had left on the Facebook group America’s Party. Now Justin has put together an essay about the same thoughts which relate to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

JRH 6/14/15

Please Support NCCR

********************************

Fascists to the Left and Right

America Betrayed

By Justin O. Smith

6/13/2015 7:17 PM

Show me the ‘free trade’ section of the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, and I’ll kiss Obama’s ass.” – Justin O Smith

Under the banner of free trade with trade an afterthought, America was betrayed on May 21st by forty-nine GOP Senators and thirteen Democrats, who voted for the Trade Promotion Authority [TPA] and corporatism and transnational fascism in order to fast-track the anti-American Trans-Pacific Partnership “trade deal” and create an international rule of law unaccompanied by democracy. This, in essence, would have removed constitutional protections against the creation of global governance structures, and it would transfer Congressional control of numerous issues to international tribunals.

Obama has been negotiating the TPP under a blanket of silence and secrecy for the past five years, and the American people were not allowed to see it before Congress voted on the TPA fast-track on June 12th; only through leaked information do we now understand that the TPP will significantly impact public health, foreign policy, immigration and the environment.

Members of the U.S. Congress have been allowed only limited access to the TPP in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center. They can review one section at a time under “supervision” of a guard, and they are forced to relinquish any notes they made before they leave. Yet more than 500 official corporate “advisors” have unlimited access to the TPP text.

Sen. Rand Paul stated, “It boggles the mind,” and he continued, [Who] … decides to keep a trade treaty secret?”

Michael Wessel has forty years of trade policy experience working for former Democrat Leader Dick Gephardt. He has worked on the North American Free Trade Agreement and he was an advisor to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. He is also a “cleared advisor” who has read the text of TPP and opposes large portions of it. He asserts in a Politico interview that he and other cleared advisors are being censored and prevented from publicly sharing their criticisms of the trade deal concerning specific proposals [See HERE]. Like every other issue, Obama pretends that such criticisms do not exist.

Why isn’t every single member of Congress demanding the full disclosure of the content of the TPP?

More than this, why would any Republican be willing to give Obama extended powers under TPA, when Obama has shown a real disdain for the U.S. Constitution? Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly called it “insane to give Obama some power to negotiate an important treaty in secret … [and] not have to account to Congress or the Senate.” [See HERE]

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is one of the few people who have read the TPP, and he noted earlier this month: “Under fast-track Congress transfers its authority to the executive and agrees to give up several of its most basic powers. … the power to write legislation … to amend legislation … to fully consider legislation on the floor … to keep debate open until Senate cloture is invoked, and the constitutional requirement that treaties receive two-thirds vote.” __ Session adds, “The latter is especially important since … it [the TPP] more closely resembles a treaty than a trade deal.” [See HERE]

Numerous sources, such as Frank Gaffney – president of the Center for Security Policy, Lou Dobbs – noted scholar and investigative journalist, and political analyst Mark Levin, have all noted that the TPA empowers Obama to unilaterally draft “implementing legislation” that will change U.S. laws and regulations to comply with the agreement he has negotiated. Through the TPA, Congress limits its own ability to debate and amend Obama’s “implementing legislation.”

Curiously, most of the 49 Senators who voted to fast-track the TPP had not read it, before they voted in favor of the TPA, including presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, although Cruz has since read it. So in essence, these men voted on a significant trade policy bill that affects the U.S. beyond anything America has seen to date, without reading the first word in it.

Deceit and subterfuge are being employed, when government officials claim TPP will not supersede U.S. law, because the fast-tracked legislation will. It also should be highlighted that rulings emanating from international tribunals do result in de facto modifications to a nation’s laws through regulations extra-legally, just in the same manner the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules have impacted the U.S.

The transnationalist governance structure of the TPP falls under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission, which has extremely broad powers and is taking the form of a nascent European Union. This new transnational commission has been chartered, by all accounts, with a “Living Agreement” clause, and it will have the authority to amend the agreement after passage, to add members and to issue regulations impacting the environment, commercial policy, healthcare, labor and immigration: An entire section of the TPP is devoted solely to immigration policy for the participating nations.

If one needs more reasons to oppose TPA and TPP, they are found in the Clinton administration’s North American Free Trade Agreement (Jan. 1994) and the WTO (Jan. 1995). These two trade treaties have caused serious detrimental effects on the U.S. economy.

Reuters’ reports: “Since the pacts were implemented, U.S. trade deficits, which drag down economic growth, have soared more than 430 percent with our free trade partners. In the same period, they’ve declined 11 percent with countries that are not free trade partners. Since fast-track authority was used to pass NAFTA and the U.S. entrance into the World Trade Organization, the overall annual U.S. trade deficit in goods has more than quadrupled, from $218 billion to $912 billion.”

Daniel DiMicco, Chairman Emeritus of Nucor Steel, explains that these free trade deals haven’t been free trade at all. We have lowered our barriers to foreign imports, but they have retained their barriers to our imports, resulting in “unilateral trade disarmament” and enabling “foreign mercantilism.”

Along with this, the AFL-CIO labor federation released a report on May 20th that read: “There is no reason to believe that drawing the Pacific Rim countries away from China is a realistic goal, so long as China continues to offer mutually beneficial trade, investments and supply chain opportunities to those countries — It seems reckless to ask Congress to enter into a deal that has a high probability of undermining U.S. wages, jobs and labor rights, as previous trade agreements have done, especially given that the deal has no real chance of diminishing China’s existing economic influence.

In this context, those proponents saying “Our rules, no rules or China’s rules,” over the TPA battle, are presenting fallacies and a false premise.

“Free trade” shouldn’t destroy one-fourth of all manufacturing jobs in the U.S., as NAFTA did. “Free trade” shouldn’t force displaced American workers to take pay cuts of 20% or more, in some cases. And ‘free trade” shouldn’t give transnational corporations more decision-making power than the U.S. government, making them a part of the government and allowing them to impact U.S. society, when their interference is unwanted and outside the normal parameters of any right they might claim.

In effect, TPA fast-track is an agreement to pre-approve and remove constitutional protections against the creation of a global governance structure, whose structures have not been made public yet. Above any desire to understand the legal and constitutional basis for such secrecy involving the TPP, one should ask, “Why is our Congress even considering such a transfer of U.S. sovereign power to a transnational governance structure of any kind, regardless of how beneficial the ‘deal’ seems?”

Can anyone show me the “free trade” in the TPP deal? Is this what freedom, liberty and justice for all has come to mean in America? God help US if it is.

Fortunately for all America, the TPA was not allowed to advance, after Speaker Boehner pushed it to a 219-211 win, because a key element, the Trade Adjustment Assistance segment, was defeated 302-126, in an effort led by labor and Nancy Pelosi. But Boehner has suggested that it will be revisited and another vote taken over the next few days, however, the 188 member Democrat caucus contains 124 hard “NO” votes in the House, with the full backing of Senators like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. So, it is highly likely that the TAA bill won’t pass, and the TPA won’t even get a vote.

Call Your Congressmen and urge them to stand firm against any new attempt to pass TPA; and then, prepare to engage in the most forceful, powerful Civil Disobedience imaginable, if for some unforeseen reason, our representatives pass the TAA and the TPA, which go against everything remotely in America’s best interests. Prepare to even take up arms should it become necessary to do so, in order to make our government and Obama understand just how far ‘We the People’ believe that they have overreached their authority.

As a longtime supporter of the GOP, I stand with those five Republican Senators, including Jeff Sessions, and the 32 Republican Congressmen, with Tennessee’s representatives noticeably missing from their ranks, and all the Democrats who stood and opposed the TPA on June 12th: Let’s pray that the next vote permanently derails the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

By Justin O. Smith

_________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor. All source-related links are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

What Price Freedom? – Or Our New Leviathan


Patrick Henry - Give Liberty or Death 2

Here are Justin O. Smith’s thoughts on the results of Election Day 2012.

 

JRH 11/14/12

Please Support NCCR

****************************

What Price Freedom? – Or Our New Leviathan

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 11/13/2012 11:37 AM

 

A dark cloud of fascism surrounded the Beacon of Freedom on November 6th, as America’s ill-informed and ignorant electorate rejected the ideas of personal responsibility and fierce independence exhibited by the early pioneer as he or she rose each morning and asked for nothing more than one more day to work towards success and gave thanks to God for seeing that morning’s sun. By reelecting Obama, these neo-fascists have gladly embraced mindless open borders, the Welfare State, global warming/”green energy”, appeasement and surrender as a foreign policy, and $20 trillion plus deficits. They have sold their Freedom for “free” contraceptives and an Affordable Health Care Act that inflates the cost more than if they had bought their own private insurance policies, and in the bargain they have ensured the enslavement of their children and their children’s children to the Leviathan and those Statists who control it!

The job lay-offs and company cutbacks and closures (Walmart, Applebee’s, Krogers) have already begun in anticipation of the AHA becoming entrenched in U.S. law, especially since many small businesses are close to the 50 employee mark that forces them under its regulation, as it takes over an entire industry. Americans must not let their opposition to Obamacare wane, because its positive effects are few and its freedom killing regulations, such as imprisonment for anyone refusing to “buy” it, are vast and devastating both to the individual and the nation.

Obama’s “mandate” is a fiction. He only won by two million votes, and he received nine million fewer this time than in 2008. The Republicans retained control of the House of Representatives with a 233-201 margin; and yet, Obama is proceeding with his theme that “the wealthy need to pay their fair share”, as he prepares to raise taxes on all Americans by allowing the Bush tax rates to expire. He has suggested raising taxes on everyone making $250,000 or more and a return to the higher tax levels of the Clinton era.

Obama supporters echo his theme, even though the top 15% earners in the U.S. already pay 90% of the taxes. Steny Hoyer, the number two Democrat from Maryland, suggests that working families should not have to bear the burden of deficit reduction. Mary Kay Henry, Pres of SEIU, wrote in a letter to the ‘Tennessee-Tribune’: “We need a country where the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share. We need good jobs, we need to need to protect the vital services that millions of Americans rely on and we need to provide a pathway to citizenship for immigrants”, signed with the American Communist Party slogan “In Solidarity”!

Steny Hoyer and others who voted for Obama are not only morally bankrupt, but they are economics illiterate. They do not understand… or even want to understand… that most of America’s jobs are found in small businesses. They do not understand that more taxes on the wealthy tend to place brakes on new business, business expansions and the jobs that are created, thus burdening families further once the lay-offs start; fewer regulations and taxes have historically enabled and created a stimulated and vibrant national economy.

Mary Henry must not realize that current U.S. law already provides a path to citizenship for immigrants, but of course, she really meant illegal aliens, who all the Far Left liberals think souls be given amnesty, which did not work in 1986 and will not solve the situation now; legal Hispanic immigrants, who filed their paperwork and paid the fees, don’t like the fact that the illegals claim their “right” to be here, expect to go to the head of the line and essentially be rewarded for their criminal behavior. However, Heather McDonald (Manhattan Institute) uses statistics to illustrate that, by and large, Hispanics did not vote for Obama due to his immigration stance, but rather they voted for him due to their own propensity towards large centralized government.

America had the chance to elect a potentially good President, Mitt Romney, who would have made the nation energy independent, but they stuck with the Fascist, who is once again preparing to tax carbon emissions by the metric ton and is positioned to close 200-400 coal plants by 2014; just this week a coal plant in Utah laid off 160 workers. So, when gas prices keep rising and people can barely pay their electric bills (projected to soon increase by 30%), Americans need only to look in the damned mirror, because they created the situation by reelecting the most radical President in American history!

While Speaker of the House John Boehner has not been specific on what goals he might set for raising new federal tax dollars, his lack of spine is apparent, as he makes conciliatory noises and once again kisses their President’s backside by suggesting that compromise on the debt ceiling and tax rate is possible. Boehner did, however, recently attempt to sound tough, as he stated that he supported continuing President Bush’s tax rates for all income levels.

Now that the debt ceiling “crisis”, automatic tax hikes and spending cuts set to occur at the end of the year have set the stage for going over the “fiscal cliff,” Obama speaks of reaching across the aisle in the spirit of compromise; however, he has shown himself in his first term as an intransigent, secretive pathological LIAR…and now we’re supposed to take him at his word and join him? Not just “No”, but “Hell No!” No deals should be cut with Obama…Let the Democrats be the ones to shut the government down if they will!

Obama’s and Harry Reid’s annual $1.5 trillion deficits have done their damage, and our economy may collapse no matter what saving steps are taken. Obama could take every penny from all of our millionaires and billionaires and still not make a dent in the nation’s debt. The only chance we can give America is to 1) cut government bureaucracies 2) halt deficit spending 3) limit all spending 4) keep the current tax rates; an economic and financial collapse knows no party or race, and you on the Left are damaging the nation and everyone’s future!

Obama, the Divider, and his neo-fascist supporters declare that Americans do not have the right and duty to preserve the society that so many fought and bled for centuries to build; their Utopian lust for a multicultural and transnational society is certain to destroy America if they aren’t stopped, because no nation can survive long if its immigrants are not integrating into the culture and learning the common language or if its borders are not secured and its laws enforced. Obama has pitted women against the Church, unions against Wall Street and local governments, the poor against the rich, homosexuals (3% of the pop.) against the Church and the military (military cadre are retiring in droves due to the military’s “gay marriage” acceptance) and race against race on many issues. His Marxist call for “social justice” is a farce, and his policies make American life insecure and unsafe, as he also ignores the Constitution, loots the U.S. Treasury, downgrades our Armed Forces and consolidates power.

There are those in America who have chosen tyranny over Liberty, but we must resist, obstruct and sabotage Obama’s and the Democrats’ anti-American agendas at every turn in order to save our nation, because redistribution of the wealth is not a legitimate function of the government. The sober and resolute citizens can stop this out of control government…we can stop the liberal whores who bow at the altar of government servitude; we will not negotiate the terms of our economic and political servitude, or abandon our children to a dark and bleak future, or allow Obama to create a new order founded in ideas foreign to our culture historically and an anathema in every way. And, they do not get to dictate to us under Our U.S. Constitution, as we remain defiant in our demise, if it comes to pass. To quote the great Mark Levin, “We’re not good losers, you better believe we’re sore losers! A good loser is a loser forever.” With Freedom for All and Our Beloved America’s future at stake, no options exist except for resistance … no surrender!

“We have petitioned, we have remonstrated, we have supplicated, we have prostrated ourselves at the foot of the throne, and it has all been in vain. We must fight… We must fight!” -Patrick Henry

 

By Justin O Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk