Women in Combat

Recently the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it would lift the ban on women in combat. Since Obama became president in 2008, the left has increasingly used the military for social experiments, from allowing gays and Transgenders to openly serve to allowing beards, tattoos, and religious garb to be worn. All in the name of equality of course. They want a society where men and women are equal in every respect, while ignoring important physical and psychological distinctions that makes us different. At the risk of sounding sexist, men and women are not equal. Men are better suited than women at some things, and women are better suited than men at some things. Those are just the facts. These social experiments will ultimately weaken the military and cost more lives.

Historically men have done the hunting and fighting, while women have reared the children. There are always exceptions of course, but that's all they are. Rules should never be based upon the exceptions. In reality very few women could pass the same physical requirements set for men, even fewer could sustain those standards for extended periods of time under battlefield conditions. For this reason, the physical standards for women should not be lowered. The enemy won't discriminate, and bullets don't care if you're male or female. There are good reasons why men have always been the warriors and soldiers of society since time immemorial. The following is a partial comparison of the physical advantages men have over women:

*Men are taller.
*Have 40% more upper body strength and 33% more lower body strength.
*Have higher levels of testosterone, which allows them to have larger skeletal muscles.
*Have more Type 2 muscle fibers, which generate power, strength and speed.
*Have 56% greater lung volume per body mass.
*Have larger hearts, 10% higher red blood count, higher hemoglobin, allowing greater oxygen-carrying capacity.
*Higher circulating clotting factors, leading to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance.
*Generally have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.
*Convert more calories to muscle and energy reserves.
*Significantly higher hand grip strength.
*More aggressive.

These physical advantages give men an edge over women, which that makes them more suitable for physical combat. To further emphasize this point, the fastest women in the Olympics are still slower than the fastest boys in high school. Just to give you an idea, these are the current track records in the "world" for the women's Olympics compared to the United States records set by boys in high school track:

100 meters: 10.62 for women, 10.00 for boys
200 meters: 21.34 for women, 20.13 for boys
400 meters: 48.26 for women, 44.69 for boys
800 meters: 1:52.43 for women, 1:46.45 for boys
1500 meters: 3:53.96 for women, 3:38.26 for boys

Not only can high school boys outperform Olympic trained women, but the discrepancy becomes greater the distance. This is the reason men and women are segregated in sporting events, yet we feel the need to integrate them into combat, which is anything but a game.

There are other issues that are unique for women, which does not make them ideal for combat roles.  To put it bluntly, women have specific hygiene requirements which could become problematic to maintain on the battlefield. Monthly cycles, while being an annoyance and inconvenience in civilian life, could impact performance, which is crucial on the battlefield. And if a woman is captured on the battlefield, not only are they subject torture like men, but unlike men they are also subject to rape.

With men and women working in such close proximity, romantic relationships are inevitable, thus changing the dynamics and effectiveness of the combat unit. This is also an argument against homosexuals serving in the military. And what happens if someone gets pregnant? In the Navy for instance, where men and women are stuck on a ship most of the time, unplanned pregnancies are higher than in the general population and generally more disruptive. And this despite having access to contraceptives.

Some will point to the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), as an example that female combat soldiers are possible. However, that doesn't make it ideal. What is under reported is that female soldiers in the IDF suffer injuries at twice the rate of males.  One study indicated that 46% of female soldiers suffered injuries during their initial training period, as opposed to 25% of men. The injury rate for female soldiers in Karakal (infantry combat battalion) is 40% and a whopping 70% in the Artillery corps. The bone density of female combat soldiers is lower than that of men, which is why they suffer more injuries. In addition, women have 70% to 100% more body fat than men, which makes them slower and consume more energy, their muscle density is 33% is less, so they cannot carry as much weight as their male counterparts. What should also be noted is that Israel has female soldiers out of necessity. They are a small nation with greater immediate threats, so they need as many able-bodied soldiers as possible. This is the reason why men are required to serve a minimum of 3 years in the IDF, while women are required to serve 2 years.

As John Adams once said, facts are stubborn things. And the fact is, men are naturally more suitable for combat roles due to their physical and psychological makeup. I am certainly not opposed to women serving in the military, but for reasons previously stated, just not in ground combat. Men have historically done the fighting and faced the horrors of war so women wouldn't have to. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer it that way.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_athletics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_high_school_national_records_in_track_and_field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/01/29/baby-on-board-us-navy-reacts-to-high-rates-unplanned-pregnancies-among-sailors/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198853

Why poltical correctness sucks

Political Correctness sucks because:
It is is cultural Marxism.
It is fascism.
It seeks to control the behavior and thoughts of others.
It stifles freedom of speech.
It seeks to remove offenses but only accomplishes in sensitizing people to offenses, making them more easily offended and creating a vicious cycle.
It puts labels on everyone and breaks them down into categories and creating a polarizing Balkanization.
It doesn't solve anything but creates perpetual conflicts and divisions
It is based on feelings and emotions, devoid of logic and reason

In the end you can have political correctness or you can have freedom, but you can't have both.

Thoughts on Christian Bakeries refusing to bake gay wedding cakes.

Let's pose some hypothetical (and some not-so hypothetical) scenarios involving bakeries:

A Christian baker refuses to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple.

A Muslim baker refuses to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple. (Steven Crowded tested this scenario and was denied service).

A gay baker refuses to bake a pro-marriage cake for a Christian. (Theodore Shoebat tested this scenario and was denied service).

A black baker refuses to bake a pro-KKK cake for a white supremacist.

A Jewish baker refuses to bake a cake that says "Death to all Jews" for a Palestinian.

A baker refuses to bake a cake with pornographic imagery.

Of all these scenarios only one would get media attention for denying service. Can you guess which one this is? Not only is it hypocritical but it proves there is an agenda at work.

The two-state "final" solution

Benjamin Netanyahu created quiet a stir recently when he said that no Palestinian state would be created under his leadership. Many liberals will see Netanyahu as being a mean-spirited hard-liner, but in reality it's a matter of practicality. As the situation currently stands it is not in Israel's best interests for Palestinian state. 

For one, a contiguous Palestinian state would come at the expense of a dis-contiguous Israel. The current proposal of merging Gaza and the West Bank would cut Israel in two. Incidentally this proposal is similar to the 1947 UN partition plan that the Arab's rejected at that time.

Second, such a Palestinian state would set Israel back to pre-1967 borders, nicknamed the Auschwitz borders because they are indefensible. A return to those lines would leave Israel with a waistline just nine miles (15 kilometers) wide at its narrowest point. A "two-state solution” would be a "final solution" for Israel.

Third,  as seen when Israel evacuated Gaza, it has been used as a launching pad for attacks against Israel ever since. This problem would only be compounded with a Palestinian state.

Fourth, PLO Ambassador Maen Areikat and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas have publicly stated that no Jews would be allowed in a Palestinian state. So the half a million Jews living in the West Bank would have to be forcibly relocated elsewhere. In essence it would solve one refugee problem by creating another refugee problem.

In reality a two-state solution won't solve anything, and it certainly won't bring peace. There is a major misconception that the issue is about land, it's not. If it were true then the various proposals over the decades would not have been rejected by the Arabs including:The 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1937 Peel Commission plan, the 1947 UN Partition, the Lausanne Conference of 1949, the 1955 Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan aka Johnston Plan, the 1967 President Johnson's "Five Principles of Peace", the 1969 Rogers Plan, 1978 Camp David Accords, the 1982 Reagan Plan, 1991 Madrid Conference, 1993 Oslo Accords, 1997 Hebron Agreement, 1998 Wye River Memorandum, 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum, 2000 Camp David Summit, the December 23 Clinton Parameter plans, 2001 Taba Summit, 2003 Road map for peace, 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA), 2007 Annapolis Conference.
 
 At it's core it's about Jewish hatred. Antisemitism runs deep in Arab culture and has been intertwined with Islam from the start. One of the first thing's Muhammad did when he came to power was to behead 600-900 Jews. The Koran refers to Jews as apes and pigs.

Currently a Palestinian state is not politically or economically viable. As it stands the Palestinians are economically dependent on others to survive, including Israel who is a major employer of Palestinian labor and a main trading partner. Even with financial aid from UNRWA and other countries, about one-fifth of the Palestinian population lives in poverty and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the world. -Source. Then there is the question of territory, even with Gaza and the West Bank combined it would not be able to absorb all the Palestinian Arabs from the surrounding countries.

The Palestinians authorities have been given billions over the years, by the U.S., by Israel, by the E.U., by other Arabs and what have they done with it all? Just one example, they spent millions of dollars over 5 years digging tunnels to launch terrorists attacks on Israel. When Israel turned over Gaza they left the greenhouses intact so the Palestinians could make money off the produce, but the Palestinians ended up destroying them as soon as Israel left.

 According to the 2006 Pew Global, 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. This is unacceptable and the continual contesting of Israel's legitimacy which has led to perpetual conflict "must" be addressed before moving forward. A Palestinian state should be earned through good behavior, not as a reward for bad behavior. Until the Palestinians have shown they are willing to live in peaceful coexistence with a "Jewish" state then they they don't deserve a state of their own. By the way Jordan was actually meant as a Palestinian state and 70% of the population is made up of Palestinians.

I spy

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Israel spied on Obama's nuclear talks with Iran and then shared it with members of Congress, and for what it's worth Israel has denied this allegation. Now let's just assume for a moment that the WSJ article is true.

First of all the "anonymous sources" offered no proof that Israel spied on US rather than Iranian or other allied targets. The only confirmed spying was the US on Israel, which is how they they "allegedly" found out about it in the first place. In fact the NSA has spied on everyone from the Pope, to Angelica Merkel, to former Israeli leaders, and Americans themselves. So it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

Second they were sharing the information with congress! You know the guys who are supposed to actually make and ratify treaties. This is something the Obama administration should be doing anyways, but it isn't. So we have a story that tries to paint Israel as the bad guy, but really ends up doing just the opposite.

The backwards president

In the fictions world of comic books, Bizarro is the mirror-image antagonist of Superman. Everything Superman is, Bizarro is the exact opposite. In Bizarro's world everything is backwards. Up is down, down is up. Good is evil and evil is good. In much the way in Obama is the exact opposite of every American president. Think of him as the Bizarro Reagan. In Obama's Bizarro World our friends are our enemies and our enemies are our friends. Nothing highlights this point than Obama's handling of the middle-east.

When the Arab Spring came to Egypt, Obama was first in line to throw Mubarak, a long time American ally, under the bus just so he could get his buddies the Muslim Brotherhood into power. A group whose spawned numerous terrorist organizations, and whose stated goal it is to dismantle America and turn it into a Muslim nation. He's also taken long time enemies Iran and Hezbollah off the terror threat list. You know the same Iran that took 52 American hostages for over a year and helped to kill our troops in Iraq. And the same Hezbollah that fires rockets on innocent civilians. He's turned his back on Israel, our only true friend in the middle-east. He has shown his contempt for Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and no longer tries to hide it anymore. At least in the beginning there was some pretense of cordiality. But what can we expect from a man whose first phone call after being elected in 2008 was to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas. And whose first interview was on Arab news channel Al Arabiya. He showed us where his loyalties lie from the start.

Of course his backwardness is not just regulated to foreign policy but to every aspect to his life. And it's no wonder considering his upbringing. He didn't grow up as a typical red-blooded American. He was raised by Marxists and Communists, he spent his formative years in Muslim Indonesia. While most college kids spend their vacation on some beach in Florida or Mexico, he spent his in Pakistan. He's not American, not because of where he was born but how he was raised. He has America's power in his hands but he doesn't think like an American. And this is the danger of a backwards president.

Islam, Bushido, and killing an ideology

Recently Marie Harf, the deputy spokesman for the US Department of State, said about ISIS:

 “We’re killing a lot of them, and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians — they’re in this fight with us,” Harf said. “But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs.”

Likewise Queen Rania of Jordan echoed this sentiment:

 “At the heart of this war is ideology, and you cannot kill an ideology with a bullet. You can only kill it with a better idea.”

Liberals will say you can't kill an ideology through war, but is it true? Some 70 years ago we defeated a similar ideology whose followers were just as religiously fanatical and fervent as the militant followers of Islam. This ideology was known as Bushido, which means way of the warrior. Bushido is a system of ethics that revolved around honor, loyalty, sacrifice, and ultimately death. It was a major factor in the growth of ultra-nationalism in Japan prior to World War 2. It is an ideology that has many similarities with Islam:

Submission and Domination:
In Bushido the emperor was revered as a deity and devotion to him was absolute. Bushido sees war as an act that could purify the self, the nation, and ultimately the whole world. At it's height, Imperial Japan succeed in conquering good portions of east and southeast Asia.

Islam means submission. Devotion to Muhammad is absolute and his words are revered as holy writ. Islam also seeks to dominate the world. In Islam the world is divided into two parts. The House of Islam, lands under Muslim rule and Sharia Law is imposed, and the outside world called The House of War, which is in a perpetual state of Jihad until subjugated. “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” -Hassan Al-Banna (Muslim Brotherhood founder)

Honor and Shame:
Honor and shame are two reoccurring themes in the Bushido code. Seppuku, or ritualistic suicide by disembowelment, was committed voluntary in order to die with honor rather than fall into the hands of the enemy, or if they had brought shame upon themselves. Surrender and defeat were unthinkable because they believed it was humiliating.

Islam is also a honor-shame based culture. Insults to Islam or to the prophet Mohammad are perceived as humiliating and are met with violence. Girls are taught never to bring shame or dishonor upon their families by being obedient and subordinate. Honor killings are murders committed by family members on their relative if they bring dishonor to the family. In Islam non-Muslims, called Dhimmis, are perpetually shamed by being treated as second class citizens and forced to pay a special tax.

Beheadings:
All Japanese soldiers during World War 2 were required to wear swords. The Japanese were often brutal with their prisoners and beheadings were a common form of execution. In one contest, two Japanese Army officers tried see who could kill 100 people the fastest with a sword.

Beheadings have been a part of Islamic culture since it's inception. Muhammad had 600-900 Jews beheaded. Beheading continues to be the preferred form of execution in Islamic countries and by Islamic terrorists.

A culture of death:
The Bushido code was about loyalty and honour until death. It was summed by a famous samurai saying, "I have found the way of the warrior is death". As previously noted, Japanese soldiers would rather kill themselves rather than surrender or be defeated. Kamikaze pilots would intentionally crash their planes into enemy ships in suicide attacks.

Islam is also a culture of death. Islamic terrorists have been known to engage in suicide attacks by detonating bombs on themselves or by crashing planes into buildings. The belief in Islam is that only through Jihad, or holy war, are they guaranteed a place in heaven.

Mistreatment of prisoners:
Japanese soldiers were notorious for abusing their prisoners. POWs being held by the Japanese were routinely taken on death marches, starved, beaten, beheaded, shot, and forced into slave labor.

Prisoners in Islam are tortured, shot, beheaded, and burned alive. Slavery and forced labor have been a part of Islam since it's beginning and continues to this day. 

Conclusion:
In 1945 atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite these attacks and inevitable defeat, Japan was still reluctant to surrender. Members of the Imperial guard attempted a military coup to stop the move to surrender. Fortunately the coup failed and the conspirators ultimately committed suicide. Japan announced it's surrender on September 2, 1945, and with it the end of the Bushido code. Today Bushido is no longer practiced in daily life in Japan, proving that ideologies can be defeated through war.

Inspired by the article Bushido and Islam: Creepily Similar

Queen Rania: Let's Drop The First 'I' In ISIS. There's Nothing Islamic About Them

Queen Rania of Jordan recently said “I would love to drop the first ‘I’ in ISIS because there’s nothing Islamic about them,". Ironically Marie Harf said almost the same thing recently:

“We’re killing a lot of them, and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians — they’re in this fight with us,” Harf said. “But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs.”

This makes the queen an anomaly among Arabs, both westernized and liberal. What makes a true Muslim? The one who emulates the founder of Islam or the one who doesn't? The Muslims that preceded Muhammad certainly believed it was the former. They conquered the middle-east in the name of Islam in short order after his death. Nothing ISIS is doing is any different from what Muhammad and his followers did or is contrary to what the Quran teaches. The ideology of modern Jihad merely continues this tradition of following the founder and the Quaran. The current leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr, knows his Islam. He has a PhD in Islamic law and theology.

If there are any doubts, history speaks for itself. Islam started as a militant movement and continues to this day. As recently as the 1800's they were still occupying parts of Europe. They were taking European and American slaves on the high seas in vast numbers for centuries, right up until about 1820. The end of the Ottoman Empire in the 20th century concluded with the massacre of one million Christian Armenians. It also marked the beginning of Islamic terrorism. The tactics have changed but Islam has been at war with the rest of the civilized world for 1400 years. Queen Rania either doesn't know or ignores her own Muslim history. She's a cultural Muslim with a rose-colored view of Islam. If anyone is trying to hijack Islam it's her.

You can read the full article here.

The New Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence outlined a litany of 27 abuses committed by King George III against the colonies. In the spirit and style of the Declaration of Independence we lay forth 27 abuses committed by President Barack Hussein Obama and his administration.

The history of the present President of The United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has ruled by decree through use of Executive Orders and Presidential Memorandum.
He has refused to secure the border.
He has shown himself to be lawless:
For ignoring immigration laws:
For unilaterally granting amnesty:
For violating the War Powers Act regarding Libya:
For unilaterally changing the Affordable Care Act.
He has bypassed Congress to implement the DREAM act through Executive Fiat.
He has reduced the size of the United States military, thus reducing our capacity to defend ourselves and our allies.
He has raised the national debt by 8 trillion dollars.
He has refused to acknowledge the threat of Islamic terrorism.
He has lied repeatedly to the American public:
For promising to run the most transparent White House in history:
For telling the American public "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.":
For blaming the murder of a U.S. Ambassador, the first in 30 years, on a video.
He has publicly announced an enemies list, making him the first president to do so.
He has threatened private businesses including insurance companies, coal mines, and auto companies by use of the EPA, the Department of Justice, and IRS.
He has disregarded the First Amendment by spying on members of the media, by targeting citizens and organizations through use of the IRS.
He has disregarded the Second Amendment by attempting to ban AR-15 ammunition, by attempting to induce public outcry for gun control through Operation Fast & Furious.
He has tripled the number of warrantless wiretaps of U.S. Citizens.
He has expanded the power of the federal government, by taking control of Health Care, by taking control of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, by taking control of the internet and declaring it a public utility.
He has prevented the U.S. from becoming energy independent by vetoing the Keystone Pipeline, by attacking fracking, by reducing drilling on federal lands, by placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling and exploration of the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coasts and parts of the Gulf of Mexico.
He has attempted to make recess appointments without conformation by Congress.
He has appointed numerous czars to cabinet level positions without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
He has sued the sovereign state of Arizona for enforcing immigration laws.
He has forced citizens to buy a product, the Individual Health Care Mandate, thus changing the relationship between citizen and government.
He has disabled the credit card verification system for campaign donations, allowing foreigners to donate without limits or proof of identity in violation of several laws.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A President whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Watchman@Fundamental Refounding

Happy Birthday Abe Lincoln

On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 50 would change the world. Happy Birthday Abraham Lincoln b. Feb 12, 1809

p.s. If you didn't notice this was also a subtle dig at Tyson Degrasse's Christmas tweet as today also happens to be Charles Darwin's birthday.

The roots of Islamic Terrorism

Liberals, Libertarians, and Islamic apologists would have us believe that Islamic Terrorism is the result of the United States foreign policy and interference in the middle-east. The truth is Islam has been at war with western civilization for 1400 years. Islamic Terrorism is not new. In fact the United States first foreign war was fought against Muslim Barbary pirates in 1801 and again in 1815. What is new are the shift in tactics. Several events in the last century have helped shaped Islamic terrorism to what it is today, but the goal remains the same.

Islam has a long history of conquests since it's inception. There's far too many to list here, so here is a map of Islamic conquest upon classical civilization, up until the end of the Ottoman Empire. Bear in mind this does not even include every battle but those primarily of Europe, the Mediterranean, and parts of the middle-east:

The roots of modern Islamic terrorism really began with the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 shortly after World War 1 and the dissolvement of the Ottoman Empire. The primary goal of the Muslim Brotherhood has been to restore an Islamic caliphate. Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, has said, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” Another Muslim Brotherhood member, Sayyid Qutb, was instrumental in penning the ideology for modern Jihad. Osama Bin Laden was a student of Sayyid's brother, Mohammad Qutb.

The Muslim Brotherhood is responsible for spawning or inspiring many terrorist organizations including Hamas and al-Qaeda. Abdullah Azzam, known as the father of global Jihad, was once a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who splintered off and formed al-Qaeda with Osama Bin Laden and other radicals. Osama in turn helped Abu Musab al-Zarqawi start his terrorist organization in 1999 which today is known as ISIS.

Nazi fascism is responsible for energizing Islamic jihad. The link between the Arabs and the Nazis is well known. Many Arabs supported Hitler including Hassan al-Banna and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj-Amin-al-Husseini. The two groups shared common enemies including the Bolsheviks, England, America, and especially the Jews. Many high-ranking Nazis expressed sympathy for Islam including Hitler and Himmler, who called Islam "very admirable". As a result one of the greatest mobilization campaigns of Muslims by a non-Muslim power was undertook.

Massive programs of propaganda were launched in the Arab world, first by Fascist Italy and later on by Nazi Germany. The Nazis in particular focused on impacting the new generation of political thinkers and activists. Nazi propagandists in these areas tried to use religious rhetoric, vocabulary, and iconography to mobilize Muslims against Germany’s enemies. During this period there were many wealthy Arabs who traveled to Germany in the 1930s and brought back fascist ideals and incorporated them into Arab Nationalism. Today, Hitler's manifesto, "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle) remains a best-seller in the Islamic world, and the continued influence of Nazism on Islam remains apparent.

The formation of the state of Israel in 1948 offered Islamics a rallying point. This is significant because there has always been a lot of internal conflict within Islam, such as Shiite's against Sunnis. Israel has been one of the few unifying forces for Muslims. Here also the roots of modern Islamic terrorism can be found. The Arabs (and Persians) were unable to defeat Israel militarily, as a result they resorted to terrorism and modern Jihad was born. This shift in tactics was also due to the Wests technological and military superiority which made Jihad impossible to wage through conventional means. Now Jihad is waged through terrorism, propaganda, politics, and immigration.

Another key factor in the growth of Islamic terrorism is the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Iran, under the Mullahs, have been a significant source of funding for state sponsored terrorism, including Hezbollah and other groups. Islamic terrorism took off after the Mullahs came into power. Islamic terrorism remains a global problem, regardless of foreign policy. See the list of Islamic terrorist attacks since 1983.

ISIS is not Islamic?

How do you destroy America?

How do you destroy the most powerful country in the world? A country who became the world's premiere superpower in less than 200 years of it's founding. A country that is economically, politically, militarily, and morally strong? Land of the free, home of the brave. It's far too powerful to be defeated externally so I would work to defeat it from within, and here's how I would do it.

I would practice class warfare to divide and conquer. I would turn everyone into either a victim or a victimizer. I would encourage multiculturalism so I could break society down into tribes and groups to pit them against each other.

I would change the narrative of our founding. I would only focus only on negative things like slavery and Indian genocides. I would  keep racism alive by continuing to focus on the past, never letting old wounds heal. I would stir up resentment and strife to create problems where none existed before.

I would change the culture. I would present traditional values as old-fashioned and outdated. I would  marginalize and demonize Christianity, while embracing anything that is not Christian. I would use Movies and TV to subtly teach my values under the guise of entertainment. I would teach people that are not a special creation but a random accident and life has no meaning. I would reject absolute truth and embrace moral relativism.

I would vilify the military. I would focus on civilian deaths and frame soldiers as murderers and baby killers. I would create empathy for the enemy, portraying them as underdogs and freedom fighters while portraying the military as aggressors and invaders. I would create feelings of shame and guilt so people no longer loved their country or have pride in it. I would destroy patriotism so they no longer wanted their country to succeed. I would malign the founding fathers making them appear as old-fashioned and out of touch. I would refer to the Constitution as a "living document" so that I could change it at whim.

I would vilify the rich, fermenting envy and bitterness while calling for the distribution of wealth. I would secretly work to replace Capitalism with Socialism and turn the people into Marxist without them even knowing it. I would make people believe the grass is greener on the other side, when in reality it isn't.

And that is how you destroy a country. Abraham Lincoln once said, "Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."