Recently in US Category

To be or not to be... - Shakespeare. It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. - Bill Clinton. Don't use any word that has ever made anyone feel bad at any time in human history. - John Robinson.


"Don't you see the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expresses in exactly ONE word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten."


So now the State Department has begun lecturing American citizens on speech code. Everyone who thought the State Department was tasked with foreign affairs raise your hand. Although I must say, this goes along neatly with the notion Americans are the real terrorists. Indeed, to the DC elite we are the new "American Indian" to be broken and if not broken, destroyed. Just watch.


At any rate, State's Chief Diversity Officer John Robinson kindly offers a list of things we're not allowed to say:


-          Hold down the fort = Anti-Indian.

-          Going Dutch = "Negative stereotype portraying the Dutch as cheap."

-         Rule of thumb = "An antiquated law, whereby the width of a husband's thumb was the legal size of a switch or rod allowed to beat his wife."

-          Handicap = "Rooted in a correlation between a disabled individual and a beggar, who had to beg with a cap in his or her hand because of the inability to maintain employment."

-         Black and Tan = Nike produced this "sneaker without realizing the phrase once referred to a group 'that committed atrocities against Irish civilians.'"


Robinson concludes his magnificent diatribe of stupidity this way: "Choose your words thoughtfully. Now that you know the possible historical context of the above phrases, perhaps you will understand why someone could be offended by their use." Beyond just creepy - talk about a "chill wind blowing", the demand is actually fairly ironic if not impossible to follow. The demand was born in ignorance and will die in ignorance.


I wonder if Robinson would also include words like "communism", "socialism", "atheism", and "Islam", which in their "historical context" are associated with the greatest genocides and acts of cruelty the world has yet seen?


Or maybe "Democrat", a term Americans over the decades have seen associated with:

-          Slavery

-          Segregation

-          Socialism (see above)

-          Enemy-appeasement

-          The genocide of 50 million as the result of banning DDT

-          The genocides in Southeast Asia as a result of our withdrawal from Vietnam

-          The infanticide of millions of unborn babies

-          The open call to kill off the elderly and the weak so Obamacare can focus on the young and strong


But who needs to be partisan? Let's look at some everyday words including those that were not so common until media run by liberals like this guy began filling movies and TV shows with them. Others have been with us a lot longer and have some really crazy historical beginnings:


A shot in the arm

Based in drug culture with the bonus of causing anxiety attacks of those severely afraid of the needle.


A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush

Inspires hunting, which in itself offends leftist sensibilities, but hunting also implies self-sufficiency, which is the greatest evil of all to a liberal and most certainly can cause upset.


An arm and a leg

Insensitive to amputees or those missing limbs since birth or otherwise disabled.


Bats in the belfry

Insensitive to crazy people, insensitive to bats; belfry is a reference to churches, which will offend the irreligious.


Chick flick

Clearly sexist.


Damn; also dayum!

To be sent to Hell


Gild the lily

A term of reckless extravagance that may offend Michelle Obama.


Gung ho

An Anglicization of a Chinese phrase "kung ho" (work together). It is evil because it is Anglicized without sensitive care to pronounce it authentically. It is also evil because it was coined during WWII and used in the context of killing Imperial Japanese combatants.



See "screwed"


In spades

A 20th Century phrase derived from modern playing cards that are connected to gambling, which in turn is connected to gambling addiction. Thus, to use the term "in spade" is to be insensitive to someone who might suffer from such an addiction.


Joined at the hip

Derived from the obvious reality faced by Siamese twins and therefore offensive to those of Chinese descent and twins of all sort.


Jury is still out

Derived in the 19th Century from American court proceedings. Given how evil and racist our criminal justice system is, using this reference will cause many people great emotional hardship.


Kick the bucket

Glorifies animal cruelty. In the 16th Century, a bucket was also a word for wooden beam, from which animals readied for slaughter would be hung by their feat. The term derives from their death throes.


Loose cannon

Offensive to crazy people and also uses imagery of violence and militarism, which is also sexist and racist due to the colonial period when cannons were most often used.



Nits are baby lice. To nitpick is to go through someone's hair to remove lice. This is biased against poor people.



Enlightened liberals believe this term is derived from a context having to do with lynchings in the 19th Century.  It is our hope that George Lucas removes this word from Han Solo's dialogue in the upcoming 4-D remix of Star Wars so that we can have a new hope with that change.


On the warpath

Heaven help us! Clearly anti-Indian.


Paint the town red

Implies disregard for all manner of proper conduct. It is rooted in a drunken 19th Century event in which Englishmen literally painted several buildings red, thus they literally carried out in deed that which is so very wrong with the words in this list. They were also English and men, some of the most oppressive, evil people the world has ever seen.


Real McCoy

Refers to Scottish whiskey and thus glorifies alcohol consumption.


Red letter day

The Catholic church marked religious holidays in red on their calendars, thus it is a sacred term and offensive to irreligious, other-religious, and non-religious people.



Essentially, this literally describes forcible sex, i.e. rape. As do the phrases "grab your ankles" "bend over", etc. Yet, their cultural meaning is not literal at all. Much the same way Shakespeare used "pregnant" figuratively in reference to an idea right in the middle of a time when the use of the word in the literal sense was taboo and the use of taboo words could be harshly sanctioned:


Of government the properties to unfold,

Would seem in me to affect speech and discourse;

Since I am put to know that your own science

Exceeds, in that, the lists of all advice

My strength can give you: then no more remains,

But that to your sufficiency as your Worth is able,

And let them work. The nature of our people,

Our city's institutions, and the terms

For common justice, you're as pregnant in

As art and practise hath enriched any

That we remember. There is our commission,

From which we would not have you warp. Call hither,

I say, bid come before us Angelo.


That liberals like Robinson are ignorant of actual "historical context", etymology or literature, however, is strangely unsurprising.


Up a tree

Derived from possum hunting, this phrase glorifies hunting and the patriarchal colonial construct.


Upsidaisy; also Upsa daisy, Upsy-daisy, Oops-a-daisy, Oops, Oopsy-daisy, Hoops-a-daisy, Whoops

A term derived from the obsolete "upaday". Furthermore, "daisy" is derived from "day's eye" because the flower opens during the day. This term suggests that only those who are fully awake during the day are prepared to handle the rigors of life, which is clearly dayist (not to be confused with deist).

Wear the pants

Obviously sexist.


Wild and woolly

Offensive for many reasons. It was coined in the 19th Century to describe the Old West, so it glorifies that unfortunate time. There are also racial overtones. In 1850, the first example of the phrase took this form: "wild and woolly-haired Negillo". Negillo may have been a proper surname, but we know what the racists of that time really meant. As proof, the second example of the phrase's use was against Bill Clinton, dubbed by Al Sharpton and others in the 1990s as the "first black president." Even though the second-known use of the phrase occurred 117 years before the presidency of Mr. Clinton, it is clear from reading the passage of this Missouri newspaper just what was meant:


"W. A. Palmer, the South Bend, Indiana, murderer and paramour of Dolly Tripp, was for several years resident of Clinton. Bill always was one of the 'wild and woolly' kind and would associate with the demimonde." (P)resident Bill (of) Clinton!


That paper was The Sedalia Daily Democrat, however, so there are some conflicted feelings about whether or not to mute this last example while we also continue to mute the fact that the Democrat Party is so strongly associated with racism throughout America's history.


Indeed, beyond the political, what does "alcohol" mean to the child of an alcoholic, "sex" to victims of sex abuse, "car" to someone who lost a loved one in an auto accident, "money" to someone who lost it all in the markets? Many, if not most of our phrases have been used in a negative context at some point in history. If not all of them.


"'It's a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn't only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take 'good,' for instance. If you have a word like 'good,' what need is there for a word like 'bad'? 'Ungood' will do just as well - better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of 'good,' what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like 'excellent' and 'splendid' and all the rest of them? 'Plusgood' covers the meaning or 'doubleplusgood' if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there'll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words - in reality, only one word. Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.'s idea originally, of course,' he added as an afterthought."



I suppose George Orwell might reflect also that in the animal farm of words, some words "are more equal than others."  



Martin is the assistant editor for Tea Party University, is currently a master's student in national security studies, and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He served as Texas Chair for Students with Newt Gingrich for President. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.




-          "Pregnant" via Measure for Measure by William Shakespeare

-          Paragraph quotes: 1984 by George Orwell

-          Word usage citations and some of the definitions by

-          "Some . . . are more equal than others.": Animal Farm by George Orwell

Enhanced by Zemanta
Reagan in the White House private quarters wit...

President Reagan with Judge Robert Bork at the White House, 1987

Tonight Barack Obama won. The left, as we all very much know, wish to see Barack Obama re-elected as America's tyrant-in-chief and in every Republican primary tonight Barack Obama walked away with another victory on the road to re-election in November. The left realized over half a century ago that in order to impose its will in a country where only a tiny minority of Americans self-identify as "liberal", the left must fight a war of misinformation, for which it needed to use the hammer and anvil of education and the media. 

The enemedia (enemy-media) accomplished this quite well in 1987 after misogynist liberal Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell announced his retirement. Powell sided with the majority in the infamous 1977 Coker v Georgia case in which the liberal Court nullified Georgia's death penalty for aggrivated rape. In Powell's concurring opinion he infamously stated: "Although rape invariably is a reprehensible crime, there is no indication that petitioner's offense was committed with excessive brutality or that the victim sustained serious or lasting injury." No "serious or lasting injury"? Naturally, there was no outrage from feminists on the left because Powell was a liberal. The more things change... 

So Reagan decided to replace Powell with not only a conservative Originalist, but also one of the truly greatest legal minds of our time: then-DC Circuit Judge Robert Bork. The media circus began with 'round-the-clock character assassination of Bork by Democrats Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and the other usual suspects with the help of the far-left media. It worked, and it was a watershed. Not since Watergate had the media been so influential in changing the outcome of a contest for high office - in this case, a nomination for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.  

One of the primary roles of education for leftist academia has been to subdue critical thought, which clearly has been subdued increasingly over recent decades - and the role of entertainment media must also be noted in pushing the notion that one should always follow one's emotions rather than seek objective truth. And so our government of wolves has been salivating over our nation's transformation into a flock of sheep.

In the last two decades, the news media - though having had a left-wing bias for much longer - decided it was time to pull out all the stops in pushing its preferred policies and candidates. In 2004, it failed, thanks to a GOP unified behind an incumbent president. It was not enough that one or two bloggers could prove what is now known as Rathergate; those blogs needed also to be widely promoted and supported by a movement in order to not be simply ignored. When CBS tried to smear President Bush with a forged document claiming he was a draft-dodger, it backfired: the critical information reached the voter and rather than seeing Bush destroyed, Dan Rather's career came to an abrupt end.

In 2008, there was no incumbent Republican president in the race, which only poured gasoline on the establishment's unhinged jihad on conservatives within the party to purge them from every appointed and elected office. By the summer, the establishment had succeeded in imposing John McCain on the party, with much help from the far-left media, which had its own separate agenda, but nonetheless momentarily allied itself with the GOP establishment to ensure the weakest possible candidate - and also the most liberal and controllable, in the unlikely event he should win - would face Barack Obama in the fall. Conservative bloggers went to work again, uncovering a treasure trove of damning information about then-candidate Barack Obama, but this time the establishment-led McCain campaign kept its distance and gave such efforts no legitimacy - in effect, signing its own political death warrant. Enemedia spared no expense or salacious story trashing the McCain campaign while at the same time the McCain campaign repeatedly told conservatives they were not wanted. Certainly Senator McCain was happy to try to create a coalition by bringing a conservative onto the ticket, but this clearly roiled many of the hardline establishment who sought to solidify their control of the party since the late 1990s. Since 2008, there has been a steady stream of sad discoveries about McCain campaign staff working to sabotage Sarah Palin, apparently willing to prove another great truism once again, that the establishment would much rather see a Democrat win the White House than a conservative - apparently on any part of a ticket. 

Ultimately, however, even the establishment purists would prefer to see one of their Republicans in the White House to a Democrat, however that may be accomplished. The American Spectator in October of 2008 noted several former Romney 2008 staffers then working for McCain-Palin sought to sabotage McCain-Palin in order to allow Barack Obama to win in 2008 (and implement Obamacare - based on none other than Romneycare) so that Mitt Romney would have a shot in four rather than eight years without running against a sitting president of the same party:

Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers, some of whom are currently working for Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin's bid for the White House, have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election. "Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won't be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012," says one former Romney aide, now working for McCain-Palin. "The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney. He's in charge on November 5th." 

In 2012 it has been much the same - in fact, as we know, with many of the same tired players. Presently, the far-left media are using Rick Santorum to push Reagan Conservative Newt Gingrich out. Santorum's qualifications for such an honor are that he is most likely to be defeated by Mitt Romney, but in the unlikely event he isn't and in the even more unlikely event Obama were to self-destruct, still promises to be controllable (he is a "team player", after all) as a Senator with a record as a big-spending, big-government, China-friendly, manage-the-decline shallow slogan-chanter. Indeed, one of the few differences between Santorum and Romney lies only in the theme of the shallow slogans they mindlessly chant. Bothwere pro-abortion self-described anti-Reagan progressives until it was politically unhelpful to be such, and both have an equally disastrous record in government.

If the media succeed in weaponizing Santorum against the only Reagan Conservative with a proven record of success - Newt Gingrich, they will then destroy Santorum so that Romney will win the nomination, after which they will destroy Romney. It's such an old playbook that really, enemedia can do it with their eyes shut. If Americans do not seek to educate themselves, then they will be spoon fed a deadly toxin like infants by the agenda-laden far-left dinosaur media and will act foolishly based on the misinformation they've received and not only will Newt Gingrich - another great Reagan Conservative leader with one of the greatest minds of our time be "Borked", so too will our nation. "How blessed is the man who finds wisdom and the man who gains understanding," but "a fool despises wisdom and instruction". (Prov 3:13, 1:7) An apathetic people and representative government cannot exist concurrenty for long.


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

Romney on Iran: "They have to understand that we will take military, kinetic action if they continue to pursue a nuclear option." The phrase "kinetic military action" is Obama legal speak for "war we don't want to get permission from congress to prosecute."

Aw, someone told Mittens to use a big-sounding glam-national security catchphrase. And bless his heart, last Friday on the Rick and Bubba Show the failed liberal un-Governator from Massachusetts actually threw caution to the wind, managing to awkwardly salvo the boilerplate that his advisors so painstakingly - probably for hours - maybe days, weeks - labored and toiled with him over blood, sweat, and tears so he would lob it properly at the enemy. And like a Russian nesting doll of foreign policy FAIL, the term itself reveals the tragic ignorance of whoever brandishes it. Indeed, his advisors probably spent hours, days, weeks, even years, learning raptly, uprearing, and canonizing this one precious phrase from the Obama administration (the RINOs' Good Shepherd is always the liberal Democrat, you know) along with countless other focus-group-tested buzzwords and - as Beltway Confidential dubbed them, "ungainly euphemisms":

Near as I can figure, "kinetic action" is redundant - like "wet water."  But Harvard Law professor and former head of the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel Jack Goldsmith thinks there's a reason the Obama administration is at, er, "kinetic military action" with the English language here.

Gene Healy went on to quote Goldsmith as saying it was a means to avoid congressional authorization in Libya and who knows where else next (Romney-endorser John McCain is hovering like Gollum over his list this very moment). You could imagine the monody that rose from the catacombs where Romney's venerated "advisors" dwell. How will we ever again enjoy the bountiful fruit of presidency-by-proxy if these advisors cannot manage to imprint on Willard a single Hogwartsian phrase properly turned to unlock the heart of every blushing American voter. 

But the voter has to wonder, is this what we can expect from Romney: poorly repackaged retreads from the administration his entire campaign is ostensibly predicated on replacing? Romney does deserve some credit for realizing Iran has to be stopped - that's more than we can say for his wingman Ron Paul - but his complete and utterly excruciatingly embarrassing amateur hour with every facet of American National Security policy as a theory and as carried out within the context of even the most recent administration, and the tactical as well as the philosophical foundations that underlie how it is implemented, paint a picture of a man who is not built for president. This is by no means his first inexpert blunder or only crucial foible - and we're just in the talking phase where it's still considered easy. This type of pantomiming is like a knock-off of a poorly-made replica of a designer handbag, with its logo askew and poorly-stitched vinyl already coming apart in the shop. Unseriously dangerous. It reminds America once again that there is only one statesman in the room competent, capable, steady, learned, and set for the task, and that is Speaker Newt Gingrich, Ph.D., who for years has taught strategy and the art of war to our top generals. Given the delicate times into which we're entering, with whom would you rest easier knowing he were in charge of such a crisis? The answer is clearly the former Speaker. And that you should remember when you vote.


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rick Santorum's Quisling Moment

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

As you might recall, we wrote a month or so ago about how Mitt Romney is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Communist China. Today, we write about Rick Santorum's Quisling moment. Like Mitt Romney, Santorum started out his career labeling himself a progressive, distancing himself from Ronald Reagan, working closely with unions and pushing other liberal legislation.

In his later years, Santorum referred to liberal fellow Senator Arlen Specter as his mentor and even endorsed him against a conservative primary rival "because it will further the causes in which I believe and because it's in the best interest of my state." Obviously, those would be liberal interests. Specter led the controversial charge for amnesty in 2006 despite a precedent-setting uproar by Americans who made history with the sheer volume of calls to the capital switchboard made to register their abhorrence of the legislation Specter championed. Instead of acquiescing to the will of the people, however, Specter marched up to his lectern on the Senate floor, pounded it with his fist and declared, "The will of the Senate will prevail!" Specter was soon removed from office, but Santorum continued to have nice things to say about him.

Enter Rick Santorum 2012, candidate for Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces, champion of contraceptive bans and backward Taliban-style rules for women - the obvious over-compensation for his liberal past. All of this would be as comical as a goofy sweater-vest were it not for the real damage his voting record as Senator has done, is doing, and will do to our survival national security interests.

To wit, Santorum voted in 1997 to allow the sale of supercomputers to China, whose military leaders have repeatedly sworn to destroy us, make war on us, and to literally "exterminate" our entire population. Maybe if Santorum had spent less time distancing himself from Reagan and Gingrich in the 1980s, he would have learned something rather important: giving your enemy the technological advantage is suicide. In recent years, China's fastest supercomputers surpassed our own for the first time in history, and by 2010 were an astonishing "47% faster than the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's machine". Make no mistake: this alone disqualifies Santorum to be Commander-in-Chief.

Our strategic advantage has long leaned on technology, given our comparatively small force size vis-à-vis China or the former Soviet Union. China's army alone is roughly the size of our entire population. Imagine that force size equipped with modern weaponry that far exceeds our own. That is defeat and the end of America. Rick Santorum voted for that.

Clearly, Santorum has failed to comprehend the strategic consequences of his actions, as the recent outcry over his outspoken opposition to manned space flight and a return to the moon demonstrates.  Former Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney and current national security advisor to Newt Gingrich Stephen Yates rightly eviscerated Santorum's childish, out of touch, and ultimately suicidal space policy:

I am deeply concerned that Senator Santorum so easily relinquishes space development to the Chinese and Russians.

American success in space is not only about being the first to develop a station on the moon. It is just as much about the explosion of math, science, engineering and national security technology that will launch America into a new age of innovation and prosperity.

We owe it to ourselves to set grandiose goals and then achieve them. It is the American way.

As with Romney and Huawei (and many of his other failures), Americans might be more forgiving if there were some serious evidence of enlightenment; however, in the case of both Romney and Santorum such an opening of the mind has not transpired and both candidates continue to represent an indirect but existential threat to American national security.

H/T to @MissLiberty on Twitter for the heads up on Santorum's pro-China voting record and for the China supercomputer tech links.


China's Supercomputing Goal: From 'Zero To Hero'

Rick Santorum's Voting Record

Middle East Quarterly: Russian and Chinese Support for Tehran

China Plans Manned Moon Mission

China's Challenge at Sea


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

The Flaky Hypocrisy of Mitt Romney

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

To be honest, I was a bit worried when rumors began circulating yesterday that birther Donald Trump would endorse Newt Gingrich. Trump is radioactive for a host of reasons. He's a grand-stander, he's a complete flake, loose cannon, and he has some character issues. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he will say anything to get ratings, including chase down those pesky imaginary varmints usually left to the Ron Paul fringe of conspiracy theory-land.

Trump is a perfect fit for Willard "Mitt" Romney, and that he has endorsed Mitt should be seen as a serious - but telling - liability to the Romney campaign. It reveals just so much that the pair has in common, which is all of the above. In addition to being a grand-stander, flake, and loose cannon, Mitt Romney also shares a similar lack in personal moral character: Romney abused his dog, is connected to physical, even sexual abuse of teens, and ignored national security officials with respect to the dangers of doing business with a Pentagon-designated Chinese espionage front group. Romney will also say anything to get elected - even flip on 17 of his supposedly dearest-held core beliefs. I guess you could say that Mitt Romney's a bit of a front group himself. Whether taking care of the family pet, watching over children or looking after the national security of the United States, Mitt Romney can't handle the responsibility.

Trump is likely to be an ESTJ while Romney is likely the ISTJ personality type, according to the Myers-Briggs personality type assessment. This explains their sense of connectedness and probably also suggests Trump is the more dominant member of their relationship. Trump is more likely also the more intelligent of the two, although that has not ameliorated Trump's flakiness. Both the ESTJ and ISTJ have many strengths that lend themselves to administrative tasks, but their weaknesses include close-mindedness, resistance to change even when change is warranted, a bizarre view of sex as a service to be rendered to them but not reciprocated, emotional detachment and lack of appropriate sympathy, putting their agendas ahead of the people they impact, and something else:

Under stress, ISTJs may fall into "catastrophe mode", where they see nothing but all of the possibilities of what could go wrong. They will berate themselves for things which they should have done differently, or duties which they failed to perform. They will lose their ability to see things calmly and reasonably, and will depress themselves with their visions of doom.

Indeed, that Meghan McCain-like prissy petulance has come shining through on many occasions for Romney. Charles Krauthammer outlined one example in October:

But the main event was the scripted Rick Perry attack on Romney, reprising the old charge of Romney hiring illegal immigrants. Perry's face-to-face accusation of rank hypocrisy had the intended effect. From the ensuing melee emerged a singularity: a ruffled Romney, face flushed, voice raised.

The presidency is a serious and highly stressful job that includes coping with a constantly changing landscape domestically and internationally. One needs not belabor that and indeed, we have had ISTJ presidents in the past; most notably, George Washington, as seems to be widely believed.

To be sure, there are many strengths as well as weaknesses associated with this personality type - as with all personality types - but Romney appears to evince many of the worst. Here is another assortment of the negative traits one can expect from an ISTJ of weaker character (PDF): "Spontaneity in the SJ tends to be suppressed, although when fatigued or under stress, the SJ can erupt into a temper tantrum, use biting sarcasm, or even, in rare instances, attempt to make a point through violence."

George Washington spent many years developing the character, depth, and self-awareness necessary to understand what it took to be a visionary leader with a good moral compass. Likewise, George H.W. Bush is likely also an ISTJ, and while lacking the imagination necessary to be a great president, he was not entirely a bad one, although he was able to better perform his duties in the afterglow of Ronald Reagan. But Bush also spent many years developing the discipline to blunt some of his weaknesses perhaps to a much greater extent than Romney has chosen to. Indeed, Mitt Romney has squandered his many years chasing varmints, telling voters what they wanted to hear and doing anything it took to pad his résumé, as well as mistreating pets and associating himself closely with those who mistreat children. And yet, Mitt Romney tries to point his crooked finger at his betters in order to project his erratic and and unreliable qualities thereon. Mitt Romney is a hypocrite.

Romney and Trump both remind America of the things most in need of repair in our popular culture and in our government. Romney's full-throated support and enlargement the Massachusetts nanny state was without question in large measure responsible for Massachusetts being 47th nationally on job-creation. Romney's vociferous support for abortion went far beyond passive acceptance; part of Romneycare included taxpayer funding for abortions, even minors, and even in cases overriding parental consent - Romney is on record endorsing all of it. There is little chance he will work to repeal Obamacare, for which Romneycare was the prototype. In fact, Romney and his team who designed it consulted President Obama to develop Obamacare, and President Obama was very grateful. Really, what part of Obamacare would Mitt Romney repeal? Not the individual mandate: that's in Romneycare. Not the death panel, that's in Romneycare, too:

SECTION 41. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the executive office of health and human services, in consultation with the health care quality and cost council, commission on end-of-life care established by section 480 of chapter 159 of the Acts of 2000, and the Betsy Lehman Center for Patient Safety and the Reduction of Medical Errors, shall convene an expert panel on end-of-life care for patients with serious chronic illnesses. The panel shall investigate and study health care delivery for these patients and the variations in delivery of such care among health care providers in the commonwealth. For the purposes of this investigation and study, "health care providers" shall mean facilities and health care professionals licensed to provide acute inpatient hospital care, outpatient services, skilled nursing, rehabilitation and long-term hospital care, home health care and hospice services. The panel shall identify best practices for end-of-life care, including those that minimize disparities in care delivery and variations in practice or spending among geographic regions and hospitals, and shall present recommendations for any legislative, regulatory, or other policy changes necessary to implement its recommendations.  (Chapter 305 Section 41)

Likewise, there is little chance Romney would repeal the Obama administration's decision to force religious institutions to violate the conscience by forcing them to "provide all employees access to health insurance providing artificial contraception, including abortifacients and sterilization services such as vasectomies and tubal ligations." We know this because while governor, Mitt Romney compelled Catholic hospitals to provide abortion services.

Not only is the single-most economically destructive and most expensive piece of legislation in US history Obamacare - and the same can be said for Massachusetts with Romneycare - but it is also the single most destructive of personal liberty and the right to life, thus rendering both among the most immoral pieces of legislation in our history. In point of fact, Obamacare threatens to take over 1/5 of the US economy, and Romneycare has been a cancer of similar proportions in his home state. For both, Mitt Romney has little concern about repealing.

Meanwhile, anti-science Mitt Romney wishes America saw him as smarter than the scientists at NASA. Mitt makes his pronouncements as if stuck in the mud like some regressive troll, as he promises to fire anyone who dares to have the vision to take us back out into space - even as China makes plans to build a base on the moon - were somehow anything but the broken, Old World manner of thinking to which America has been the shining rebuttal. Would the non-motor-savvy Romney also have fired anyone who kept talking of replacing the carriage with the automobile? Would the non-chemist Romney have threatened to fire Alexander Fleming before he had the chance to invent Penicillin because the idea of using mold to stop infections seemed absurd on its face? Clearly, anti-science Romney speaks of a great many things about which he knows nothing. Or to put it in the kindest possible light as Reagan had, "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Not only is Romney a liberal, but a flake and a hypocrite also. On one hand, we have Newt Gingrich, a historian with a Ph.D. and endless experience in national security and policy formulation and as part of the Reagan Revolution and the revolution of 1994 that brought us four consecutive years of a balanced budget. On the other, we have messy Mitt, trolling the interwebs for quote sites with neat-sounding quotes that may or may not be accurately attributed to the one purported to have made them. Stable? Real? Mitt is a hollow casing, a plastic fruit; Mitt is a flake. Really, who else praises Hezbollah's healthchare system? That's ground even Sheila Jackson Lee dare not tread (although Obama does stand by his Muslim Brotherhood endorsement). Flake.

Underneath that thin plastic exterior and the Trump hair, we have someone with a dark, stormy emotional life almost completely devoid of sympathy for others and easily rattled by those who challenge him. This is because for so many years, Romney has been living a lie and he's terrified of being found out - not just for the things that are public knowledge but for the things that are not so public - some things kept in his closet we like to call skeletons. The embarrassing aspect of this for Romney is that as an ISTJ, it is more than obvious. Romney is literally screaming out from the mountain top his vulnerabilities and the things he most greatly fears.

All of these amount to some valuable insights into Mitt Romney's moral compass and capacity as an unreliable leader. Mitt Romney was a failed, small-minded, liberal governor overseeing a failed liberal big-government state and prefers to "hunt small varmints" by uttering useless slogans to win office rather than truly leading. It's fairly clear the governor merely wishes to finish the work Barack Obama started - to manage the decline. We simply can't afford it.

Ultimately, the joke will be on Mitt Romney, whom the establishment sees as a throwaway candidate. In case you were wondering why the establishment would choose a flake like Mitt Romney rather than a quality candidate who nonetheless reflected their view of things such as a George H.W. Bush or someone similarly as serious, one need only consider what many establishment Republicans seem to believe, which is that Obama either can't be beaten or shouldn't. Even Romney seems to agree. The long-talked about strategy is to field an unremarkable candidate who will not disrupt key congressional races and the effort to retake the Senate.

America wants to recover economically and morally, and that starts with not choosing a flaky, anti-science, serial liberal candidate of questionable moral character like Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney was right about one thing, however, when he stated, "There are many reasons not to vote for me." And we couldn't agree more.


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

The Moon Is Made of Cheese, You Know

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
You sure as heck can't land there, let alone build a base

You have to love those crazy anti-science troglodyte RINOs and liberal Democrats in Washington. If they had their way, we'd turn back the clock and all live in 14th Century fiefdoms (under their control, of course) in mortal fear of fire and the Plague. US Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich offers the only way forward for the human race; the rest can go read Obama's eighth grade-level SOTU address. Am I suggesting that Mitt Romney and his kind are dullards? Dumb as rocks, yes. Dumb as geese that look up when it rains so they drown, yes!

They also realize that Newt's vision will benefit the American people and perpetuate this greatest country "on God's green earth", as Michael Medved puts it. I was a bit serious when I said they want to turn back the clock, but they want to turn it back to before 1776 when rights were not seen as unalienable and no one anywhere on earth knew they could clamor for them. To the effete, the golden years were the millennia that went before our time - the American era. Put succinctly, we're dealing with a bunch of Dark Age revanchists.

Can you just imagine what the technology gained from such a project as a return to the moon and beyond would mean for the average American and for our country as a whole, particularly as we face down this decade the emerging need to defeat a new evil empire, Communist China?  If it's true that every NASA dollar has a seven-fold ROI on what would then be just a percent or two of the annual budget, what rational person would object? I'll tell you: the same regressives who killed the Apollo Program in 1973, that's who. RINO Richard Nixon - a who literally slept with a Chinese honey trap while on a business trip before his presidency - and the liberal Democrat Congress. They killed the program promising to end poverty once and for all by spending all the NASA money and everything else they could find at it so that today we have more poor and none of the improvements a 40-year continued presence on the moon (to say nothing of Mars by now) would have brought us.

And I imagine that doesn't even factor in the economic benefits of people who become more productive as a result of the augmented quality of life experienced due to the phenomenal new technology in every sector. The return is literally exponential, just like everything else that is quintessentially American - and everything else the RINO-Democrat cabal seeks to regulate to death or outright kill.

There have been few truly visionary presidents or presidential candidates in the past century. John F. Kennedy took us to the moon but never lived to see it. Ronald Reagan fought to revive our space program and oversaw a successful shuttle program that was meant to do so much more - and almost never lived to see it. Newt Gingrich today sees it, gets it, and forges ahead to make it happen, and the establishment is doing everything it can to destroy him politically so that he will never see his vision fulfilled. 

You have to hand it to the real knuckle-draggers like Caveman Mitt, who seem to live in a world devoid all of human history and the nature of progress - and thus an understanding of why we enjoy the benefits. It's as if they believe we were suddenly plopped down here with our cars, our microwave ovens, and lasik by some marvelous act of the cosmos (which we dare not profane by exploring). Anyone who loves science, progress, and wants to see man reach to the stars - and who doesn't want a terrorist regime like China to be our ambassadors to the heavens - I implore you to put aside your politics and obsession with social issues that have hardly budged in 40 years anyway. Let's make this happen.

Who wouldn't volunteer if given the opportunity to go, to explore the moon, Mars, and beyond, even if they could never make it back? Is this not the necessary next step for the human race? Those of us who get the importance of reaching out to the next frontier sense very deeply how much we simply can't not do this. It's the next step and the next "giant leap" - and one whose time has come to take. Let's put one foot in front of the other and see where it takes us; and we can start by electing the only man who can - or will - support that vision: Newt Gingrich.

"So there's the choice in life: one either grows or one decays - grow or die. I think we should grow." -- Robert Zubrin, Aerospace Engineer


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

Romney The Paper Tiger

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

"The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him." -- Proverbs 18:17

Okay students, we know this better than most, don't we? I had to question Elliott Abrams' personal integrity two days ago after his failure to cite sources and offer context in the now-infamous and refuted hit piece against Newt Gingrich. In his article, Abrams pulled cherry-picked bits of qoutes out of thin air and used them to accuse Newt of being anti-Reagan, which sparked an avalanche from all directions  - including a video of Nancy Reagan from 1995 - proving otherwise. If I had conducted a research project the way Abrams has, It's quite possible I would have been cited for plagiarism and expelled from my MA program. Plagiarism is more than stealing someone's words and failing to put quotation marks around them; it's also a failure to properly attribute them, which is where Elliott grossly erred apparently with malice.

Needless to say, Abrams is unimportant in the larger scheme of things, but the machine that used him and his disposable lies will do it again. So as conservatives, as voters, and as Newt supporters what is the takeaway with all of this?

One of the more famous lines from Star Wars was by Obi Wan: "Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?" The next time Romney's sleazy Charlie Crist operatives launch a bogus attack on Newt, give it a day. Romney's mudslinging of lies is becoming old hat, and when you consider 2008, it becomes ancient.

  • Mitt's isn't a campaign but a psychological warfare operation. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight unless your strategy is asymmetrical - in which case you'd better know what you're doing.
  • Mitt promised an "October Surprise every day" until the convention. In reality, maybe not every day but every day before a key event, such as a debate or a primary -- so expect it. Don't wither; hit back hard but intelligently.
  • These unsurprising surprises have proven to be factually bogus every time. Yawn. So we should stand confidently in the face of them. We must alert the American people that this is an old game that should be ignored. After all, aren't we as voters tired of this slanderous sleaze we can set our watches by when there are so many issues that really matter?
  • Don't react - act! Romney is not a particularly stable or secure human being, in fact the only card he has is his bluff, which we have the power to call. Find what rattles his cage and rattle it often, but keep the issues that matter most to Americans the focal point of the campaign. Newt wants to be president because he truly loves this country and Americans and wants it to be a better place for his grandchildren, which is why Newt has honed in on the issues that will most impact us now and in the future. This is why Newt leads unwaveringly by a massive amount in polls in the category of who's the most presidential.

 As the saying goes, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

American Statism: Aping Putin?

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

Newt Gingrich is in good company: Garry Kasparov, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and Boris Nemtsov know what it means to be the dissident candidate and to face the darts of running against the establishment and its media. Stand strong, Newt. You are fighting for your grandchildren's future and for ours.

This is something I predicted would happen in 2009, that American statism without intervention would increasingly mimic the electoral authoritarianism of Putin's Russia.

As a boy I worked on Ronald Reagan's re-election campaign and read and watched everything that had to do with him. As I grew older, my love for the Gipper only grew as well. That's why I'm with Newt. I also know where Mitt Romney and his ilk come from: they were the ones who not only opposed Reagan but hated him - and hated the American people for wanting to be in control of their government.

In 2006 the establishment hit the first major wall of resistance since the era of Newt Gingrich as House Speaker. The American people were resolute to stop the amnesty legislation the Senate was seeking to pass that would allow millions of illegal aliens to cut in front of legal immigrants and American citizens and become a new voting bloc to ensure the votes of millions of Conservative Americans would be rendered inconsequential. In the height of the battle, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter pounded his fist on the lectern on the floor of the Senate and exclaimed, "The will of the Senate will prevail!" But the American people had a different idea, an idea that was firmly based in the words of Thomas Jefferson: "The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." And so the establishment lost and not long thereafter, Senator Specter was primaried out of office and replaced by a more conservative Republican.

The battle won, the war waged on. Increasingly, the establishment media became more brazen with each passing year. They were caught and frustrated in 2004, when Dan Rather's forged documents revealed an attempt by CBS to alter the outcome of that year's presidential election. In 2006, MSM struck back, both with its nakedly biased coverage of mass protests by illegal aliens and events leading up to the fall midterm elections. By 2008, the establishment's media was back with a vengeance. It began by anointing weak liberal Republican Senator John McCain for the nomination, then dutifully torpedoing him the moment the nomination was clenched in favor of Barack Obama. The coverage was so slanted, it became the focus of several feature documentaries and countless other serious points of examination. The sad part about American establishment media is that unlike Russian media, which is compelled at the barrel of a gun, the US press subjugates itself freely.

With Nancy Pelosi firmly in control of Congress and after Barack Obama's election in 2008, the establishment set to subdue the American people as they did the Native Americans so many generations ago, and to punish us for asserting our fundamental human rights as expressed in the Constitution. One of the means by which they sought to do so was by enacting Obamacare, which gave the state complete control over whether each of us would live or die without a trial or even the accusation of having committed a crime. Socialized medicine, they knew, was like a death penalty for the innocent, and it was touted by supporters like Robert Reich as a way to kill off the feeble and elderly.

What resulted, however, was probably not anticipated: a backlash that spawned the Tea Party, which became a movement so vast that one of its protests on the Washington Mall exceeded in size the total present for Barack Obama's inauguration, which itself had set the record for crowd size on the mall.

By November 2010, the movement had gained maturity, leading to the largest sweep of House seats in US history, as well as those in state houses. The establishment scrambled and quickly appointed stalwarts like Speaker John Boehner to manage the damage.

In 2012, the establishment is determined to use whatever means necessary to destroy any candidate who is a serious reformer, as we see with incomparable bias in MSM as well as Fox News and Drudge. And in the noise of the chaos of seeking to destroy Newt Gingrich, another negative side effect of all this nasty campaigning by Romney is that we might forget about our Tea Party candidates running in congressional races. Therefore we must both stand strong with Newt while giving of our time to the other races that matter, too. It's a good deal of work, but it is still so much less than that which those who wear the uniform must so often face.

This primary season we have a choice to make. We will either choose a man who stands with the far left and looks at you and me with contempt or we can choose Newt Gingrich - a proven Reagan conservative bold enough and moral enough to stand up to the establishment and carry the torch of the people - and Reaganism - into the White House. Let's go with Newt.

In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State. -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

Below is a reposting of an article I wrote for the Henry Jackson Society back in 2009 on July 27th. I am reposting it here for two reasons. The first is that the database server at the original website has lost the article; the second reason is why I thought you should read it in the first place, which is that today we are at a crossroads. If we go in one direction we will embrace progress and a future full of wonder with technological advances that will boggle the mind, to say nothing of improving our quality of life in every area, from health care to transportation and communication. History of human progress demonstrates that we must push outward against the boundaries of the unknown or we begin to die. If we take the other road, however, we face being surpassed by enemy regimes like Communist China, the strategic implications of which alone should cause great worry. We as a people will regress through history until we are little more than a byword. Today the visionary is Newt Gingrich. His plan to have a base on the moon by the end of his second term in 2020 is ambitious but well within our reach if we would just decide to do it. Those who oppose him - the same cadre of anti-science, regressive liberal Democrats and establishment Republicans who killed the Apollo Program who today manifest in the likes of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney - mock his vision. But ask any NASA scientist, any serious astronomer and you'll notice they aren't laughing. Newt at times will quote Proverbs 29:18, which wisely advises that, "Where there is no vision the people perish..."

Without further ado:

The Moon and Mars: Vision is as Necessary as Technology 
July 27th, 2009

This week marks the 40th anniversary of mankind's first landing on the moon. It is a journey that began long ago when mankind first set out to explore the nearby hills and trees and then stretched across the millennia. In the course of so many lifetimes, we began our first voyages across the ocean by boat and later by plane, followed by that giant leap on 16 July 1969, though it was also but another small step in many.

Progress has been the primary element to our survival since the beginning; it has been greatly valued by those societies which have managed to thrive even when great sacrifice was involved. Unfortunately, the tale of progress does not have a happy ending as yet. For, in the mid-1970s the U.S. Congress astonishingly voted to cut funding to NASA's lunar program, which by now would likely have spawned a host of great discoveries and possibly even a few manned missions to Mars and perhaps beyond. We will never know what could have come of that lost half century, but it is safe to assume much would have been the reward, because that has been the eternal nature of mankind's pattern of exploration and discovery.

Ironically, members of Congress who voted to kill the Apollo moon program in favor of expanding social welfare programs that many predicted would be a disaster and now we see were complete and total failures like for others to think of them as "progressives". During the same period such self-appointed "progressives" allocated funds like drunken sailors to a plethora of counter-productive social programs, they embarked on starving the two areas most necessary for survival: defense and space; the former allowing Soviet expansion to regress human rights around the world and the latter even endangered what was in the early 1970s a nascent space shuttle program. (1) (2) (3) (4)

There has been nothing progressive about enduring the backward thinking with regard to any of these things. And there is nothing progressive about essentially continuing for another half century in the same direction. Instead of being "progressive", such in Congress instead became "regressive", obsessed only with looking back to outmoded ways of running government, to organizing mankind based on race rather than character, and of course by halting mankind's journey to new frontiers.

While limited-thinkers continue to live in yesteryear and remain determined to keep the rest of us there also, the frontier calls. If the frontier of space is anything like all the other frontiers before it which we have faced, it will ultimately prove invaluable to our survival. Those hopelessly sentimental who do not understand this continue to lie down in the roadway, accusing us of being heartless for having the need to move forward. This farce serves no purpose and is the reason why today we have moved backward in our space program instead of being much farther along than we were half a century ago. Fans of the television series Star Trek might be dismayed to discover there would be no "Enterprise" in the 23rd Century had such regressives run things in the fictional space of that story's narrative. Indeed, the future history of the real world in which we live would be equally as bleak.

Today, astronomers and other scientists, small children, and the entire world wistfully gaze up into the stars and wonder if in our lifetimes a human being will ever set foot on Mars, return to the moon or even if we will be able to put another space station up, so far backward have we moved. Mankind, once the heirs to a bright future measured by great leaps now must sit content to watch re-runs of Star Trek or live in a make-believe galaxy far, far away. Meanwhile our own saga of space flight becomes one of long ago and the tools and resources we will need to thrive in our future as a species remain untapped by a disastrously retrograde mindset.


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

Is Iran a Threat?

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

It's hard to believe but there are still some who discount the threat posed by Iran to the West once the regime acquires and readies nuclear weapons. But why is Iran a threat? To answer that question we must ask some others:

  • Would Iran like to see the West destroyed? Yes
  • Is Iran willing to take action to bring this about? Yes
  • Is Iran currently taking action to bring this about? Yes
  • Would the end of this course of action legitimately threaten the West? Yes
  • How seriously could Iran hurt us? A single nuclear weapon detonated above North America would emit an electromagnetic pulse capable of frying our electrical grid and nearly everything utilizing electronics. This could literally lead to the extermination of 90% of the population within a year.
  • Can Iran be deterred? No
  • Can the threat be defended against or mitigated? Not yet. The technology exists but it has not been implemented.
  • What is being done to defend and mitigate? Too little
  • How long before Iran's nuclear capability is operational?  Estimates vary from a few months to a couple of years at the optimistic end of the spectrum.
  • How long before defense and mitigation techniques are operational? A few years.

As you can see, there is already a frightening gap between when many believe Iran will possess nuclear weapons and when we will be able to defend against them or reduce their impact.

Iran has already promised to "wipe" the US and Israel off the face of the earth. Newt Gingrich makes a very good point on this, as well. If a person believes it is a good idea to blow himself up with a suicide vest in order to kill just a few of his enemies, why wouldn't he want a nuclear bomb and be willing to accept the consequences of retaliation after launching a devastating attack on his enemies? But the threat is even worse than that of a single - or even a few - cities being destroyed by nuclear attacks at ground level. Presently, Iran's nuclear weapons program is being developed in conjunction with missile tests that include delivery systems being detonated at apogee to simulate an EMP attack. A single EMP event over North America could be sufficient to knock out our entire electrical grid, which may take up to a decade to replace.

Within the first year after such an event due to starvation, dehydration, and disease, up to 90% of the US population would be dead. That's from a single EMP from a single, fairly low-yield bomb, and Iran's leadership has talked openly both within political circles and internal military white papers and other documents about the desire to make an EMP strategy their top priority.

Furthermore, there is no deterrent as there was with the Soviet Union because the official form of Islam propagated and adhered to within the regime believes that they will herald in the era of the 12th Imam (their messiah) once Armageddon begins; furthermore, this is also the same belief system that glorifies the suicide bomber as a martyr for Islam.

The Iranian regime is willing to accept heavy losses by any retaliation and they believe it is their God-given purpose to obliterate the United States, and soon they will have the capability to do so. Furthermore, the US would be so badly weakened - if it exists at all - that retaliation and certainly any sustained conflict with Iran and its axis partners would be impossible from a resource standpoint. The best we could do is drop a few nukes on Iran, which Iran is willing to accept. I would say that is quite a real threat.

We must begin to accept reality on its terms rather than how we wish it to be, and in so doing ensure that no attack from Iran, its axis partners China and Russia, other allies or terrorist groups will be capable of inflicting serious damage.


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.


     The Blogbat Weblog 3.0



About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the US category.

Foreign Policy is the previous category.

Human Rights is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.