The multiculturalism umbrella: Made in Islam wool

Why do US citizens miss the wool being pulled over their eyes? Because Americans are conditioned to be tolerant and compassionate, to embrace multiculturalism and respect each other’s beliefs, ideals and values. Islam, however, does not reciprocate.

Amil Imani, 03/05/18 16:08 | updated: 15:52

Amil Imani bio

The writer is an Iranian-American writer, poet, satirist, novelist, essayist, literary translator, public speaker and political analyst who has been writing and speaking out about the danger of radical Islam internationally. He has become a formidable voice in the USA against the danger of global jihad and Islamization of America. He maintains a website at http://www.amilimani.com. and wrote the book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and a new thriller Operation Persian Gulf

Ever since the massive arrival of Muslims to the Western hemisphere, our Western culture and world have been forever altered, thanks to the ceaseless attempts of the left to create a failing Utopian Multiculturalism paradise while forcefully jamming it down the throats of unsuspecting citizens.

Europe is dead in the water, as every recent election has shown. Even the politicians are admitting it now. Then why they still insisting that we must coexist and keep importing more Muslims who will NEVER assimilate? Let me be clear, multiculturalism spells the demise of our Western culture. Is that what we want?

The controversy is ongoing: whether in Europe or in the US, the leftist intelligentsia and elitists continue to demand that they have seen the truth, that all people can live peaceably together so long as we are tolerant and have the right laws in place.

The West has been tolerant, but “tolerance in the face of evil is not tolerance, it is a crime.”  It wasn’t long ago, we were defending ourselves at the Gates of Vienna from a Muslim invasion. Now, we welcome Muslims with open arms and generous welfare policies. Any push back to these open immigration practices is labeled Islamophobia, racism, bigotry, etc. But what cost do these changes bring?

The battle with these barbarians has been proven to be arduous and long. It is a duty of all enlightened individuals to work their hardest to fumigate these leeches from the body of humanity.

Billboards have been popping out and sneakily remind the viewers about their kinship with Muslims: “Islam: The message of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad.” Well folks, the messages suggest —Christians and Jews—the overwhelming majority of the people in the United States, you need to relax about Islam. Muslims are family. They are your kindred through your shared progenitor, Abraham, so they claim. Having Abraham as an ancestor would demand that the “children” be loving siblings. That’s the message the American Muslims try to convey. And that’s the way they aim to keep us in the deadly slumber of complacency and the delusion of multiculturalism.

For one, multiculturalism and multi-religionism are not interchangeable and are not one and the same.

Muslims and their frequently well-paid apologists use the multiculturalist umbrella only in non-Islamic lands to shield themselves from the torrent of legitimate criticisms that those who know Islam better shower on this cult of violence peddled as the religion of peace.

You don’t need to listen to me and don’t listen to these conniving dissimulators. Please search it for yourself. See if the euphemism of multiculturalism is ever even mentioned by any Islamic leader, ever printed in the Islamic press, or ever appears in any form anywhere in Muslim countries.

This multiculturalism gambit in is Islam manufactured wool to pull over the eyes of the non-Muslims while Muslims carry on with their unrelenting campaign of eradicating anything or anyone non-Islamic anywhere and everywhere in the world.

Trust me, people like us, through reason and a tremendous act of will, who have freed ourselves from the enslaving yoke of Islam placed around our necks from birth, know about all the heinous inside dirt of this plague of humanity. We have experienced Islam first-hand and up close from the inside. We have studied the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sunna. We have seen Islam in action where it wields sway.

The more we studied and the more we experienced Islam, the more our efforts to remain in the fold became untenable. We broke away from Islamic slavery and found it to be our solemn duty to expose this religion, help other Muslims to free themselves from it, and warn the good-hearted and gullible non-Muslims of the world against falling prey to it.

The Muslim organizations in America, generously financed by the oil-rich Muslim governments and sheikhs, are directed to sell Islam Lite for long enough until this ideology runs deep roots and real Islam is introduced.

One can see how the scheme played out in Europe. Much of Europe is already past the stage of Islam Lite and knee deep into the quagmire of real Islam. And that’s exactly where things are headed in America.

There are some non-Muslims, good-hearted tolerant people who tend to overlook all the terrible things that Islam perpetrates by pointing to some of its good teachings. These folks contend that the world should direct its effort not at combating Islam, but at those individuals and groups that commit heinous acts in the name of Islam.

There are others who disagree with this benign approach. This latter group sees all the so-called aberrations as an inherent part and parcel of Islam. They believe that it is Islam that actively promotes and is terribly out of sync with the best interests of the 21st century world.

I say, humanity must remain strong and resolute, they must stop deluding themselves. Islam will never ever coexist with infidels.
While we frivolously waste our precious time talking about it without any drastic action taken, Islam and Sharia continue to furtively creep into every aspect of American culture.
We all need to move on. To move away from exclusionary, primitive, and tribal mentality to a vision of all humanity being one, with justice and liberty for all

While we frivolously waste our precious time talking about it without any drastic action taken, Islam and Sharia continue to furtively creep into every aspect of American culture. But only too few dedicated freedom loving people are sounding the alarm. That’s not enough. Why most of our fellow citizens don’t get it? Because Americans have been conditioned by the liberal elites to be tolerant and compassionate, to embrace multiculturalism and respect each other’s beliefs, ideals and values.

That’s wonderful in a utopian world, but the fact is, Islam doesn’t embrace any aspect of Western civilization—much less American culture. Americans are rapidly and methodically being dismantled as a nation, and our freedom and liberty is more fragile than at any time since WWII. And while we fight the enemy abroad with combat troops, intelligence and drone strikes, we’re doing nothing to combat the same exact enemy that resides on our own soil in broad daylight.

I cannot emphasize enough the urgency of this threat. It is indeed urgent that we confront Islamic ideology and its expansionism, close down all of their chapters across America and declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. All of us, must pressure our government, at all levels, abandon the practice of ‘political correctness’ and protect the American people and act to safeguard liberty against the truly deadly assault that is Islamic ideology.

It is long past time for our elected officials to wake up.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22097?utm_source=activetrail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

America and the world in general are already fully onboard the slippery slope downward to loss of all rights.  This was driven by the global elites, the CFR and their NWO agenda and the tolerance and apathy of the people.  Intellectual indolence is not an overstatement of the absence of action to protect the foundations of America’s freedom.  Tocqueville and Lord Acton would be appalled at American intellectural indolence.  But ninety percent of the last two generations of Americans do not know them.

Our slide down the slippery slope is a public and open conspiracy, available for all to see in the heavy documentation by the UN, EU, NAFTA, as well as the rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court (e.g. the supposition by elties that the Constitution is a “living document”) and countless unconstitutional laws enacted by the U.S. Congress and signed by presidents.  We the people only receive and we will only receive lip service for our rights from here on out.

Gun rights represent the God-given right to self-protection, but that right is just one example.  The presumption by so-called liberal/progressives – and divine right kings, queens and emperors – is that all rights are given to the people by their rulers, the government, and that we the people owe fealty to the rulers.  That is feudalism and it is regressive to centuries past, not liberal, not progressive, not democratic.

The U.S. has already been converted to an oligarchy.  The U.S. is an oligarchy.  And, among other rights they deny us, they will take away the right to self-protection so that they can force any action on the people; that process has been underway for decades bit by bit in the courts, media and schools.  There are already two sets of rules, one for the people and another for the oligarchy.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

“The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.

So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page (see link above for a review by the authors.  The full research report is also available online.)

This is not news, you say.

Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here’s how they explain it:

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organized interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.

“A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time,” they write, “while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time.”

On the other hand:

When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.

They conclude:

Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

Eric Zuess, writing in Counterpunch, isn’t surprised by the survey’s results.

“American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it’s pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation’s “news” media),” he writes. “The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious ‘electoral’ ‘democratic’ countries. We weren’t formerly, but we clearly are now.”

This is the “Duh Report”, says Death and Taxes magazine’s Robyn Pennacchia. Maybe, she writes, Americans should just accept their fate.

“Perhaps we ought to suck it up, admit we have a classist society and do like England where we have a House of Lords and a House of Commoners,” she writes, “instead of pretending as though we all have some kind of equal opportunity here.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Here we have the British, who are thoroughly and completely indoctrinated, wanting Americans to rejoin them in the feudal misery.

So long as people believe in the authority of government, as opposed to believing that the people are the authority and taking responsibility for that authority, then the people will continue to be cannon fodder in the wars of oligarchs.

Bud

There is no real world evidence that human-produced CO2 causes any measureable amount of climate change.

If you think there is evidence, then post it.

Models of climate, which are only hypotheses, so far, do not validate when compared to real world conditions. Until they have a reproducible model which produces accurate forecasts, understanding of climate will remain incomplete and unworthy of the fear and money drummed up for it.

Furthermore, we know from years of science that more CO2 is healthy for plants and we know that atmospheric CO2 is THE ONLY mechanism by which carbon enters the food change for all life on this planet. Even further, we know that life in the past has been very abundant and growing when temperatures have been much warmer.

Human-caused climate change/global warming is a fraud. Scientists are now backing away from it so they do not end up being blamed, as they will be, by politicians and NGO’s. In the scientific literature, the amount of warming projected has been declining for years.

Arab Historian Admits there is No Palestinian People

Judith Bergman |  09/11/2017

When the Ottoman rule ended, there was no Palestinian national identity or political borders. It was all made up later. Arabs themselves say so, but the west isn’t listening

The founding of Tel Aviv 1909 (GPO)

One of the biggest, most stubborn and costliest untruths of our time is the notion that the jihad waged by Arabs in the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Gaza against Jews in Israel is a national struggle of an indigenous people for independence.

No matter the facts, the lie persists to the tune of billions of dollars in international aid and political prestige, which makes it increasingly difficult for anyone involved to admit that the whole thing is nothing more than a propaganda stunt.

Unlike the fairy tale of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’, everyone pretends to be blind and deaf when it is pointed out that the emperor is naked. In fact, if the emperor himself were to stand up and yell, ‘I am naked folks, go home!’ the crowd would go on complimenting his non-existent garments.

Last week the naked emperor did just that:

“Before the Balfour Promise, when the Ottoman rule [1517-1917] ended, Palestine’s political borders as we know them today did not exist, and there was nothing called a Palestinian people with a political identity as we know today”, historian Abd Al-Ghani admitted on official PA TV on November 1.

“Since Palestine’s lines of administrative division stretched from east to west and included Jordan and southern Lebanon, and like all peoples of the region [the Palestinians] were liberated from the Turkish rule and immediately moved to colonial rule, without forming a Palestinian people’s political identity.”

In 1917, says this Arab historian on official PA TV, there was no such thing as a Palestinian people. This statement amounts to saying that the whole narrative of an ‘indigenous Palestinian people’ was made up at a later point in time.

As Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hammad speaking on Al-Hekma TV said in March 2012: “Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis. Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called Al-Masri, whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians…”

There is a reason, why the “Palestinian National Museum” is empty of historical artifacts.

The Arab historian’s admission corroborates the observations of 19th century travelers to the region, who notably had no specific political agenda when they visited, unlike so many visitors to Israel today:

”Outside the gates of Jerusalem, we saw indeed no living object, heard no living sound”, wrote French poet Alphonse de Lamartine about his visit in 1835.

”The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population.” wrote British Consul James Finn in his 1857 description of the Holy Land.

”Palestine sits in a sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse that withered its fields and fettered its energies. …Palestine is desolate and unlovely….It is a hopeless dreary, heartbroken land.” wrote American author Mark Twain in his description of his visit in 1867.

Nevertheless, the Arab propaganda machine gets away with publishing fantastic falsehoods, such as this one on the Palestinian Authority’s tourism website: “With a history that envelops more than one million years, Palestine has played an important role in human civilization. The crucible of prehistoric cultures, it is where settled society, the alphabet, religion, and literature developed, and would become a meeting place for diverse cultures and ideas that shaped the world we know today”.

The international community not only approves of these falsehoods, it happily pays for them.

Historian Abd Al-Ghani’s declaration on PA TV was a historic, highly newsworthy admission that ought to have made the headlines everywhere, considering the importance the issue is given by political leaders, diplomats, the media and other establishment figures all over the world.

After all, if the Arabs themselves admit that the ‘Palestinian people’ is an invented entity, should not the consequence be that the countless UN projects, billions of dollars in international aid, and the endless campaigns against Israel cease and be used for more noble purposes?

The answer is yes, but no one is paying attention.

We live in a post-factual world. Facts no longer have any currency, unlike feelings and ideological posturing. The truth has been reduced to a troublesome inconvenience and if it happens to stare you in the face, nothing could be easier than closing your eyes or simply looking away.

____________________

Judith Bergman is a columnist and political analyst

[Find this article interesting? You can find more in depth articles on Israel and the Middle East @en.mida.org.il]

http://en.mida.org.il/2017/11/09/arab-historian-admits-no-palestinian-people/

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is making long overdue and much needed changes at EPA.

Ending Secret Science at EPA

Paul Driessen

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has proposed to end the longstanding EPA practice of using secretive, often questionable, questionable, even deceptive science to support agency policy and regulatory initiatives. His proposed rules will ensure that any science underlying agency actions is transparent and publicly available for independent experts to examine and validate – or point out its flaws.

It also responds to growing concerns that extensive scientific research in environmental, medical and other arenas cannot be replicated by other scientists, or is compromised by cherry-picked data, poor research design, sloppy analysis or biased researchers. The situation has led to calls for increased sharing of data and methodologies, more independent peer review and other actions to weed out problems.

The situation has been especially acute at EPA. As Mr. Pruitt observed, “The ability to test, authenticate and reproduce scientific findings is vital for the integrity of the rule making process. Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives.”

That is particularly true for regulations that exact millions or billions in compliance costs, affect thousands of jobs, target industries and coal-fired electricity generators that regulators want to close down, or seek to replace all fossil fuel use with “renewable” energy. With the cumulative economic impact of federal regulations reaching nearly $2 trillion per year, research reform is absolutely essential.

We need regulation and pollution control – but it must be based on solid, replicable, honest science.

Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) has held hearings and championed multiple bills to address the problem. Several have been passed by the House of Representatives, only to languish in the Senate. With courts offering little or no help, Executive Branch action may be the only remaining solution.

Deceptive, faulty science on fine particulate pollution (PM2.5) was the bedrock of the Obama EPA’s war on coal. Particulates don’t just make you sick; they are directly related “to dying sooner than you should,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson falsely told Congress. There is no level “at which premature mortality effects do not occur,” Mr. Obama’s next Administrator Gina McCarthy dishonestly testified.

At the same time they made these claims, they were presiding over illegal experiments on humans – including people with asthma, diabetes and heart disease – who were subjected to eight, 30 or even 60 times more particulates per volume, for up to two hours, than what EPA claimed are dangerous or lethal. None of them got sick, proving that EPA’s claims were false. The agency refused to correct its claims.

EPA took a similar stance on mercury – asserting that power plant emissions were causing dangerously high mercury levels in American children and pregnant women. In reality, US power plants account for just 0.5% of all the mercury in the air Americans breathe, and blood mercury counts for US women and children are well below even EPA’s excessively safe levels, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

How did EPA’s junk science, illegal experiments and heavy-handed regulations pass muster? For one thing, politics too often dictated the science. In addition, the agency paid more than $180 million over a 16-year period to institutions represented by members of its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), which often rubberstamped studies and conclusions that failed integrity and transparency tests.

On global warming, EPA issued an Endangerment Finding, which claimed emissions of (plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels threatened the health and welfare of American citizens.

It reached this conclusion by looking only at studies and computer models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, while ignoring volumes of studies by independent scientists who found no such threat. EPA officials even told one of the agency’s own senior experts that his studies would not be shared with agency staff and he was to cease any further work on climate change, because his analyses “do not help the legal or policy case for this decision” that fossil fuel CO2 emissions endanger Americans.

EPA was also a principal force behind the “social cost of carbon” scheme that supposedly calculated how much CO2-driven climate change would cost the United States and how those costs would be reduced by slashing fossil fuel use. The alleged cost of damages began at an arbitrary $22 per ton of carbon dioxide released in 2010, then climbed to an equally random $30 per ton in 2013 and $40 per ton in 2016.

Incredibly, EPA modelers also claimed they can accurately forecast global temperatures, climate and weather, technological advances, economic development, living standards – and damages to global civilizations and ecosystems from US carbon dioxide emissions – for the next 300 years! Moreover, in the real world, the benefits of using carbon-based fuels and improving crop, forest and grassland growth via higher atmospheric CO2 levels outweigh hypothesized costs by at least 50-to-1 to as much as 500-to-1.

Deceptive, politicized, policy-driven “science” like this pervaded EPA regulatory actions for too many years. Reaction to Mr. Pruitt’s corrective actions show how poorly informed his critics can be.

* The changes will force researchers to reveal personal or confidential information about participants in health studies. No they won’t. Such information is not needed and can easily be redacted.

* EPA can keep us safe from harmful chemicals only if it takes full advantage of all available scientific research. Public health and safety depend on ensuring that research and data purportedly supporting it are made public and carefully reviewed by multiple experts, to ensure accuracy and integrity. EPA will take full advantage of all available research that passes these tests.

* The rules will exclude studies that rely on outside funding sources which limit access to underlying data. Those studies should be excluded. The funders need to revise their policies to ensure integrity.

* The rules will exclude so much research that they will endanger public health. Not so. The only studies EPA will likely not see is what researchers know will not pass muster, and thus do not submit. The real danger comes from research that is based on shoddy data, algorithms, models and analyses that past researchers have been able to keep secret. That is precisely what the rules will ferret out and correct.

* Pruitt has removed scientists who receive EPA funding from participating in advisory committees. As noted above, those scientists had received millions of dollars in exchange for supporting EPA analyses, initiatives and regulations. Pruitt wants input from experts whose views can be trusted.

* Pruitt has criticized the peer review process. Too many peer reviews have been conducted by closed circles of associated scientists who rely on government grants and support regulatory decisions to maintain funding. Some refused to share data with experts who might critique their work – or worked to keep contrarian research out of scientific journals. The fact that some journals rarely require access to or review of underlying data further demonstrates why the peer review process also needs to be reformed.

Too many past EPA policies, policy-driven research and regulations have been employed to force the nation to abandon fossil fuels that still supply 80% of US and global energy – and switch to expensive, intermittent, unreliable wind and solar energy installations that will require unsustainable amounts of land and raw materials, while destroying wildlife habitats and slaughtering birds and bats by the millions.

Those actions also killed numerous jobs and left many communities impoverished. Simply put, the danger to Americans’ health and welfare, livelihoods and living standards is regulations imposed in response to secretive, sloppy, substandard science that has ill-served EPA and the nation.

Ethics charges against Mr. Pruitt should be evaluated with all this in mind – and while acknowledging that members of Congress who are railing against him never complained about Lisa Jackson or Gina McCarthy’s CASAC payment abuses, illegal experiments on human test subjects, false testimony about particulates, EPA-orchestrated sue-and-settle lawsuits that imposed billions in regulations while enriching environmentalist groups … and junk-science regulations that cost the United States incalculable billions of dollars, brought no environmental benefits, and impaired the welfare of millions of people.

Pruitt’s reforms are long overdue. Honest politicians, journalists and voters will applaud him and them. Other government agencies should initiate similar science and rulemaking reforms.

https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2018/04/28/ending-secret-science-at-epa-n2475508?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

I suppose women’s libbers don’t see my page.

DeplorableMari‏ @MariOlsdatter gets the credit for this one.

Did ya ever wonder why so many people around you are dropping like flies?  Did ya?

Or did ya pass it off ’cause you are gettin’ older?

Tuesday – April 24, 2018

Before President Trump trashes the Iran nuclear deal, he might consider: If he could negotiate an identical deal with Kim Jong Un, it would astonish the world and win him the Nobel Peace Prize.

For Iran has no nuclear bomb or ICBM and has never tested either. It has never enriched uranium to bomb grade. It has shipped 98 percent of its uranium out of the country. It has cameras inside and inspectors crawling all over its nuclear facilities.

And North Korea? It has atom bombs and has tested an H-bomb. It has intermediate-range ballistic missiles that can hit Guam and an ICBM that, fully operational, could hit the West Coast. It has shorter-range missiles that could put nukes on South Korea and Japan.

Hard to believe Kim Jong Un will surrender these weapons, his ticket of admission to the table of great powers.

Yet the White House position is that the Iran nuclear deal should be scrapped, and no deal with Kim Jong Un signed that does not result in the “denuclearization” of the peninsula.

If denuclearization means Kim gives up all his nukes and strategic missiles, ceases testing, and allows inspectors into all his nuclear facilities, we may be waiting a long time.

Trump decides on the Iran deal by May 12. And we will likely know what Kim is prepared to do, and not prepared to do, equally soon.

France’s President Emmanuel Macron is in D.C. to persuade Trump not to walk away from the Iran deal and to keep U.S. troops in Syria. Chancellor Angela Merkel will be arriving at week’s end with a similar message.

On the White House front burner then are these options:

Will North Korea agree to surrender its nuclear arsenal, or is it back to confrontation and possible war?

Will we stick with the nuclear deal with Iran, or walk away, issue new demands on Tehran, and prepare for a military clash if rebuffed?

Do we pull U.S. troops out of Syria as Trump promised, or keep U.S. troops there to resist the reconquest of his country by Bashar Assad and his Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Shiite allies?

Beyond, the larger question looms: How long can we keep this up?

How long can this country, with its shrinking share of global GDP, sustain its expanding commitments to confront and fight all over the world?

U.S. planes and ships now bump up against Russians in the Baltic and Black seas. We are sending Javelin anti-tank missiles to Kiev, while NATO allies implore us to bring Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance.

This would mean a U.S. guarantee to fight an alienated, angered and nuclear-armed Russia in Crimea and the Caucasus.

Sixteen years after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, we are still there, assisting Afghan troops against a Taliban we thought we had defeated.

We are now fighting what is left of ISIS in Syria alongside our Kurd allies, who tug us toward conflict with Turkey.

U.S. forces and advisers are in Niger, Djibouti, Somalia. We are aiding the Saudis in their air war and naval blockade of Yemen.

The last Korean War, which cost 33,000 U.S. lives, began in the June before this writer entered 7th grade. Why is the defense of a powerful South Korea, with an economy 40 times that of the North, still a U.S. responsibility?

We are committed, by 60-year-old treaties, to defend Japan, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand. Voices are being heard to have us renew the war guarantee to Taiwan that Jimmy Carter canceled in 1979.

National security elites are pushing for new naval and military ties to Vietnam and India, to challenge Beijing in the South China Sea, Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea.

How long can we sustain a worldwide empire of dependencies?

How many wars of this century — Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen — turned out to have been worth the blood shed and the treasure lost? And what have all the “color-coded revolutions” we have instigated to advance “democracy” done for America?

In a New York Times essay, “Adapting to American Decline,” Christopher Preble writes: “America’s share of global wealth is shrinking. By some estimates, the United States accounted for roughly 50 percent of global output at the end of World War II. … It has fallen to 15.1 percent today.”

Preble continues: “Admitting that the United States is incapable of effectively adjudicating every territorial dispute or of thwarting every security threat in every part of the world is hardly tantamount to surrender. It is rather a wise admission of the limits of American power.”

It is imperative, wrote Walter Lippmann, that U.S. commitments be brought into balance with U.S. power. This “forgotten principle … must be recovered and returned to the first place in American thought.”

That was 1943, at the height of a war that found us unprepared.

We are hugely overextended today. And conservatives have no higher duty than to seek to bring U.S. war guarantees into conformity with U.S. vital interests and U.S. power.

by Patrick J. Buchanan

I could not agree more.  Thankyou Pat!

http://buchanan.org/blog/americas-unsustainable-empire-129168