By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
With Ferguson in flames and mobs running rampant, it became apparent to everyone—except the liberals and libertarians—that the media-hyped “militarization” of the police was not the problem. Instead, the problem in Ferguson was, and is, a criminal element doing drugs and determined to engage in anti-police violence. The additional problem is outside agitation.
Police Officer Darren Wilson testified before the grand jury that Michael Brown, who was under the influence of drugs, was possessed like a “demon” and came after him before being shot and killed. Brown had just robbed a convenience store of swisher sweet cigars, used to make marijuana-infused “blunts.”
Yet, The Huffington Post is out with its story, “Republicans Are Blocking The Only Congressional Response To Ferguson,” suggesting that the only responsible solution is to take even more weapons out of the hands of police officers.
Not to be outdone, BuzzFeed has run a story, “Washington Bails On Demilitarization After Ferguson,” about how the politicians have supposedly been derelict in their duty in not passing legislation to neuter police forces across the country.
This writer, Evan McMorris-Santoro, laments “the quiet collapse of a bipartisan response to Ferguson,” a bill introduced by liberal Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson (GA) and Republican libertarian Rep. Raul Labrador (ID). The bill, H.R.5478, titled, “Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act,” had only 46 sponsors, the vast majority of them “progressive” Democrats who want to disarm local law enforcement.
But the BuzzFeed story does have some eye-opening elements, such as the fact that libertarian Republican Senator Rand Paul (KY) had wanted to join the anti-police crusade on Capitol Hill and had reached out to the discredited writer Radley Balko for help.
AIM ran several stories about Balko’s wildly inaccurate accounts of supposedly “militarized” police violating the rights of citizens with impunity.
The BuzzFeed account said that Rand Paul had been counting on “powerful libertarian-leaning voices in the GOP like the Koch Brothers” to force Congress to change the program that permits local police agencies to receive military help to confront local drug gangs, criminals, terrorists and mobs.
But it wasn’t to be. This effort at transformational “change” has fallen flat, in the wake of more riots in Ferguson.
Rather than being excessively “militarized,” it has become apparent that the local police in Ferguson were desperately in need of outside help and they got it—in the form of the National Guard. Still, the police and troops couldn’t protect the city from the outside agitators and assorted communists.
Even the reliably and hopelessly liberal MSNBC now sees the handwriting on the wall. The story, “Debate fades on militarization of law enforcement,” is on Rachel Maddow’s blog and quotes liberally from BuzzFeed. Common-sense legislators responding to the need for law and order will not join the liberal/libertarian crusade to undermine the police at this critical juncture.
The coverage helps us better understand the nature of the liberal media.
Most people look at riots in the streets and want the police to protect the law-abiding and arrest the lawless. The liberals in the media see the police as the bad guys.
One of the worst offenders in the media is the “former” communist Van Jones, now a CNN commentator. Jones was a member of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a group which controlled numerous front organizations such as Bay Area Police Watch.
In announcing that the grand jury had exonerated Officer Wilson, prosecutor Robert McCulloch took aim at the media, noting that a big challenge to the investigation was “the 24-hour news cycle and its appetite for something, anything, to talk about.”
At the beginning, we were informed by the media that Brown had been shot in his back, and he had put his hands up in a surrender pose. That turned out to be a complete lie. The media pressure from the start was to indict Wilson, who was viewed as guilty of cold-blooded murder.
How many times did we see and hear the media refer to Wilson being white and Brown being black, in order to stoke racial controversy?
Now we know that some of the “witnesses” against Wilson in the media lied through their teeth about what really happened.
With his anti-NSA campaign running out of gas, Glenn Greenwald had jumped on the bandwagon as well, writing a column on the “horrors” of police “militarization” in Ferguson. From his isolated bungalow in Brazil, Greenwald referred to the “intensive militarization of America’s police forces” being “a serious menace,” citing the badly flawed Radley Balko book, Warrior Cop, and a report from the ACLU.
It looks like the outside agitators were better armed than the police. Or, rather, they were more inclined to use their weapons.
The other big loser in the debate over “militarization” was Rand Paul, whose Time magazine article, “We Must Demilitarize the Police,” was about an alleged “systemic problem with today’s law enforcement.”
No such problem was found. The grand jury verdict showed that the police acted professionally throughout the process. Officer Wilson’s conduct and handling of the assault from Michael brown was vindicated. The so-called “militarization” of police after the shooting was an effort to protect fellow officers and the community.
Rather than stand up for the police, Senator Paul encouraged the mobs, writing about blacks who believe the government was “targeting” them. He griped about “black and brown men and women” supposedly serving “inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.”
This kind of rhetoric only encouraged the mobs to take action against the police and burn down and loot businesses. It was incendiary language from a politician who wants to be president.
Ferguson is an example of how the media and some politicians work together to undermine local police agencies in order to make narrow ideological points.
The anti-police agenda doesn’t make sense to those who have seen the city burned and looted on live television on two separate occasions. That is why the “militarization” debate is over and why the police have won.
Now, Senator Paul, will you please apologize to the police?
***NoisyRoom.net Note: While I am still not a big fan of the over-militarization of the police, in light of Russia opposing it and threats that we are facing, my support leans more towards the police. If Russia is using propaganda warfare techniques to demonize it – to get us to disarm, then I’m for the modernization and upkeep of equipment for the police in any case. They have a job to do and need to be safe doing it – I just don’t want it used against law-abiding Americans. It has caused a bit of re-evaluation for me. But never fear… I still believe that the military equipment is overkill and a bad idea.
By: Trevor Loudon
Here’s an example of Russia’s unconventional warfare against the US. Kremlin propaganda station RT (Russia Today) uses “Ferguson” and gives us thirty minutes of almost unrelenting (and occasionally subtle) America bashing – including even an interview with Hamas loving radical Bassem Masri.
Please take your blood pressure pills first.
100 years ago, on the Christmas Eve of 1914, a series of sporadic, unofficial truces spread across the front lines of those fighting in the trenches of World War One.
That moving moment is documented in a new advert by Sainsbury’s, a large supermarket chain in the U.K.
The cinematic masterpiece features soldiers cautiously abandon their trenches and exchange greetings with those with whom they had been fighting. In the nearly four-minute ad, the two sides compete in a soccer match before the soldiers walk back into their trenches and pull out gifts each had exchanged.
The video was published to YouTube on Wednesday and has since amassed more than 4 million views.
“This advert is wonderful. The best by far this year,” one individual commented. “It’s a marvel, it really is. Such a thoughtful and poignant message that everyone can get along and be nice to each other despite wars going on.”
“This is so amazing,” echoed another.
“The best part about this is that it really happened,” wrote one more individual.
The advert was made in coordination with the Royal British Legion. According to the supermarket, the proceeds for each chocolate bar featured in the ad will go to the organization to benefit the armed forces.
By: Renee Nal
Potential Democratic presidential nominee Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress on Wednesday, where she assured her progressive audience that the 2014 election outcome was not a referendum against big government, rather, people are worried about “who government works for.”
This is not about big government or small government. It’s not the size of government that worries people. Rather, it’s a concern for who government works for.
While Warren is correct that Americans realize that the federal government is no longer working for them, the size of government is a major concern for those who fund the government through their taxes.
In January, a Gallup poll reported:
One reason Americans are dissatisfied with how the government system is working is that they believe it is too big and powerful. Two-thirds of Americans (66%) are unhappy with the size and power of the federal government.
Here is a chart tracking American’s dissatisfaction with the size and power of the federal government:
Democratic politicians, who pledge an oath to the Constitution, consistently make the case for big government, despite their knowledge of the system of “limited government” as envisioned and implemented by America’s founding fathers.
While speaking of the size of government, James Madison wrote in Federalist 48:
It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.
Warren continued to praise the progressive style of governance, telling her audience that strict regulations on the financial sector and “investments” in state universities, roads and bridges caused Americans to thrive, but all that was taken away when Republicans sought to deregulate “Wall Street,” which caused the 2008 economic recession.
The 2008 economic recession can be traced to disparate impact policies, and believe or not, a young Barack Obama was heavily involved in the promotion of these policies. In fact, he was “a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble.” But Obama did not start the crisis, although he was certainly a part of it. In fact, the problems began with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which were compounded under President Bill Clinton, and then again under President George W. Bush.
The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation’s banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.
As reported at WayneDupree.com:
The bottom line is that banks were strong-armed by groups such as the criminal enterprise once known as ACORN to give loans to people who could not afford them. The banks sadly folded under pressure perhaps, at least initially, for fear of being referred to as “racist.” If the government was not meddling in their business, those loans would never have been given because they did not make financial sense. But banks, who knew that the loans were backed by the taxpayer-funded government sadly allowed themselves to be trampled upon, adding to their bottom lines and pushing the costs, once again, on taxpayers who believe their representatives are actually representing them. Despite the fact that they are now paying a heavy price, in addition to being the scapegoat for the 2008 recession, banks can only blame themselves.
In an incredibly revealing New York Times article from 2008, the authors did a good job of proving that the crisis was due to government policies promoted by President George W. Bush. The authors, however, forgot to mention that banks were not only under pressure by George Bush, but also by activists, academia and Democrat politicians. Instead, they blamed “lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.”
So, to summarize, banks stupidly did what they were told in lending to those who could not afford it, then they were blamed by the people who pushed them to make the bad loans in the first place as being “predatory lenders” who caused the 2008 economic recession.
In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson said:
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.
The federal government was never meant to meddle in the affairs of citizens. If not for the actions of the federal government, the 2008 recession would never have happened. Banking institutions simply would not have given loans to those who could not have afforded them.
Warren’s speech has been compared to President Obama’s infamous “You Didn’t Build That” speech, where he also invoked “roads and bridges” to assure business owners that their accomplishments could not have occurred without taxpayer dollars:
Last month, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said:
Don’t let anybody tell you that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.
Watch her comments here:
Warren made similar comments in 2011, as reported at TheBlaze:
There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.
Watch her presentation here:
In an essay in the Boston Gazette in October 1771, Samuel Adams wrote:
The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil, and danger, and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence.
It would be interesting to read some of the quotes from the founding fathers on limited government to progressive politicians for their response.
This article has been cross-posted from Broadside News.
By: Renee Nal
Education Secretary Arne Duncan made a bizarre comment about closing the educational gap between “white kids” and “children of color” on Wednesday during a White House summit to discuss Obama’s ConnectED initiative “with superintendents from across the country.” Duncan said that closing the education gap does not mean “dumbing down” white kids, but “bringing up our children of color.”
Secretary Duncan was responding to a question posed by David Hoffert, the superintendent of Warsaw Community Schools in Indiana at the time, who asked whether technology was seen as a “bridge to equity of education for all students.”
Duncan responded in part:
If we are honest with ourselves, while we have made – in some places – some progress on closing gaps, we are nowhere near where we need to be and I don’t think there’s a district in the nation and I know there’s not a state in the nation that can claim that those gaps have been eliminated. For me it is not just about closing gaps, it is about raising the bar for all kids…you don’t want to close them by having white kids…you know, dumbing down what they are doing – it’s bringing up our children of color.
And you guys might know this as well, for the first time in our nation’s history this school year, our nation’s students are majority minority.
The event was described as the “first-ever National Connected Superintendents Summit” held at the White House on Wednesday, with an audience of 100 selected superintendents. The ConnectED initiative seeks to fulfill the U.S. Department of Education’s goal of connecting 99 percent of students to “next-generation” technology within five years.
Please push us hard on that…and none of us want to go to jail, but short of going to jail we want to be as flexible as we can. The guidance I mentioned this morning surrounding uses of Title 1 and Title 2 and Title 3 and IDA on this tech space is not limited just to tech. I will say, a surprising amount of time when folks call us, our answer is ‘yes,’ but they are being told by by their own bureaucracies the answer is no. And we will always give you a straight answer…but it’s amazing how many myths and sort of urban legends are out there both state and local districts and candidly I think that some people’s jobs are – they keep their jobs by telling you things you can’t do – it’s simply not true…we are open for business and please come directly to us…
It seems that Secretary Duncan is using the opportunity to encourage school superintendents to bypass their own state and local authorities for taxpayer-funded federal grant money for public schools.
And honestly the Promise Neighborhoods stuff we love. We [the taxpayer] put a ton of money behind that. And we want to continue to fund more…
As an aside, Secretary Duncan released a statement on Friday praising President Obama’s “Immigration Accountability Executive Actions.” He said in part, indulging in a bit of Congress-bashing:
Absent congressional action, President Obama has taken a number of common-sense steps to address our broken immigration system that will, among other things, keep families together and expand educational opportunity for so many currently living in the shadows. These executive actions will not only help our nation’s immigrant families to succeed, they also will help sustain America’s economic competitiveness into the future.
The statement linked to a “Guidance for School Districts to Ensure Equal Access for All Children to Public Schools, Regardless of Immigration Status.”
Duncan made the comments about not “dumbing down” white kids around the 18:37 minute mark.
Watch his comments here:
This article has been cross-posted from Broadside News.
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
For years, we have warned about the solidifying new Axis of Evil between Russia, China and Iran. It is now fully formed and growing in strength. Already Russia and China’s militaries have grown arguably more powerful than ours if you consider their nuclear arsenals and Obama’s rigorous gutting of our military stockpiles and forces. The purge continues daily. All the while a military/security pact has flourished among the Axis of Evil players via the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
Unlike the US, our enemies realize that the Cold War never ended… it shifted and put on a new face. We must confront the fact we are at war with these foes, because whether we recognize it or not, they certainly do. It won’t be long until they have formulated their strategies sufficiently enough and tested their capabilities thoroughly enough to ensure victory when they attack us full force and on multiple fronts.
While we have used diplomacy and have attempted to talk our enemies to death or to strangle them economically, said enemies have developed a whole cadre of unconventional warfare skills that include clandestine, strike forces, cyber, battlefield, drone/aerial, nuclear, space, economic, infiltration, information/data, legal, psychological, political, medical, propaganda, terrorism and media efforts. The US is stuck in viewing warfare as a one or two front venture, when in reality it is multifaceted and is a military hydra of immense possibilities. Where we are naive in this regard, unfortunately for us, our enemies are not. Our strategy to counter unconventional, information warfare threats from states and terrorists is wholly lacking.
To counter the threats that face us, we must think as our enemies do. Plan and strategize as they do. Take a look at the Chinese who have been waging unrestricted warfare strategies since the 1990s. While we dithered over political correctness, the Chinese have been conquering space; the Russians have taken over the Arctic; both own the oceans and skies, and both have been regularly attacking us via cyberspace as has been Iran. China is suspected in numerous power outages in the Eastern US. These are dry runs – tests, since the Russians and the Chinese have malware cozily nestled in all of our major infrastructure now just awaiting the right moment of activation.
From Bill Gertz:
The 48-page white paper, published Sept. 26 by the Fort Bragg, North Carolina command, urges building new, non-kinetic warfare tools into a comprehensive U.S. and allied strategy.
The tools should include covert and clandestine special operations commando activities combined with political, intelligence, diplomatic, and financial warfare methods to counter the activities of states like Russia, China and Iran, and insurgent activities by terrorist groups such as the Islamic State.
Countering unconventional warfare also should be made “central to U.S./NATO security policy and practice over the next several decades,” the report states.
The Army study said the U.S. government “lacks a cohesive [information warfare] strategy to counter adversary [unconventional warfare] campaigns conducted by state and non-state actors, and this has hindered the U.S./NATO response to Russian aggression in Ukraine.”
“The U.S. government must develop a comprehensive framework to plan and execute regional and global IW strategies and operations that counter adversary UW campaigns as part of a whole-of-government approach,” the report said.
One wonders why the sole remaining Super Power on Earth would let their enemies so outpace them militarily. There is a very simple, brutal answer: we have an enemy from within as President. Obama wants us gutted as a military power so we will fall to our enemies. It’s as simple as that. Every action he has carried out screams it. The latest being getting rid of Hagel. Albeit, Hagel was a weak military agent, but at least in the end he had the nerve to say Obama was screwing things up. He paid the price for his honesty. Obama is sending weapons and supplies not to our allies, but to our enemies in the Middle East. The Pentagon and the military know that the Commander-in-Chief is sabotaging them. Oh, yes they do. There is severe conflict in the military ranks and it will get worse and may come to the breaking point.
While Islamic threats are incredibly dangerous and horribly barbaric in their bloody Caliphate building across the Middle East, the bigger threat is Russia and China. If Obama wanted to, he could decimate ISIS militarily, but you won’t see him do that because they serve his agenda. He is using ISIS as a distraction to justify other maneuvers, such as forming an alliance with a nuclear Iran and further weakening us. It’s been planned all along. And Obama’s agenda serves Russia and China. We are watching bloody Kabuki Theater in the military arena. Nothing is as it seems and we are being played.
More from Gertz:
“Russian unconventional warfare is thus the central, most game-changing component of a hybrid warfare effort involving conventional forces, economic intimidation of regional countries, influence operations, force-posturing all along NATO borders, and diplomatic intervention,” the report said.
“The brazen audacity of unconventional warfare within Russian hybrid warfare has produced urgent concern among America’s NATO and non-NATO partners that Russia may apply similar approaches to other regional countries in the region with dissenting Russophile populations, such as the Baltic States, Moldova, and Georgia,” the report adds.
According to the report, Russia is using special operations forces, intelligence agents, political provocateurs, and news media reporters, as well as transnational criminal elements in eastern and southern Ukraine.
“Funded by the Kremlin and operating with differing degrees of deniability or even acknowledgement, the Russian government uses ‘little green men’ for classic [unconventional warfare] objectives,” the report says.
The objectives of Russian covert warfare include “causing chaos and disrupting civil order” and provoking an excessive reaction from Ukrainian security organs that Moscow hopes will delegitimize the Kiev government.
The Russians have engaged in a successful unconventional warfare campaign against Ukraine by organizing pro-Russian separatists and dispatching advisers and fighters from Russian special forces and intelligence units to assist them. Activities include funding and arming, tactical coordination, and fire support for separatist military operations.
The report identified retired Col. David S. Maxwell, a former Army special operations officer, as a “chief advocate” for a new counter unconventional warfare strategy and methods.
“Our enemies are conducting unconventional warfare and political warfare: Russia and its new Generation Warfare, Iran and its Iranian Action Network, and the Chinese Three Warfares,” Maxwell said in an email to the Washington Free Beacon.
“Non-state actors such as al Qaeda are conducting unconventional and political warfare,” he added. “We need to understand their strategies and we need to be able to counter their strategies. Counter unconventional warfare provides a foundation for strategic thinking about the threat strategies we face.”
Maxwell told a U.S. Special Operations Command briefing in July that counter unconventional warfare, or U-CW in Army parlance, can prevent states and groups from achieving their strategic aims.
Counter programs against unconventional war are likely to be “protracted and psychological-centric in nature,” Maxwell told SOCOM and added that the United States should “comprehensively employ political, economic, military, and psychological pressure” to degrade both the will and capability of enemies to use the new form of warfare.
The US must resume political warfare that was utilized before the end of the Cold War. Time to get our spies and operatives ready to go again. It’s a new, ruthless game out there and we are way behind.
We need to use special forces such as SEAL teams and the Green Berets for targeted assassinations and surgical strikes. They are among the most deadly players on the planet – let’s use their special talents to our full advantage. It is a game of war we dare not lose. Set loose the dogs of war and play to win.
I would caution America to get with it and to realize just how big an enemy both Russia and China are. The Chinese are incredibly brilliant strategists and can be ruthless and absolutely cold-blooded.
China’s use of unconventional warfare was described in the Army report as based on the 1999 book by two Chinese colonels called Unrestricted Warfare that calls for using all means to defeat enemies, including cyber attacks, ecological warfare, financial warfare, and terrorism.
“China will use a host of methods, many of which lie out of the realm of conventional warfare,” the report said. “These methods include trade warfare, financial warfare, ecological warfare, psychological warfare, smuggling warfare, media warfare, drug warfare, network warfare, technological warfare, fabrication warfare, resources warfare, economic aid warfare, cultural warfare, and international law warfare.”
Examples include China’s threat several years ago to sell off large U.S. debt holdings to protest U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, and cutting off sales of rare earth minerals to Japan in a dispute over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea.
Chinese news outlets also are used in media warfare, including at the White House. “The Chinese state-controlled television station network CCTV has a White House pool reporter that could influence U.S. media reporting on China issues,” the report said.
Cyber attacks also are a key Chinese unconventional warfare tool and the report said Chinese hackers are suspected of causing power outages in the northeastern United States and Florida, the report said.
“China’s cyber-attacks clearly show the vulnerabilities to the U.S. public and private sectors information and infrastructure security,” the report said. “States like Russia and China will continue to exploit weaknesses in cyberspace to gather information and influence others.”
Iran’s strong point is terrorism and the funding of such across the planet, especially Hezbollah. But they also use HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban and Iraqi Shia groups. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Qods Force is infamous for their military prowess and the willingness to be brutal as needed. In Iraq, they target dams, power plants and pipelines. In 2012, Iran was responsible for cyber attacks on US banks that produced “debilitating” effects. Iranian hackers also infiltrated Navy and Marine Corps computer networks and they are backing the Syrian Electronic Army cyber group.
Obama wants an alliance with Iran and is angling for them to go fully nuclear – he is in bed with the enemy – via Trevor Loudon:
Here is the bait which will be used to lure the American public onto a viciously barbed hook.
Michael Ledeen maintains that Obama has wanted an alliance with Iran since the beginning of his first term of office. Obama would know that it would take something pretty dramatic to get the American public to swallow such a repugnant policy reversal.
To accept Iran, the public would have to be conditioned to fear something even worse.
It is known that Obama knew about ISIS for months and did nothing until they gathered so much strength and committed so many atrocities that he could no longer ignore them.
Now with horrific mass killings and brutal filmed beheadings, much of the American public believes that a ragtag army of Islamist extremists is public enemy number one. Not to diminish the threat from ISIS in any way, but what about Russia and its 8,500 nukes, China with its rapidly growing political, economic and military power, and an almost nuclear capable Iran? The focus is now all on ISIS – a threat that the president was at least negligent in allowing to grow.
Did the President deliberately allow ISIS to get out of hand in order to gull the American public into accepting an alliance with their former sworn enemy, Iran?
Is Obama deliberately exploiting the “Isis Crisis” in order to create the unholiest of unholy alliances?
Was ISIS allowed to grow unchecked, so that Obama could hold out his hand in friendship to a sworn enemy of liberty and American values? To a nation that still plans to annihilate America’s only real real friend in the Middle East, Israel?
I suspect that President Obama does not plan to let the “Isis Crisis” go to waste.
The US needs to have leaders that lead, who aren’t craven cowards and who aren’t afraid of offending someone. They need those that act decisively on their own, while at the same time are part of a strong military command. If killing and destruction are called for, do it and don’t look back. Don’t clean up the mess, leave that to our enemies. It sends a message and projects strength. We win and go home. The new Axis of Evil is waging unconventional warfare against us and we better wake up to the fact we are in a world war before we wind up permanently crippled or dead as a nation. War is unforgiving and so are our enemies – strategize, plan and execute before our enemies do.