The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 05/31/13

The Watcher’s Council

The People’s Cube

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast and we have the results for this week’s Watcher’s Council match-up.

“What does it matter? “ – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

This week’s winner, Joshuapundit’s Midnight In Benghazi – What Really Happened, deals with the who, what and most especially the why of what happened in Benghazi.And especially, why it matters more than many Americans perhaps realize. It was a piece I worked on for quite some time as information trickled in from various sources. Here’s a slice:

The recent Benghazi hearings before the House Oversight Committee were extremely valuable in that America (or at least that part of America that was paying attention) heard three courageous whistle blowers testify as to the events on the ground as they happened. Even if it merely confirmed what a lot of us knew beforehand,it had value that these unimpeachable witnesses confirmed it. And also let the nation know the kind of pressure they were subjected to by the State Department and the Obama Administration to keep their mouths shut.

It’s been said that the problem with Benghazi is that the whole affair is now so convoluted that the average person has trouble following all the threads. There’s some truth in that, and the lack of dinosaur media coverage that would have been wall to wall if this were a Republican administration involved has aided and abetted that confusion. The one most honorable exception has been Sharyl Attkisson at CBS, and her honesty and conviction is likely to cost Ms.Attkisson her job, because she’s been a little too good at it.

Perhaps what’s really needed is a short summary that tells exactly what happened in Benghazi, to make it easier to follow.

What happened is that an American ambassador, Chris Stevens was stationed in the Benghazi consulate for some unknown reason, even though the British and the International Red Cross had already pulled their people out because it was too dangerous. The consulate was left without adequate security, even though Ambassador Stevens begged for it. On September 11th, 2012, that consulate was attacked by al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood forces armed with heavy weapons from Libyan government arsenals that the attackers obtained thanks to American aid in overthrowing Libyan dictator Moamar Khaddaffi. Four Americans died in the attacks, which were spread over nine hours. Even though there were ample security resources on the ground who could possibly have saved those four dead Americans, someone gave them the order to stand down. Instead, carefully edited talking points were concocted by the Obama Administration and an entire narrative was fed to the nation via a cooperative media that the attacks were a spontaneous protest over an obscure YouTube video, and that nothing could have been done to save the ambassador and the others whom were murdered.

The Obama Administration deliberately lied about what happened and has been trying to cover that up ever since.

That’s essentially the basic summary of what happened. Or for those of you whom need a slogan to chant, here’s an even simpler one:

“Obama Slept and Hillary Lied
About how four Americans died”

The media is still very much involved in trying to bury this. Here’s the amazing testimony of Greg Hicks, a career diplomat and Ambassador Chris Steven’s Deputy. This is probably the biggest national scandal since Watergate, yet wasn’t carried on any major news outlet in full except FOX:

Among other things, Greg Hicks revealed that he called Hillary Clinton at 8PM EST that night to tell her that the consulate was under attack by al-Qaeda terrorists and that Ambassador Stevens was now missing.He called again at 9PM after he received a call from the then–Libyan prime minister, Abdurrahim el-Keib, informing him that Ansar al-Sharia had brought Stevens’ mutilated body into a hospital and that the ambassador was dead. was dead. Hicks immediately called Washington.
Secretary Clinton wasn’t available..just not taking calls. And not only didn’t she call Hicks back that evening, but she didn’t bother getting in touch with him the following day. And President Obama? He dropped out very early in the proceedings, after he was briefed 5 PM EST by Leon Panetta. He had a campaign fundraiser to attend and decided to go to bed early.

It’s important to remember the time frame here. The attack was spread over nine hours, and no one in Washington knew how long it was going to last. We’re not talking about a game of basketball here, where the clock runs for a certain period and the action stops.The Obama Administration made a conscious decision not to get involved, so the nonsense peddled about ‘not having security assets who could get there in time’ is a despicable lie.

As Hicks testified and others have confirmed, Lieutenant Colonel Gibson had a special forces team in Tripoli that twice suited up to go to Benghazi to rescue the Americans under siege and twice got stand down orders. Meanwhile, back in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty held off the numerically superior jihadis for hours virtually alone before dying on a rooftop while waiting for back-up that never came.

Again, this is not some DC-based functionary. This is Ambassadors Stevens’ deputy, his second in command, the man who took over the Libya station after Ambassador Stevens was murdered before he was demoted for not keeping his mouth suitably shut. And he says his jaw literally dropped when he heard Hillary and Susan Rice blaming this on a video.

No one should be under the assumption that this ends with Secretary Clinton either. One of President Obama’s first acts as president was to remove the post of UN Ambassador from the authority of the Secretary of State and to make it a full cabinet post under his direct orders that reported to him.So if Ambassador Susan Rice was making the rounds of the Sunday shows lying about how the attack on our embassy was caused by an obscure video, she was not doing it without President Obama’s full knowledge and consent.And someone gave the orders to our military not to go in. That ordinarily would be a presidential prerogative – unless President Obama was AWOL again.

One of the most despicable scenes in American history was played out at the funerals of the murdered men, where the president and Mrs. Clinton acted as though ‘Chris’ was their best friend. This was the same woman who lied repeatedly about ‘Chris’s’ death, who denied she’d received cables from him desperately asking for more security and even had the heartlessness to lie to the the Woods family about how Tyrone Woods died, telling them at the funeral that “we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.’

Okay, that’s the what, at least so far. Some aspects of ‘who’ are still in the process of being discovered. So let’s get to the far more important question, ‘why’.

To find out the all important why, read the rest. It’s the key to understanding the whole thing.

In our Non-Council category, the prize was carried off by Mark Steyn for To The Slaughter, submitted by Joshuapundit. It is Steyn’s essay on the murder and beheading of a serving British soldier in Woolwich in broad daylight last week and what it says about the UK and about the West. Do read it.

I would like to remind our readers that there is a vacancy currently available in the Watcher’s Council. This is a very special group and a superb opportunity for a blogger to reach a wider audience and showcase their work. If you think you qualify and are interested in applying, leave a comment with a link to your site, your e-mail address (which will remain confidential) and any questions you might have as a comment on any article over at Joshuapundit.

Okay, here are this week’s full results. Only Gay Patriot was unable to vote this week and only he was affected by the mandatory 2/3 vote penalty:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week! Don’t forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week’s Watcher’s Forum, as the Council and their invited special guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day with short takes and weigh in… don’t you dare miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!


Obama’s Defense Policy Speech Was Untrue, Incoherent, Foolish, and Dangerous

By: Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.)
Right Side News


President Barack Obama is abysmally ignorant of what every first year ROTC student knows, that is, war only ends when the enemy no longer has the motivation and/or capability to continue the war. The president’s ignorance was embarrassingly on display in his May 23rd National Defense University counterterrorism policy speech. This speech was untrue, incoherent, foolish, and dangerous.

With appropriate deference for this concept to the master warfare theoretician, Carl von Clausewitz and his seminal work, On War, war reduced to the most fundamental equation is: MOTIVATION(S) + CAPABILITY = WAR. Various historical war motivations or causes have been religious, political, geo-strategic, economic, and revanchist. Capability, on the other hand, is composed of manpower and firepower, as well as replacing manpower losses while re-supplying the firepower through logistics. Remove one or both of these motivation-capability factors from war, and the war stops, at least temporarily. But it is only stops permanently if and when the enemy loses faith in his motivating cause and/or is just physically incapable of continuing kinetic action. Therefore, effective warfare is not just random killing or physical destruction, rather effective warfare strategically targets motivation and/or capability. It must be noted, however, that destruction of capability may just yield a temporary cessation of hostilities until combat manpower and firepower capability can be regenerated.

In looking at the past history of fighting “radical extremism” like German Nazism and Japanese Bushidoism, it was necessary to completely destroy both their motivation, which was their total faith in their ideologies, and their warfare capability to finally end hostilities. Both Nazism and Bushidoism were supremacist ideologies then, as is Sharia-Islamic jihadism today. Consequently, in order to end the commitment of the most fanatical Nazi and Bushido believers to their cause, it was imperative that a significant percentage of fanatical believers, as well as fellow-travelers, be annihilated and that every existing symbol of their belief systems be ground to dust.

With the nation long under Islamic jihadi attack, it is imperative that the president of United States, as commander-in-chief, has an historical understanding of warfare. Just how important it is that he has such an understanding can be seen by examining the inept war policy set forth by Obama. Obama is sworn to carry out his constitutional duty of defending the U.S. Constitution and the American people from the Islamic jihadi enemy, but careful examination of the counter-terrorist policy in his speech reveals total benightedness when it comes to war. On the other hand, our Islamic jihadi enemy perfectly understands his jihadi warfare mission because he is obligated by Islamic scripture to conduct unending war against the U.S., as well as against all non-Muslim governments that are not governed by Islamic Sharia jurisprudence.


Obama: “ . . . we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders . . . The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence.” [Emphasis added on deception]

Truth: The noted expert on Islam, Robert Spencer, has specifically and factually refuted Obama’s specious claim that U.S. Muslims are the foundation on which the U.S. should construct its domestic security: “Four separate studies since 1998 have all found that 80% of U.S. mosques were teaching jihad, Islamic supremacism, and hatred and contempt for Jews and Christians. There are no countervailing studies that challenge these results. In 1998, Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a Sufi leader, visited 114 mosques in the United States. Then he gave testimony before a State Department Open Forum in January 1999, and asserted that 80% of American mosques taught the ‘extremist ideology’.

“Then there was the Center for Religious Freedom’s 2005 study, and the Mapping Sharia Project’s 2008 study. Each independently showed that upwards of 80% of mosques in America were preaching hatred of Jews and Christians and the necessity ultimately to impose Islamic rule.

“And in the summer of 2011 came another study showing that only 19% of mosques in U.S. don’t teach jihad violence and/or Islamic supremacism.”

Comment: This crux issue of Muslim allegiance clearly reveals the basic fallacy of Obama’s inadequate national security policy regarding Islam. Obama is purposely deceiving the American people about Islam being “peaceful” and by asserting that most Muslims will denounce their co-religionists to cooperate with his regime. But the Quran and Sharia are replete with exhortations mandating that Muslims spread Islam by installing Islamic Sharia law everywhere on earth through jihad and that Muslims should never stop until Islam is dominant over all other belief systems, religious and secular. This spreading of Islam through jihad is the central organizing principle of Islam; therefore, expecting Muslims to act cooperatively to thwart Islam’s spread belies the reason why they are Muslims in the first place and makes no sense!

Furthermore, Obama has to be lying when he falsely portrays a “peaceful Islam” to the American people because it is impossible to believe that Obama, who was raised a Muslim, is unaware of the innumerable jihadi mandates in the Quran and Sharia. Either Obama is telling the truth about the peaceful nature of Islam, or Muhammad is telling the truth when he commanded Muslims to follow him in his mission to spread Islam through jihad: “I have been commanded [by god] to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” So, who do you believe about the nature of Islam? Obama or Muhammad?

Obama:Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology – a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts.” [Emphasis added on deception]


  • World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
  • 32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
  • 41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
  • 38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
  • 83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
  • 62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
  • 42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
  • A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
    (Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
  • About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S.


Comment: The statistics above do not support Obama’s unfounded assertion that “the vast majority” of Muslims don’t see America as their enemy. While statistics are always subject to question, the TV scenes speak for themselves that show enormous Muslim mobs deliriously celebrating whenever Muslims inflict some jihadi attack resulting in death and destruction to Americans. But the acid test regarding the peacefulness and tolerance of Islam, such as Obama describes, is the percentage of Muslims who favor implementing Sharia law as the jurisprudence governing their lives. What makes Sharia so all-important as a measure of Muslim peacefulness and tolerance for non-Muslims is that Islamic scripture holds that Sharia supersedes all other legal systems, i.e., the U.S. Constitution for instance. Regarding Muslim popular backing for Sharia, none other than a 05/02/13 Washington Post article shows that worldwide “the vast majority of Muslims” (to use the president’s verbiage) favor making Sharia the official law of their country. Incidentally, the Sharia quotes Quranic texts to mandate jihad against non-Muslims.

Obama: “ . . . there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened . . . Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO . . . I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries.” [Emphasis added on deception]

Truth: In a summary report, the office of the Director of National Intelligence said that 27.9 percent of the 599 former detainees released from Guantanamo were either confirmed or suspected of later engaging in militant activity.

Comment: If Obama truly believes that preventing known Islamic jihadi terrorists from returning to the battlefield against the U.S. is partisan politics, he is unqualified to be the wartime national leader. If he truly doesn’t believe it, but is instead just saying it for his own partisan political reasons, he is unqualified to be the wartime national leader. Just making the statement proves he is unqualified to be the wartime national leader.

Obama: “There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure.” [Emphasis added on deception]

Truth: The Islamic jihadi terrorists at the Boston Marathon killed 3 people and wounded 264 with their bombs. There were at least 16 amputations of limbs. At Ft Hood an Islamic jihadi terrorist murdered 13 and wounded 32.

Comment: Viewing Boston and Ft Hood from an American point of view, Obama’s statement is just not true. However, from the Islamic jihadi terrorists’ point of view, the attacks weren’t large-scale. Perhaps then, it depends on whose point of view is used to evaluate the dimensions of the Islamic jihadi terrorist attacks.


Obama:To define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. And that begins with understanding the threat we face . . . Success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources . . . we could be . . . feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.” [Emphasis added on incoherence]

Truth: The U.S. spent hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan to provide just the types of assistance and to do the nation-building Obama advocates for “creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.”

Comment: How’s that “hard-earned wisdom” strategy working out in Iraq and Afghanistan? So, “hard-earned wisdom” would dictate more of the same strategy? Obama ran for president proclaiming he was against “dumb wars.” This nation-building is his idea of “smart war?”

Obama:First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces.

Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America . . . Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first . . . Groups like AQAP must be dealt with . . . I firmly believe that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the dangers we face in the long run.” [Emphasis added on incoherence]

Truth: “We now face a spreading jihadist threat. We have driven a lot of the AQ [al-Qaida] operatives out of Afghanistan, Pakistan. We have killed a lot of them, including, of course, Bin Laden. But we have to recognize that this is a global movement.” ~ Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senate Benghazi Hearing, 01/23/13.

Comment: Secretary Clinton emotionally blurted out her accurate description of the worldwide Islamic jihadist threat out of defensive frustration (committing truth by accident?) in response to being accused of incompetence and evasion as the result of her inept handling of the Benghazi issue. The only way to interpret Obama’s and Clinton’s remarks above is: The war against the Islamic jihadists is not worldwide, although it is spans the globe.


Obama:. . . the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat . . . They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston . . . We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11 . . . we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States . . . Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon . . .

Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism . . . we must recognize that these threats don’t arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology – a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict . . .” [Emphasis added on foolishness]


The Quran

2:216: “Fighting [jihad] has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not” [Allah has decreed that Jihad is the duty of every Muslim, regardless of personal desires, because Allah knows the value of things better than his followers do].

8:39: “And fight [jihad against] them [non-Muslims] until there is no fitna [disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief] and (until) the religion, all of it, is for Allah.”

9:29: “Fight [jihad against] those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day [Islamic eschatology] and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger [Muhammad] have made unlawful [that is, do not practice Islamic Sharia jurisprudence] and who do not adopt the religion of truth [Islam] from those [Jews and Christians] who were given the Scripture [the Jewish and Christian Old & New testaments] – (fight) until they give the jizya [Muslim submission tax for non-Muslims] willingly while they are humbled.”

Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Law:

O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.


o9.4 Those called upon to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane . . .


o9.8 The caliph [the civil and religious leader of a Muslim state considered to be a representative of Allah on earth] makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . who do not practice the religion of truth [Islam] . . . until they pay the poll tax [jizya] out of hand and are humbled” (Quran 9.29) . . .

o9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples [secular atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, animists, and idolaters] until they become Muslim . . . .

Comment: The foolishness that the threat is not worldwide and is now just a local law enforcement problem stems from the underlying lie that the U.S. and Islam are not at war, a lie that was addressed in the section on UNTRUTHS. Obama’s conflicting explanations for why Americans have been, and continue to be, killed by Islamic jihadi terrorists have been concocted to deflect any responsibility from the core documents of Islamic scripture, the Quran and Sharia. As is undeniable based on the contents of the preceding Truth paragraph, Muslims are enjoined to make jihadi warfare on non-Muslims to either force them to convert to Islam, surrender and buy their lives with extortion blood money, or fight to the death.

Obama’s absurdness is in telling the American people that Islamic scriptures don’t say what they clearly say. According to Obama’s various explanations for Islamic jihad (officially designated “violent extremism”), jihadi terrorists are just a few misguided Muslims following a perverted version of Islam, or are Muslim discontents alienated by U.S. foreign policy, or are self-radicalized Muslim lone wolves, or are lastly individual crazies without ideologies.

However, the supreme foolishness is that the politically correct American people listen to Obama’s inane nonsense denying the connection between Islam and jihadi terrorism and do not hoot him out of public life!


Obama:. . . thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. . . That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication . . . I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing. . . The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. . . I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.” [Emphasis added on danger]

Truth: The Arab Spring has completely disrupted the Islamic world from the Atlantic Ocean to the Himalayas and has opened the way for Islamic Sunni Salafists and Shia Khomeinists to pursue jihadi warfare to take over failed states in order to establish Islamic emirates. However, the ultimate jihadi objective is to unite the emirates into one supreme Islamic caliphate from which to challenge the dominance of Western Civilization (referred to at one time as “Christendom”). Instead of promoting “Islamic democracy” as Obama prophesied, the Arab Spring has unleashed the forces of “Islamic fundamentalism” that is the exact antithesis of democracy. Many different Islamic Sunni and Shia fundamentalist groups from Mumbai to Mali to London to Boston to Ft Hood are participating in the global Islamic jihad cited by Secretary Clinton. Therefore, Obama’s proposed repeal of AUMF because “all wars must end” because “that’s what our democracy demands” is farcical reasoning that doesn’t pass the grown-up laugh test. If the president were truly interested in history, he would know that history also advises those wise enough to listen that unfinished wars like World War I in 1918 and Desert Storm in 1991 are bound to begin again when the motivation of the aggressor has not been extinguished or exorcised.

Comment: First, the Obama regime’s attempt to focus all attention on al-Qaeda as the lone perpetrator of Islamic jihad is disingenuous and purposefully is misleading. Obama’s unjustified contention that now is the time to declare the counter-jihadi war is won and over because bin Laden is dead is delusional at best, and dishonest at worst. Furthermore, his assertion that the Islamic threat to Americans has moved from the arena of war, involving all resources of national power, to principally the domain of civilian law enforcement is utterly irresponsible and very dangerous. The important point that Obama is obfuscating is that, irrespective whether the jihadist is al-Qaeda’s leader, Aymen al-Zawahiri, or the “self-radicalized” Little Rock Army recruiting office shooter, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (Carlos Bledsoe), they are both carrying out the very same Quranic and Sharia jihadi injunctions. And whether the jihadist is “core” al-Qaeda or a singleton jihadist-wannabe, they both have the blood-curdling scream “Allahu Akbar” in common.


Unfortunately, after considering the most recent evidence, the inescapable conclusion is that the president’s decision to repeal AUMF and to wind down the comprehensive military-intelligence-law enforcement counter-jihadi war and instead transition to primarily a law enforcement campaign is based on his and his political party’s well-known, leftist, anti-military ideology. In fact, in view of the reality that the Sharia-Islamic jihadists around the world are displaying an enthusiastic increase in motivation and that there is a multiplying of capability in terms of the growing numbers of active jihadi groups, the substance of Obama’s speech ignored the facts of war and was pure politics.

Col. Thomas Snodgrass, USAF (retired) served over a year in Peshawar, Pakistan, working with Pakistani military intelligence. In another overseas tour as an intelligence officer he was the U.S. Air Attaché behind the Iron Curtain in Warsaw, Poland. In total, Col Snodgrass was variously an Intelligence Officer or an International Politico-Military Affairs Officer serving duty tours in seven foreign countries, as well as teaching military history and strategy at the Air War College, US Air Force Academy, and USAF Special Operations School during a thirty-year military career.


Zbig “the Pink” Brzezinski

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal


There are some who believe that Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to America’s worst ever Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, is some sort of anti-communist hawk.

The reality is that Brzezinski is a globalist and a socialist.

Check out this exchange, re-printed approvingly in Democratic Socialists of America‘s Democratic Left, November 1991, page 16:


Click to enlarge

Then this:

“Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man’s universal vision. Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief: it stresses man’s capacity to shape his material destiny—finite and defined as man’s only reality—and it postulates the absolute capacity of man to truly understand his reality as a point of departure for his active endeavors to shape it. To a greater extent than any previous mode of political thinking, Marxism puts a premium on the systematic and rigorous examination of material reality and on guides to action derived from that examination.”

– Between the Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1970

Or this:

“The precondition for eventual and genuine globalization is progressive regionalization because by that we move towards larger, more stable, more cooperative units.

– Zbigniew Brzezinski, speaking at the Gorbachev Conference, September, 1995

Yep, sounds like some sort of “right wing” superhawk to me.


Brzezinski Cheers on Obama Chinese Premier Xi Summit

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

Arch “One Worlder, life long communist appeaser and Obama adviser,” Zbigniew Brzezinski, has high hopes for the upcoming summit between U.S. pro-communist President Barack Obama and new Chinese premier Xi Jinping.


From the Communist Party of China website:

WASHINGTON, May 23 (Xinhua) — The upcoming summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Barack Obama is “very timely” and “very much needed,” said former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in a recent exclusive interview with Xinhua.

The American-Chinese relationship is the most important bilateral relationship of the world,” said Brzezinski in a phone interview with Xinhua on Wednesday.

“Global economic stability and global security very much depend on the healthy, friendly, cooperative and mutually accommodating relationship between America and China,” he said.

Brzezinski’s comment came ahead of the summit between Xi and Obama on June 7-8 in California’s Sunnylands, the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Estate. It will be the first meeting between the two leaders since Xi took office in March.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang on Tuesday highlighted the significance of the summit, saying that it will bolster the long-term, sound and steady development of China-U.S. relations, and promote peace, stability and prosperity in the region and the world.

Brzezinski said he hoped that the two leaders can take advantage of the meeting to jointly issue a communique “which outlines how the American-Chinese partnership should evolve, what should be its shared objectives, how it intends to manage the unavoidable differences that are bound to arise in a complex and comprehensive relationship.”

He called on both leaders to use the summit to underscore the “joint commitment” in fostering a “more wide ranging” U.S.-China partnership, and their “mutual determination” to deal “constructively” with the challenges in their relations.

Citing his observation of the current status of this vital bilateral ties, Brzezinski pointed out that there has been some “deterioration in mutual confidence and in mutual understanding.”

“A brief look at the American mass media or at the Chinese mass media reveals that both sides incline to be quite critical of the other,” he noted.

Nonetheless, Brzezinski urged both countries’ leaders to reach a consensus that a healthy American-Chinese partnership is in the joint interest “not only of both countries but of the whole world.”

The basic facts remain that America and China are locked into the partnership on which their respective well-being very much depends,” he pointed out.

“If that partnership is not maintained, both countries will suffer. And ability of the world to engage in more wide ranging cooperation will dramatically diminish,” Brzezinski said.

“So the two leaders have a great historical responsibility on their hands,” he stressed, calling on both of them to commit their countries to a “long-term, historically vital partnership.”

Brzezinski served as national security advisor in the Carter administration and was deeply involved in the normalization of relations between China and the United States. He is currently the counselor and trustee of the Washington-based think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies

If Zbigniew Brzezinski thinks this is a good idea, the rest of us should be very worried.


China Cements “Ties” With Fiji

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

From the Communist Party of China website:

Chinese President Xi Jinping, Fijian Prime Minister Josaia  (Frank) Bainimarama

Fijian Prime Minister Josaia (Frank) Bainimarama, Chinese President Xi Jinping,

President Xi Jinping said Wednesday that China is ready to strengthen communication and cooperation with Fiji and other Pacific Island nations.
Xi made the remarks while meeting with visiting Fijian Prime Minister Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama in the Great Hall of the People.

Xi said China believes that all countries are equal members of the international community and should respect and treat each other as equals.

Xi said China treasures its friendship with Fiji, respects the development path chosen by its people and will continue to provide assistance to Fiji within its capacity.

Xi said China appreciates Fiji’s support regarding issues related to China’s core interests.

Xi said both sides should deepen cooperation in agriculture, forestry, fishery, transportation, telecommunications, mining, infrastructure development and tourism.

He said both sides should promote cultural exchanges and contacts, especially among young people.

He said he hopes both sides can step up coordination on multilateral and Pacific Island issues.

Xi said China supports Fiji’s requests regarding energy security, climate change and the protection of maritime resources, adding that China is ready to further advance its relations with Fiji.

Xi said Pacific Island nations are an important part of the Asia-Pacific region, adding that the region cannot achieve development and prosperity as a whole without the development of Pacific Island nations.

Xi said China supports Pacific Island nations in playing an equal part in international affairs, enhancing development and realizing sustainable growth.

Bainimarama said China has provided invaluable support for Fiji and brought benefits for its residents, adding that he hopes to learn from China’s success and step up cooperation with China.

Bainimarama is the first Pacific Island nation leader to visit China since China’s new leadership came into power.

Fiji, only 1500 miles to the north of my country New Zealand, is now effectively, a Chinese client state.