Islamic State Murders 30 Christians, Advances In The Direction Of Israel

Image for representational purposes only.

Islamic State continues to make headlines. On Sunday, the terrorist organization released a new video purportedly showing the gruesome mass killing of a group of thirty Ethiopian Christians in Libya.

The footage that includes the logo of the group’s Al-Furqan media arm is more than 29 minutes long. It begins with a description of Christian churches and then calls the Holy Trinity – the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit – a form of polytheism whose worshipers deserve punishment.

At the end of the video, two groups of men dressed in orange and black are shown being escorted by armed IS members in two different locations. A masked man addresses the camera and gives a warning to viewers.

“Muslim blood that was shed under the hands of your religion is not cheap,” the man says. “We swear to Allah the one, who disgraced you by our hands, you will not have safety even in your dreams until you embrace Islam.”

The video then cuts between the two groups as one group is shot, and the other decapitated with knives.

The video also shows IS members breaking and defacing Catholic and Christian iconography, including crosses on top of churches and pictures and statues of the Virgin Mary. As the crosses fall, IS militants are shown replacing them with the group’s black flag.

At the same time Islamic State released the video, the United Nations reported that at least 90,000 people have fled the advance of IS fighters in Ramadi, Iraq.

“Our top priority is delivering life-saving assistance to people who are fleeing — food, water, and shelter are highest on the list of priorities,” Lise Grande, the deputy special representative of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, said in a statement.

Ar Ramadi is a city east of Bagdad. The report on Islamic State advances close to the Iraqi capital contradicts a recent Pentagon announcement about the progress being made by coalition forces.

U.S. Colonel Steve Warren told reporters last Monday that the group had been pushed out of 25-30 percent – around 5-6,000 square miles – of the Iraqi land under their control. However, a simple look at a map released by the US Department of Defense shows that this is simply not true.

us-official-more-than-a-quarter-of-is-territory-in-iraq-recaptured-body-image-1429107405

Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said that the percentage figure was “nonsense” because much of the territory mentioned is unpopulated. “They don’t control empty stretches of Anbar desert where they have no forces, where no-one does.”

The Islamic State offensive in Ramadi could be a prelude of an assault on Bagdad. On Wednesday, it seized several villages close to the provincial capital of Ramadi after launching a series of dawn assaults.

Islamic State fighters have been pushing towards Ramadi since Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi launched a major offensive to drive them out of the majority Sunni province of Anbar last week. Government efforts were intended to build on the victory in Tikrit; but IS forces have now pushed to within three miles of Ramadi, according to various reports.

Syria

In Syria, Islamic State has advanced in the direction of the capital Damascus. The Assad regime, Hezbollah, and Iranian forces suffered setbacks last week after Islamic State took over the Palestinian refugee camp Yarmuk. Almost all of the 120,000 Palestinians who lived in the camp before the war have now fled.

There were conflicting reports about a supposed withdrawal of Islamic State from Yarmouk; but the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group, said on Thursday that clashes were still ongoing. The Observatory reported that 80 percent of Yarmouk was under the combined control of Islamic State and Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al Nusra. Palestinian factions accuse al-Nusra of colluding with Islamic State. The attack on Yarmuk began on April 1st  after the group quietly build its presence through clandestine networks and its Sunni supporters in the area.

Elsewhere in southern Syria, Islamic State and al-Nusra are trying to take over territory held by regime forces and the Western-backed Southern Front. On April 1st, Al-Nusra took over the Nasib border crossing from Assad’s army. This was the last regime-controlled border crossing between Syria and Jordan.

The events in southern Syria could signal a new phase in the Syrian war. The era where Islamic State was a safe distance from the area in Syria closest to Israel seems to be over.

The renewed cooperation between al-Nusra and Islamic State furthermore indicates that they have realized that the escalating Sunni-Shiite war demands they overcome their differences if they want to become a central power in the Middle East.

Islamic State is very well organized; and although it is driven by religious fanaticism, it has clear goals and is coldly calculating how to achieve them.

As Western Journalism reported last month, the organization is trying to destabilize Egypt and Jordan.The Islamic State affiliate Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis is at war with the Egyptian army in the Sinai Peninsula and has set up camp adjacent to Israel’s southern border.

Today, Stratfor reported that Hamas is clamping down on Islamic State offshoot Wilayat Gaza (Province Gaza).

Wilayat Gaza has made several statements and has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks since late 2014. The group claimed responsibility for an attack on the French Cultural Center in Gaza City in October 2014. The following month, the group issued a statement demanding that women abide by Sharia rules of dress. In December, the group issued a statement threatening to kill a number of writers and poets in Gaza if they did not stop “insulting Islam”, Stratfor reported.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Exposed: Obama’s, Muslim Brotherhood’s Orchestration Of Arab Spring, Benghazi

obamaferguson

In 2008, Dalia Mogahed, a former member of Obama’s Advisory Council of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, co-authored a report titled ”Changing Course, A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World” for the Leadership Group on U.S.-Muslim Engagement. She, along with other group members (Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf–of World Trade Center Mosque notoriety–and Muslim Public Affairs Council’s Ahmed Younis), sought to foster “engagement and cooperation” with “political Islam” and, specifically, with the Muslim Brotherhood. They wrote:

“The U.S. must also consider when and how to talk with political movements that have substantial public support and have renounced violence, but are outlawed or restricted by authoritarian governments allied to the U.S. The Muslim Brotherhood parties in Egypt and Jordan are arguably in this category. In general, the Leadership Group supports engagement with groups that have clearly demonstrated a commitment to nonviolent participation in politics.”

In June 2009, Obama addressed Muslims worldwide from Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, with prominent Muslim Brotherhood members sitting in the front row. Obama vowed:

[The] partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t.  And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

Obama’s Administration began to transform American foreign policy by embracing political Islam and redefining “terror,” which set the stage for creating the Arab Spring. Although the Arab Spring began in December 2010 in Tunisia, the initial focus was Benghazi, Libya.

Despite repeated U.S. military warnings and recommendations to keep Muammar Qadhafi in power, Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton overthrew Qadhafi’s regime, leaving a power vacuum for al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood to fill.

Qadhafi’s weapons were first smuggled to Syrian rebels, which later factioned into what is now ISIS (and potentially reached even Boko Haram).

The mystery surrounding Benghazi can be largely dispelled in a few short paragraphs.

First, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade (aka Ansar al-Sharia, a jihad militia) was hired to guard the compound by the American government.

Second, according to CNN’s Jake Tapper, dozens of CIA operatives were allegedly on the ground during the attack; and the Obama administration went to “great lengths” to obscure their activities. Many speculate Ambassador Stevens was a CIA asset in the State Department.

Third, only hours before the attack on September 11, 2012, Stevens met with a Turkish ambassador at the compound. Turkey was a transshipment point for many Libyan weapons that were later smuggled to jihadists worldwide.

Fourth, Morsi’s Egyptian government (Muslim Brotherhood-controlled) was also involved with the compound’s attack. In fact, some of the terrorists were recorded on video pleading: “Don’t shoot! Dr. Morsi sent us!”

These facts beg the question: If Ambassador Stevens was actually overseeing a gun-running operation to Islamic/jihadist/Muslim Brotherhood militias, why then would the same people kill him, as the American public was repeatedly told?

One theoretical answer endorsed by retired Four Star Admiral James Lyons suggests that Ambassador Stevens was to be traded for the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, a man who had embodied Islamic terrorism to the world for generations and who Morsi wanted released from prison.

However, this plan went spectacularly wrong, resulting in a botched cover-up that succeeded primarily because of the news industry’s negligence in investigating the facts.

In an alarming breach of protocol and sworn duty, Obama Special Advisor Valerie Jarrett ordered the U.S. military to “stand down,” effectively ordering American citizens to be left to fend for themselves against a well-armed jihadist militia.

Next came the now infamous Susan Rice national media blitz, throughout which she delivered identical talking points to numerous news outlets blaming the Benghazi attack on an obscure and poorly produced movie. The talking points she and others later recited were detailed in an email Ben Rhodes, Obama’s 2009 Cairo speechwriter, sent to a list of people–including a George Washington University MSA member copied on the email.

Unsurprisingly, George Soros also was linked to Benghazi. The Obama-appointed lead investigator for the attack was Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who had ties to CAIR–a well-known Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States. At the time of the investigation, Pickering was Soros’ International Crisis Group co-chair (and still remains a trustee).

Since the Arab Spring, political unrest, violence, and militia rule continue to plague Libya. Its economic infrastructure has nearly deteriorated, and the rule of law remains non-existent there. According to Open Doors USA, Libya is ranked #13 out of the top 50 countries where Christians are most persecuted.

The Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi asserted that Obama “switched sides in the War on Terror.”

However, many others assert Obama’s plan to destroy America from within was intentionally planned before he was ever elected to office. Obama was always a Muslim who understood, believed in, and supported political Islam. Over time, this reality became apparent through his claim to “stand with [Muslims] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction” and his declaration to the United Nations that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Read More.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

No Tears For Egyptian Christians In A Muslim Brotherhood-Friendly White House

Facebook/Barack Obama

The Obama White House-supported Muslim Brotherhood is at war with Egypt; and as a result, security is tight throughout that nation. The Cairo airport is locked down tight; no one without a ticket to fly can get into the airport terminal. The Egyptians have an understanding that the White House does not – the Muslim Brotherhood will resort to terror if it can’t get what it wants at the ballot box.

Although it is resorting to terror in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has a formal and lasting relationship with the Obama White House. This is evidenced by a recent visit to the White House by Muslim Brotherhood activists on February 4th. That meeting prompted outcries from the Egyptian government and raised concerns in other Middle East nations that are Muslim Brotherhood targets.

The exact date the Muslim Brotherhood – White House relationship began is not known; however, the Wall Street Journal first reported on Secretary Hillary Clinton “reaching out” to the Muslim Brotherhood in 2011, shortly after the Egyptian government fell to protesters. The relationship must have actually begun much earlier. Clinton’s trusted aide, Huma Mahmood Abedin, had been steadily moving her toward the Muslim Brotherhood.

Abedin at the time was U.S. Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department and had been a longtime personal aide of Secretary Clinton. Abedin, whose mother and father were deeply involved in the Muslim Brotherhood leadership, convinced Clinton that to “control” the outcome of the Arab Spring and keep governments from falling into extremist hands, the United States must back “moderate” Islamist parties. Of course, her “moderate” solution was the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that works for the same end result as the Islamic State but is willing to get there at a slower pace.

The Obama/Clinton Grand Strategy for the Middle East was dealt with in depth in a Wall Street Journal article by Walter Russell Mead in 2013. Describing the Grand Strategy, he wrote:

The plan was simple but elegant: The U.S. would work with moderate Islamist groups like Turkey’s AK Party and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to make the Middle East more democratic. This would kill three birds with one stone. First, by aligning itself with these parties, the Obama administration would narrow the gap between the ‘moderate middle’ of the Muslim world and the U.S. Second, by showing Muslims that peaceful, moderate parties could achieve beneficial results, it would isolate the terrorists and radicals, further marginalizing them in the Islamic world. Finally, these groups with American support could bring democracy to more Middle Eastern countries, leading to improved economic and social conditions, gradually eradicating the ills and grievances that drove some people to fanatical and terroristic groups.

From the beginning of the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood was assisted by the Obama White House in taking over nations that had been secular-leaning, including Tunisia and Egypt, under the guiding hand of Hillary Clinton. The attempts in Libya and Syria failed, but those nations are still bleeding as a result. The main victims of the Abedin/ Clinton plan accepted by the Obama White House have been the actual moderates, who are secularists, and, of course, the Christians.

Currently, the only nation under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood is our NATO “ally” Turkey, which is supporting violence against Egypt for casting off the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013 and voting in favor of a more secular government. Turkey also assisted tens of thousands of Sunni Islamist fighters in crossing the border into Syria to war with the secular government there. Still, the Muslim Brotherhood has the full support of the Obama White House.

Rejected by the army and the vast majority of Egyptians, including Coptic Christians, the Muslim Brotherhood has moved from the ballot box to the bullet box to seek power.

MEMRI, a media translation service, recently reported that: “The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has recently escalated its statements and activity against the Egyptian regime, to the extent of explicitly calling for using terrorism and violence against it, and even for assassinating President ‘Abd Al-Fattah Al-Sisi. These calls included an MB communique calling on movement activists to prepare for a lengthy and uncompromising jihad and to hunger for a martyr’s death; clear incitement to violence on MB TV channels broadcasting from Turkey.”

The delusional concept that having a “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood in control will somehow restrain “extremism” is alive and well at the White House. A blind eye is turned to the fact that 90% of the jihadists from all over the world going to fight jihad in Syria and Iraq have used Turkey as their entry point. With the Muslim Brotherhood as an ally, it is not possible for the White House to be critical of anything Muslim. This may explain Obama’s empty and duplicitous response to the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians on a beach in Libya by the ISIL.

President Obama could find no religious motivation for the killings at all! His White House issued a statement saying: “The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists. We offer our condolences to the families of the victims and our support to the Egyptian government and people as they grieve for their fellow citizens. ISIL’s barbarity knows no bounds. It is unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity.”

Well, the Islamic State had tried to make the religious element as clear as they could. They even produced a polished production video showing the 21 Christian men, hands bound behind them, being led one-by-one along a beach to their brutal slaughter. They could be heard crying out “Ya Rabbi Yasou”, which translates as “Lord Jesus!” while others recited the Lord’s Prayer. The video, titled A Message Signed with BLOOD to the Nation of the Cross, is indisputably and intensely religious. The entire production is full of references to the Qur’an and the Hadiths of Muhammad.

In an article concerning the video production, theologian and scholar Dr. Mark Durie wrote: “The whole event was meticulously choreographed and rehearsed.  The video’s obvious purpose is to humiliate and terrorize Christians, whom it derisively calls, ‘The Nation of the Cross.’ Still, Obama could not even bring himself to identify the victims as Christians, referring to them only as ‘citizens.’”

Contrast this evasive response to the quick way he reacted a few days earlier when, during a neighborhood dispute over parking spaces, three Muslims were gunned down. Immediately, President Obama blamed their deaths on religious discrimination, saying that “No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship.” Had President Obama known then that the killer was an activist atheist and a far left “progressive” Obama fan, he probably would not have said anything.

In the case of the parking lot dispute in which the victims were Muslims, FBI agents were immediately ordered in by President Obama to investigate possible Civil Rights crimes. Yet, when Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed thirteen fellow soldiers plus one unborn baby at Foot Hood in 2009 while shouting “Allah Akbar,” President Obama saw the “crime” as “workplace violence.” Within hours, he asked the nation to be “constrained” and not blame Islam or Muslims for the death toll.

The White House will not even refer to the Islamic State by name and uses the initials ISIL in all official statements. To say the name that the organization calls itself is even taboo at the White House because the word “Islamic” is a part of that name.

The logic for this refusal was made clear by Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, in a Fox News Sunday program on February 22nd.

Johnson said: “To refer to ISIL as occupying any part of the Islamic theology is playing on a battlefield that they would like us to be on. I think that to call them some form of Islam gives the group more dignity than it deserves frankly.” Identifying Islamic terrorists as Islamic gives them “dignity” is the liberal logic.

But the Obama Administration has no problem using the term Christian to identify terrorists even if they are not Christian. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf on MSNBC must then have given “dignity” to Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Army when she called it a “Christian militant group.” In reality, Kony’s group is a strange mixture of religions including animism. His recognition of Jesus is just about as authentic as the Islamic version of Jesus. Even so, Kony’s army is at most responsible for 1 act of terror for every 10,000 acts of terror by Islamic groups in the world today; this is not to say that he should not be brought to justice quickly.

During his interview on Fox News, Secretary Johnson did let slip the real reason why the Obama Administration does not use the word “Islamic” when describing terror, and where the term “violent extremism” came from. Muslim leaders in the United States don’t want the Obama Administration to refer to Islamic terror as Islamic terror. Johnson said, “The thing I hear from leaders in the Muslim community in this country is, ‘ISIL is attempting to hijack my religion’.”

Because of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama Administration is trying to fight the shadow of fundamentalist Islam, which is terror, without identifying what casts that shadow of terror on the world today. A people, a nation that refuses to identify its enemy cannot defeat that enemy. It is not possible to defeat a shadow; the figure that casts the shadow must be defeated. Until there is an administration in Washington, DC, that is willing to identify and fight the enemy of Western civilization, there can be no lasting success.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

BREAKING: Trey Gowdy Is Now Hot On Hillary’s Email Trail As Latest Clinton Scandal Widens

Images Credit: Fox News

As hard as her allies and associates are desperately trying to contain and minimize the latest Hillary scandal, the situation for the former secretary of state continues to worsen.

For the second day in a row, Hillary Clinton’s routine practice of using her personal, private email account when she headed up the U.S. State Department is the subject of a sharply negative report in The New York Times.

Under the headline, “Using Private Email, Hillary Clinton Thwarted Record Requests,” the Times article calls out the former Obama administration official for her defiant lack of cooperation with the congressional probe of the Benghazi attack that left four Americans dead.

According to the report, Mrs. Clinton’s exclusive and highly questionable use of her personal email account to conduct official State Department business hampered the Benghazi investigation as Congress tried to obtain relevant documents.

“The State Department had not searched the email account of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton because she had maintained a private account, which shielded it from such searches, department officials acknowledged on Tuesday.”

Now, Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy, who chairs the Special House Committee appointed to get to the bottom of the Benghazi scandal, says he will dig even deeper and push even harder to obtain Hillary Clinton’s personal emails related to the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Libya. Via The Blaze:

“The State Department does not have all of the former Secretary’s emails on its servers, only she has the complete record,” [Gowdy’s] statement said.

“And the committee is going to have to go to her, her lawyers and her email providers to ensure we have access to everything the American people are entitled to know.”

As Gowdy promises to press Mrs. Clinton to disclose all her email communications pertaining to Benghazi, it turns out that the server apparently handling the former secretary of state’s account was run by an Internet service provider registered to the Clintons’ New York home. As Fox News reports:

“The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Clinton’s emails — on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state — traced back to an Internet service registered to her family’s home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.”

Fox News notes that operating and controlling her own server would have provided Hillary Clinton with a critical shield of sorts — legal protection against attempts to obtain her private emails through government or private subpoenas.

“The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email would have given Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, impressive control over limiting access to her message archives.”

Western Journalism has reported that Gowdy intends to call Mrs. Clinton to testify before the Select Committee on Benghazi, but he doesn’t want to have her appear before his investigators have access to all her relevant emails.

h/t: The Blaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Hagel Didn’t Start The Fire

Photo credit: Chuck Hagel (Flickr)

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam war veteran and the lone Republican on Obama’s national security team, has been fired.

And John McCain’s assessment is dead on.

Hagel, he said, “was never really brought into that real tight circle inside the White House that makes all the decisions which has put us into the incredible debacle that we’re in today throughout the world.”

Undeniably, U.S. foreign policy is in a shambles. But what were the “decisions” that produced the “incredible debacle”?

Who made them? Who supported them?

The first would be George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, a war for which Sens. John McCain, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton all voted. At least Sen. Hagel admitted he made a mistake on that vote.

With our invasion, we dethroned Saddam and destroyed his Sunni Baathist regime. And today, the Islamic State, a barbaric offshoot of al-Qaida, controls Mosul, Anbar, and the Sunni third of Iraq.

Kurdistan is breaking away. And a Shia government in Baghdad, closely tied to Tehran and backed by murderous anti-American Shia militias, controls the rest. Terrorism is a daily occurrence.

Such is the condition of the nation which we were promised would become a model of democracy for the Middle East after a “cake-walk war.” The war lasted eight years for us, and now we are going back — to prevent a catastrophe.

A second decision came in 2011, when a rebellion arose against Bashar Assad in Syria, and we supported and aided the uprising. Assad must go, said Obama. McCain and the neocons agreed.

Now ISIS and al-Qaida are dominant from Aleppo to the Iraqi border with Assad barely holding the rest, while the rebels we urged to rise and overthrow the regime are routed or in retreat.

Had Assad fallen, had we bombed his army last year, as Obama, Kerry, and McCain wanted to do, and brought down his regime, ISIS and al-Qaida might be in Damascus today. And America might be facing a decision either to invade or tolerate a terrorist regime in the heart of the Middle East.

Lest we forget, Vladimir Putin pulled our chestnuts out of the fire a year ago, with a brokered deal to rid Syria of chemical weapons.

The Turks, Saudis, and Gulf Arabs who aided ISIS’ rise are having second thoughts, but sending no Saudi or Turkish troops to dislodge it.

So the clamor arises anew for U.S. “boots on the ground” to reunite the nations that the wars and revolutions we supported tore apart.

A third decision was the U.S.-NATO war on Col. Gadhafi’s Libya.

After deceiving the Russians by assuring them we wanted Security Council support for the use of air power simply to prevent a massacre in Benghazi, we bombed for half a year, and brought down Gadhafi.

Now we have on the south shore of the Mediterranean a huge failed state and strategic base camp for Islamists and terrorists who are spreading their poison into sub-Sahara Africa.

The great triumphs of Reagan and Bush 41 were converting Russia into a partner, and presiding over the liberation of Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the old Soviet Union into 15 independent nations.

Unfulfilled by such a victory for peace and freedom, unwilling to go home when our war, the Cold War, was over, Bush 43 decided to bring the entire Warsaw Pact, three Baltic states, and Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia into NATO. For this project, Bush had the enthusiastic support of McCain, the neocons, and the liberal interventionists.

Since 1991, we sought to cut the Russians out of the oil and gas of the Caspian basin with a pipeline through the Caucasus to Turkey, bombed Serbia to tear off its cradle province of Kosovo, and engineered color-coded revolutions in Belgrade, Tbilisi, and other capitals to pull these new nations out of Russia’s sphere of influence.

Victoria Nuland of State and McCain popped up in Maidan Square in Kiev, backing demonstrations to bring down the democratically elected (if, admittedly, incompetent) regime in Ukraine.

The U.S.-backed coup succeeded. President Viktor Yanukovych fled, a pro-Western regime was installed, and a pro-Western president elected.

Having taken all this from his partner, Putin retrieved the Crimea and Russia’s Black Sea naval base at Sebastopol. When pro-Russia Ukrainians rose against the beneficiaries of the coup in Kiev, he backed his team, as we backed ours.

Now, we are imposing sanctions, driving Russia further from the West and into a realliance with Beijing, with which Putin has completed two long-term deals for oil and gas running over $700 billion dollars.

As the U.S. and NATO send planes, ships, and troops to show our seriousness in the Baltic and Ukraine, Russian planes and ships test Western defenses from Finland to Sweden to Portugal to Alaska and the coast of the continental United States.

Who made these decisions that created the debacle?

Was it those isolationists again?

 

COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM

Photo credit: Chuck Hagel (Flickr)

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom