Central View: The cover-up begins to unravel | SkyHiNews.com

Central View: The cover-up begins to unravel

On Sept. 11, 2012, and 55 days before the presidential election, the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya came under attack by a well-organized, well-armed force of Islamic terrorists who killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, his aide, and two former Navy SEALs. The attack flew in the face of President Obama's often-repeated campaign claim that he killed Osama bin Laden and Islamic terrorism was defeated. Period. When faced with undesirable facts, the same people claimed: You can keep your health-insurance plan. Period. You can keep your own doctor. Period. They did what politicians often do: sacrifice the truth on the altar of politics. But, to be fair, such deplorable conduct was not invented by the Obama administration. Aeschylus, the Greek tragic dramatist (525-456 B.C.) famously wrote, "In war, truth is the first casualty." Nor is the Obama administration the first to ignore inconvenient facts. In 1937, famed aviator Jimmy Doolittle toured Hitler's aircraft factories and saw the Nazis "cranking out top-of-the-line fighters and bombers at an alarming rate." Doolittle sent his findings to Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Doolittle's report was ignored. In 1939, Doolittle returned to Nazi Germany, confirming that the Nazis had just created the world's mightiest air force, the Luftwaffe. Once again, Doolittle's findings fell on deaf ears. At the request of military intelligence Charles Lindbergh traveled to Nazi Germany in 1937, 1938 and 1939. After each trip, he hounded the Roosevelt administration with his conclusion that the U.S. must quickly rearm or be overwhelmed by Nazi air power. Lindbergh's reports were ignored. Based on Congressional hearings, it appears Mr. Obama and then Sec. of State Hillary Clinton knew from the get-go that Islamist terrorists were attacking our people in Benghazi but pressured underlings to fabricate a fanciful campaign-related tale that Islamic terrorism was not involved. Worse, orders were given to "stand down." When all the facts are known, this is likely to be a terrible historical legacy for Mr. Obama and Clinton. But wait. It could be far, far worse. What if the Benghazi attacks were a covert operation by Russia's Vladimir Putin, using hired guns to stop the Obama administration from shipping arms from Libya, via Turkey, to Syria to help the Islamic rebels defeat Putin's client, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad? That would be an Act of War. If, rather than face a pre-election Act of War, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton left our ambassador and three other Americans to die, that would be the most historically inconvenient truth of all. William Hamilton was educated at five universities, including Harvard.

Hamilton — Team Obama: Stiffing Congress, helping Iran

Prior to the Obama administration, our military was so strong that no rational enemy nation would dare risk annihilation by our nuclear triad and/or by our conventional forces. Those forces won the Cold War. Now, we face irrational enemies in the form of Iran, ISIS, al-Qaida, and myriad Islamic-jihadist organizations. But the response of the Obama administration to the insanely irrational Islamists has been to sacrifice our once overwhelming ability to deter the old Cold War threats and even our ability to crush the new Islamic State (ISIS) on the altar of political correctness. All based on the preposterous belief that negotiations with the mad Mullahs of Iran will somehow cause them to abandon their quest for nuclear weapons. There's this bridge in Brooklyn… Prior to President Obama, relatively minor non-nuclear agreements have been discussed with Congress and then signed as executive orders. But when previous presidents have dealt with nuclear agreements, those matters have always risen to the level of treaties that must have the "advise and consent" of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. Based on leaks from the negotiating teams of Britain, China, Russia, France, Germany and, most likely, intelligence gathered by Israel's Mossad, negotiating Team Obama wants all sanctions lifted and for Iran to have clear path to becoming a nuclear power relatively soon and, for sure, by the end of the next 10 years. Sensing Team Obama never intended to consult Congress and that Team Obama's actual plan is to use the prospect of Iranian-trade profits to entice the greedy entrepreneurs of China, Russia, and France to pressure the U.N. to remove U.N. economic sanctions on Iran, 47 Republican U.S. Senators wrote an open letter to the Mullahs, explaining that the system of checks and balances within our Constitution requires — as per Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 — the participation of Congress. In other words: You buy this turkey without our "advise and consent" in 2015. We may wring its neck in 2017. Unfortunately, rational explanations mean nothing to irrational people. Ergo: Team Obama will likely enter into an irrational agreement allowing the irrational Iranians to accelerate what they have been doing all along anyway, which is to continue to violate eight U.N. resolutions — four of them imposing sanctions that ban Iran from uranium enrichment and doing nuclear development (except for peaceful purposes), that bar Iran from buying and selling nuclear-weapons technology and developing any kind of long-range ballistic missiles. On top of that, there is a U.N. arms embargo. Iran has tricked and deceived U.N. inspection teams to the point the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency declared that he has no idea what Iran is doing. Only a popular uprising to overthrow the menacing Mullahs or a combined attack by the Arab Gulf States and Israel can stop Iran from becoming a nuclear threat to the existence of Israel and, with ICBMs, to the existence of the United States. The U.N. sanctions were supposed to promote a popular uprising. But if the sanctions are removed, as Tony Soprano would say: "Fuhgeddaboutit." That then leaves the West with only two options: Destroy Iran's nuclear facilities or "submit" which is, after all, the literal meaning of Islam. Go figure. Nationally syndicated columnist, William Hamilton, is a laureate of the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame, the Colorado Aviation Hall of Fame, and the Oklahoma University Army ROTC Wall of Fame. He was educated at the University of Oklahoma, the George Washington University, the U.S Naval War College, the University of Nebraska, and Harvard University.

Hamilton — National security: political pandering

A recent Military Times survey of 2,300 active-duty military personnel reveals a shocking number of people in uniform have lost trust in the leadership (or, lack thereof) being exhibited by the Pentagon and the Obama White House. Re-enlistment rates are plummeting. Frequent overseas deployments are killing family life. Former enlisted personnel who served in war as captains and even majors are being forced to retire at their former enlisted pay grades. What happened last week in Washington provides glaring examples of the political hypocrisy that is causing such wide-spread disaffection. For example, there is a tie-in between Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D., one of the main architects of ObamaCare, and last week's report by the Democrat majority on the Senate Intelligence Committee about the CIA's use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT). Professor Gruber, you may recall, was paid $400,000 by U.S. taxpayers to help write the Affordable Care Act (AKA ObamaCare). Recently, he has been shown in a least three videos telling multiple audiences how it was necessary to write the ObamaCare legislation in way that it could not be understood by the "stupid" American taxpayers. He said if the "stupid" American voters had known what was in the ObamaCare legislation, even the Democrats in the Senate and House would not have voted for ObamaCare. Note: Not one single Republican voted for ObamaCare. (Also, to knowingly deceive others and to profit from it constitutes the crime of fraud. Unless the statute of limitations has expired, Dr. Gruber could be prosecuted for fraud.) Last week, Dr. Gruber was scheduled to testify before a House government oversight committee on Dec. 9. Now, some intelligence background: There are four U.S. senators and four U.S. House members who are briefed on even the "black" operations of the CIA. Sen.Diane Feinstein is one of those eight. Right after the Sept. 11 attacks, she and seven others were told by the CIA that the prevention of further attacks might require the use of EIT. Sen. Feinstein and the other seven congresspersons told the CIA to do whatever is necessary to protect American lives. Now, 13-years later, Sen. Feinstein and the Democrat members of her Senate Intelligence Committee are charging the CIA with the unauthorized use of EIT on captured Islamic terrorists. Hypocrisy on steroids. People can differ as to the efficacy of EIT; however, it is beyond dispute that some EITs saved some U.S. lives and that the water-boarding (which, by the way, does no "physical" harm to the subject) led to the identification of the courier going to Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan and, ultimately, to President Obama's bragging about killing Osama bin Laden. The Feinstein Report has been ready for over five months. But Sen. Feinstein chose to release the report on Dec. 9, the very day when Dr. Gruber was to testify before the House committee. Her political timing was perfect because the CIA "torture" story almost totally wiped out any media coverage of Dr. Gruber trying to explain away how he duped the "stupid" American people about ObamaCare. No wonder military morale is so low. Our troops know when they are being led by people who put politics before national security. Nationally syndicated columnist, William Hamilton, is a laureate of the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame, the Colorado Aviation Hall of Fame, and the Oklahoma University Army ROTC Wall of Fame. He was educated at the University of Oklahoma, the George Washington University, the U.S Naval War College, the University of Nebraska, and Harvard University.

William Hamilton: Obama World, The 4th Option

In 2000, Vince Flynn wrote The Third Option, a novel about how the U.S. might deal with radical Islam. In order of likely use by our government, he listed three options: Diplomacy, Conventional Warfare, and use of Special Operations. The latter is to use highly-trained assassins to capture, interrogate, and-or kill radical Islamist leaders such as Osama bin Laden and others. Has diplomacy worked? Well, we are still being attacked by suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices (IED). Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Vladimir Putin, and the Muslim world still hate us. The Arab Spring turned into the radical Islamist Winter. The Palestinians are still shelling Israel. The U.N. almost always votes against us. Many of our old allies are now neutrals. Mr. Obama’s current ‘follow-rather-than-lead’ foreign policy is sending our traditional allies in search of more reliable protection from Islam, from Russia, and from Red China. The Second Option: Conventional Warfare (Infantry, Armor, Artillery, and Airpower) quickly wiped out Saddam Hussein’s conventional forces. But radical Islam replaced Saddam’s conventional forces with unconventional forces which were not impressed with more voting booths, better sanitation, electricity, medical care, votes-for-women, and schools. So, we fled what Mr. Obama called the ‘bad war’ in Iraq for what he called the ‘good war’ in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Special Operators who so quickly routed the Taliban – al-Qaeda in Afghanistan were replaced with Conventional Warfare forces which, once again, do not do well against the unconventional Islamist forces that are trying to expel the Judeo-Christian Crusaders from the Graveyard of Empires. The Third Option is to field a relatively small force of highly-trained assassins to find the leaders of radical Islam and, well, assassinate them. While the Third Option has already been used with positive impact on scores of radical Islamists, the most notable being Osama bin Laden The Third Option causes some moral, ethical, and constitutional problems for some on the Left who think in terms of a Disney World where all the woodland animals, instead of eating each other, sit side-by-side on a long log singing “We Are the World.” Moreover, the Third Option doesn’t seem to them as sportsmanlike as sending thousands of young Americans off to fight while trying to observe the Rules of Engagement of Conventional Warfare. The Obama Administration just published its new defense strategy. Let’s call it: the Forth Option. It reduces our Army and Marines forces by 13 percent. It cuts the defense budget in half. It abandons the concept of defending the U.S. on both our Atlantic and Pacific sides and focuses only on the Asia-Pacific area. Memo to Enemy: Only attack us in the Asia-Pacific area. Memo to Pentagon: A strategy that depends on enemy cooperation is bound to fail. Option 4 is ambivalent as to whether the Navy can operate 11 carriers or just ten. It proposes to eliminate the F-16, F-18, and Harrier fighter-jets and replace them with the F-35 fighter which the new defense strategy admits we may not be able to afford in the numbers we need. But the most disturbing aspect of Mr. Obama’s Forth Option is rhetoric that envisions a force that is more reflective of the racial, ethnic, and gender mix of American society than ever before. This suggests a military force where politically correct politics are more likely to win promotion to flag rank than demonstrated war-fighting proficiency. At this point, it might be well to remember the words of George Orwell, “We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us.” Nationally syndicated columnist, William Hamilton, was educated at the University of Oklahoma, the George Washington University, the U.S Naval War College, the University of Nebraska, and Harvard University.

Muftic: Knowing one’s enemy never hurts

So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss. If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose. If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself. So says Sun Tzu in "The Art of War," a 6th century Chinese military classic In passing the other week I heard President Barack Obama criticized for having a "World View," as if that was proof that he was not American. My jaw dropped. It is an asset to understand the mentality of many cultures. This is no liability; it is an asset in our taking on our top foreign policy concerns, al-Qaida and its barbaric child, ISIS. So who knows his enemy best? Someone who only knows their local experiences, peer group opinions, and media that justify their preconceived notions, or someone who has multicultural hands-on experience? The advantage goes to holders of a world view. The more extreme opponents of Obama look at knowledge of the world very differently. Because President Obama has knowledge of the Muslim culture and the religion, he is un-American, does not love America, and must have been born in Kenya. Because he understands other cultures by having lived them, they automatically assume he agrees or sympathizes with them Respect of other cultures and beliefs is not a concept easily comprehended. Or as Colin Powell called it "a dark vein of intolerance" recently. They suspect that he had an agenda that is soft on Islam because he is unwilling to re-enact the Iraq war and he even apologizes about U.S. imperfections. Only a Christian true believer should lead this nation because this is a Christian nation (never mind there are Jews, Buddhists, atheists, and Muslims, and the First Amendment). This is a war of Christianity against Islam. Some claim all Islam itself is a faulty religion. Why this birtherism and citing his different upbringing has erupted again now is likely about the Republican primaries and which candidate is the most conservative. Obama is not up for re-election, but it speaks to the depth of their continuing personalized antipathy toward him. Yes, Obama has his roots in several cultures, but as he frequently says, "Only in American could he have had the chance to rise to the position he has today." That is love based upon experience and a knowledge of another culture. It is a patriotism that speaks to what makes America exceptional. Recently the Obama world view was misinterpreted by some in the U.S. to indicate Obama's ignorance of the religious nature of ISIS by failing to connect the religion of Islam to violent extremism. It is not ignorance. It is a strategy in the propaganda war against ISIS and done apparently in coordination with our allies since they are now using the same terminology. The King of Jordan in a CNN interview Feb. 27 said President Obama was right in not coupling Islam with violent extremism. The King called ISIS "outlaws/fringes of Islam" and to attach the term Islam to ISIS gives them legitimacy they seek. For the interview, visit http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/27/middleeast/jordan-king-abdullah.

Letter: Obama’s foreign policy record is abysmal

To the Editor: If Felicia Muftic's column announcing that the 2016 GOP presidential candidates are lacking in foreign policy experience had been written by anyone else, I would have considered it a brilliant effort at satire. However, I am sure she thought her piece to be serious and insightful. While she is correct to point out that many GOP candidates do not have strong foreign policy backgrounds and thus are POTENTIALLY vulnerable to missteps in this arena , her column lacks any credibility by failing to address the current administration's utter failure in handling foreign affairs. President Obama came to the White House as a "community organizer" and a junior U.S. senator. Hardly the resume for expertise on foreign policy. His lack of experience could have been mitigated if he had chosen a strong "team" of advisers but instead he surrounded himself with political operatives who were yes men and women. When advisers offered advice that did not suit the President's view of the world, they were dismissed. Thus four Secretaries of Defense. The results of the last six years have left the U.S. a diminished participant on an increasingly dangerous world stage. Consider the following (in no particular order of occurrence or import): • An apology tour by the president that gave rise to the bloody Arab Spring in numerous countries and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. • Turmoil in Libya with the U.S. "leading from behind" and the eventual loss of our embassy and the lives of four Americans. • A resurgent Russia with Vladimir Putin striving to reassert the influence of the Soviet Union. The U.S. stood by as Putin rolled over Crimea and today watches as he threatens more of Ukraine. • A civil war in Syria with thousands dead and a massive number of refugees. Our leaders (Obama, Clinton, Kerry) all stated Assad "must go" yet three years on he remains and Obama's chemical weapons "red line" was crossed without consequences. Only now (after the rise of ISIS) are we talking limited steps to support factions opposed to Assad. Too little too late seems to be this administration's approach. • On numerous occasions Obama has stated "all options are on the table" when addressing areas of conflict but then asserts "no boots on the ground". • A premature total withdrawal from Iraq leaving the country vulnerable to ISIS and leading to the incremental return of U.S. "advisers." • A similar situation in Afghanistan where President Obama has announced a date certain when all U.S. forces will be withdrawn. • Regarding ISIS, it is my understanding that the I stands for Islamic yet the White House and State Department are incapable of acknowledging that we are engaged in a "war" with RADICAL Islam. To my knowledge, no one is asserting we are at war with the whole of Islam. Yet Obama repeatedly finds it necessary to state we are not at war with Islam. For some reason the president has a blind spot when it comes to an honest assessment of the enemy. Unfortunately, one of the most critical factors in any military operation, "know your enemy," is being ignored by our commander in chief. JV they are not. •And while Syria and Iraq garner most of the headlines, radical Islamists now threaten Yemen and numerous African nations. • Protracted negotiations and repeated deadline extensions with Iran over their development of nuclear arms while at the same time fostering a breakdown in relations with Israel, our one true ally in the region. • While I agree with the President's policy of not negotiating with terrorists for hostage returns, how could he authorize the release of five terrorists from Guantanamo in exchange for a soldier that abandoned his brothers? Leave no soldier behind does not apply here. The above examples show the results of a president lacking in foreign policy experience who then fails to take counsel from advisers that are capable of helping. I am sure Ms. Muftic will respond that Hillary Clinton possesses the requisite experience based on her stint as Secretary of State. Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton and her supporters, a cursory examination of her record at State shows limited successes and numerous failures. As farfetched as this sounds, when it comes to foreign policy experience, Joe Biden may be the most qualified potential 2016 Democrat candidate. Steve Gregory Grand Lake

Hamilton — Benjamin Netanyahu: Soldier, scholar, diplomat, leader

Last week, we revealed that President Obama and his closest adviser, the Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett, are trying to orchestrate the re-election defeat of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu. Recall, this is the first time the U.S. ever tried to unseat the democratic government of one of our closest allies while actively aiding and abetting a brutal dictatorship (Iran) in a way that could, eventually, lead to the total destruction of our democratic ally. Four of President Obama's top political agents are working for the "Victory 2015 — Anybody but Bibi," political campaign. Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent address to Congress generated a great deal of interest, not only in his condemnation of a U.S. proposed deal with Iran that would, in effect, provide a pathway for Iran to become a nuclear-armed power, but it also generated interest in Mr. Netanyahu himself. After attending high school near Philadelphia, Netanyahu returned to Israel to become a Special Forces Commando in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). He fought for Israel in two wars, was wounded twice, once in Tel Aviv while rescuing airliner passengers hijacked by Islamic terrorists. Returning to the U.S., he earned a B.S. and a M.B.A at M.I.T. and also studied political science at Harvard. He worked for a time in Boston as a business consultant before returning to Israel for more government service. He came back to America in 1982 to serve as deputy ambassador to the U.S. and, in 1984, was named Israeli ambassador to the United Nations. He served as Prime Minister of Israel from 1996 to 1999, and is now serving again in that office since 2009. During his careers as soldier, scholar, diplomat, and prime minister, he managed time to author four books dealing with Islamic terrorism. In fairness, it should be noted that President Obama is also an author, writing two books about himself. Before Congress, Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed alarm that the Obama Administration's proposed agreement with Iran includes a 10-year sunset clause at which time the Iranians would be unrestrained in their development of nuclear weapons. Interestingly, Muslim doctrine limits agreements with Infidels to no more than 10 years. The "10-year" clause suggests the language of the proposed agreement is being framed more by Iran than by John Kerry, the U.S. secretary of state. Repeatedly, the Iranian government has announced its intention to obliterate the State of Israel. So, unless the Iranian Mullahs have a major change of heart, who would want to raise their children or even invest in a country destined to be obliterated by nuclear-missiles some 10 years from now? In 2011, President Obama pulled our troops completely out of Iraq which served to invite the Iranian armed forces into northern Iraq — unopposed. Presumably, that was done to entice the Iranians to the nuclear-negotiating table. Apparently, neither Shia Iran nor President Obama saw the Sunni ISIS "Junior Varsity" becoming such an overwhelming force. Today, Iran's top general is inside Iraq, commanding a mostly Shia force, trying to recapture Tikrit from the ISIS Sunnis. Folks, not even Hollywood could make up this kind of stuff. Is all this bloody chaos by accident or by design? We report. You decide. Nationally syndicated columnist, William Hamilton, is a laureate of the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame, the Colorado Aviation Hall of Fame, and the Oklahoma University Army ROTC Wall of Fame. He was educated at the University of Oklahoma, the George Washington University, the U.S Naval War College, the University of Nebraska, and Harvard University.

Felecia Muftic " Obama won hearts, minds on overseas trip

GOP voices are at it again: They want to make a U-turn to the world they knew when George W Bush ruled. These were the years when the United States squandered sympathy and good will in the wake of Sept. 11; when the world viewed us as a pariah for our errors in judgment, the abandoning of our ideals as we used torture and thumbed our noses at the Geneva Convention (as Guantanamo Bay symbolized), and our attitude toward international cooperation as “our way or the highway.” It is difficult to conduct foreign policy in our national interest when we are viewed as being intellectually challenged, arrogant, and culturally disrespectful. Success in winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim world is also impossible when our policies are the Al Qaida recruitment poster for disgruntled youth. Republicans were quick to sneer that Obama failed to get significant immediate combat troop commitment for Afghanistan or any more than a $1 trillion stimulus package. “What good does it do if we gained good will?” their rhetoric goes. Whoa there, not so quick on the draw. Seismic shifts in policy are as hard to accomplish in Europe as they are here because their leaders, too, have to run for office in the future. Obama’s popularity with their constituents should make it easier for them to be pro-U.S. policies. What we asked of them was also different than what we had asked in the past. Besides, Europeans had already instituted their own versions of stimulus. The GOP is using the wrong yardstick to measure the success of Obama’s trip. They are still seeing it through the eyes of the Bush approach to Afghanistan as the number of combat troops NATO provides. Obama has changed tactics and goals. Obama was asking NATO to support an emphasis on the use of economic inducement, development and diplomacy over military conquest, in order to turn the thousands of Afghan village and ethnic groups against Al Qaida. The initial response was encouraging. At least European leaders and their constituents are no longer viewing our policies with scorn, thus making their participation more likely down the road. Obtaining cooperation from Russia in helping to eliminate nuclear stockpiles and loose nukes was arguably the most important result of Obama’s trip, especially since the ultimate threat to our safety is the use of those weapons by terrorists and rogue nations. Then there is the old McCarthy-era tactic employed by some recently of damning your opponents by calling them soft on something ” “soft on communism, soft on terror” ” or claiming willingness to talk with our enemies is “a sign of weakness” because they will take advantage of us, assuming the Obama administration is so stupid or they are inept negotiators. That talk harkens to the failed neo con policies Vice President Cheney and administration allies, which posited you could demand democracy at gun point, win hearts and minds by bombing or shooting the stuffing out of them, or bully our friends into helping us. Neo cons love to point to the absence of another Sept. 11 attack on U.S. soil as proof they had made us safer. Perhaps we can owe that to improved homeland security as much as to anything else. It certainly is not because we have single handedly won our military objectives of destroying Al Qaida or that Iraq ever had the capacity to be a threat to us. Obama’s use of finesse instead of muscle is laying the groundwork for the future by shaping attitudes of those whose cooperation is so important in helping improve our national security. Economic embargoes, economic development aid, and the conduct of the constructive psychology of mutual respect became impotent tools because of Bush-era policies. Thanks to Obama’s trip, these lost techniques can finally be called upon. Secular, democratic, Muslim Turkey is a case in point of the potential. It is teetering on becoming an Islamic state in part because of the influx of Islamic extremist missionaries and in part in response to anti-American sentiment, their perceived hostility of Americans to anything Muslim, and our invasion of Iraq. Turkey has refused to let the United States use air bases for transit in and out of Iraq. Yet Turkey, a NATO member, could have been key to helping us with Iran, Iraq, and the Israel/Palestine conflict if we had played our cards wisely. The potential of working through Turkey to get resolution of many of the Middle East problems could be very significant, and Obama’s reaching out has gotten that ball rolling. President Obama also addressed the Muslim street in ways and with credibility no American president has ever attempted or could. He announced, “We are not at war with Islam,” yet he did not drop the designation of our enemies as “terrorists.” His Muslim family ties, viewed as a serious liability in the campaign, now have become a tremendous asset. The impact of words and his persona on the minds and hearts of the Muslim world cannot be underestimated. ” Visit Felicia Muftic’s blog at http://www.skyhidailynews.com . Topics posted lately: Competition in health care, deficits and inflation, North Korea. Visit her Web site http://www.mufticforum.com

Hamilton: The world, not going to go away

Prior to the attack by the Islamic jihadists on 9/11, 2001, America seemed to be on the brink of making the 21st Century much better than the 20th Century with its costly two World Wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and Gulf War I. But now, gentle readers, bet there are times when you would just as soon not know the news because it all seems so depressing. We face a violent foe fired up by a political movement posing as a religion. Our society, and in particular, our military is undergoing the "fundamental transformation" promised by Candidate Obama in the summer of 2008. If "fundamental transformation" were a card game, then President Obama held four aces when he took office in 2009: His alter-ego, Valerie Jarrett; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts. Together, and without a single Republican vote, they created ObamaCare. Depending on your point-of-view, that was either the high-water or the low-water mark of Mr. Obama's time in office. Alarmed by President Obama's plans to increasingly institutionalize: infanticide (abortion), borderless immigration, Political Correctness, and his hostility to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, and Article I (the Congress), the voters returned the House of Representatives to Republican Control in 2010 and the Senate to GOP control in 2014. But, when it came to halting Mr. Obama's "fundamental transformation," the GOP leadership proved powerless and provoked the electorate into the political turmoil we see being played out in the news today. Many Americans, accustomed to seeing their nation rising to what Winston Churchill called: "the broad sun-lit uplands," now see America declining into dark despair. But, to paraphrase the poet Dylan Thomas, Americans are not going gently into the night. Instead, Sanford Professor Victor Davis Hanson tells us that the excesses of the Obama Administration and the flaccid responses by the Republican establishment have created (drum roll) Donald Trump. Professor Hanson claims President Obama's "fundamental transformation" has given Mr. Trump a verbal get-out-of-jail-free-card, allowing Mr. Trump to say whatever he wants to say in provocative ways, drawing millions of new voters eager to set aside the previous eight years and march forward into the "make America great again" future promised by Mr. Trump. That said, the news is going to get ugly. The leading presidential candidates: Mrs. Bill Clinton and Donald Trump each have the kind of past histories that are the delight of opposition researchers. Now, we are about to witness a seemingly endless parade of accusations and counter-accusations the likes of which have not been seen since the rough-and-tumble presidential campaigns of the 19th Century. Consequently, some may find comfort in the words of Eddie Arnold when he sang in 1966: " Make the world go away / And get it off my shoulders / Say the things you used to say / And make the world go away…" Yes, we would like to be able to say "the things we used to say" about America. The world, however, is not going to go away and America's fate may well depend on what happens on Election Day: November 8, 2016. Nationally syndicated columnist, William Hamilton, is a laureate of the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame, the Colorado Aviation Hall of Fame, the Oklahoma University Army ROTC Wall of Fame, and is a recipient of the University of Nebraska 2015 Alumni Achievement Award. He was educated at the University of Oklahoma, the Army Language School, the George Washington University, the Infantry School, the U.S Naval War College, the University of Nebraska, and Harvard University.

William Hamilton: The Muslim Brotherhood: Exchanging dictatorships

All across the Crescent of Islam, we are seeing secular, Islamic dictatorships under attack from the radical Islamic fundamentalists who want to turn those secular Islamic dictatorships into radical, Islamic-fundamentalist dictatorships like the one in Iran. As usual, the radicals’ pro-democracy façade duped the western media. The uproar in Egypt recalls the time when Wonder Wife (Penny) and this author were in South Korea traveling with Arnaud and Alexandra de Borchgrave, Admiral Elmo and Mouza Zumwalt; Boston University president, John Silber; and Madame Jehan Sadat, the widow of the assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. For someone who started out as a paperboy for The Anadarko Daily News, that was an exciting trip. At the time, Wonder Wife was working as a stringer for the Voice of America. We arranged a Voice of America interview with Madame Sadat. We listened in awe as the beautiful Madame Sadat recounted how her husband signed the peace treaty with Israel, traveled to Israel to close the deal, and then was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood. She told how, as first lady of Egypt, she founded a group to promote the rights of Muslim women. Madame Sadat is good with names and faces. A year later, we made eye contact with her in Dulles International Airport. Naturally, we did not approach until she motioned for us to come sit with her. Madame Sadat thanked Penny for the Voice of America interview. She said it helped her efforts to improve the lot of women in the Muslim world. How odd that the Obama administration has been promoting the Muslim Brotherhood, which killed Madame Sadat’s husband and now demands that the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel be revoked. Given the Obama administration’s affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood, some Internet wag suggested the U.S. and Egypt swap presidents; however, that would not work because the Egyptians demand that their presidents be Egyptian citizens. During the current Egyptian crisis, Arnaud de Borchgrave, who speaks at least five languages, has a much better grip on what is really happening than the mono-lingual American mainstream media who must rely on the relatively few Egyptians who speak English. Writing for United Press International, de Borchgrave, who has interviewed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarack a dozen times over the last 30 years, recalls advice offered by Mubarack just a week after the Sept. 11 attacks on America. President Mubarack told de Borchgrave: “I know you want to retaliate massively, but there is one thing you must not do. Do not send American troops to fight a new war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Such an operation must be conducted by Muslim troops alone. If U.S. troops and other NATO contingents are dispatched, America will find itself cast as the villain in a war against Islam, which is precisely what the Taliban want.” Stratfor, one of the private intelligence sources to which this columnist subscribes, suggests President Mubarack may be residing in Sharm el-Sheikh, at the mouth of the Gulf of Aquba. Per the Egyptian-Israel peace treaty, neither side is supposed to have troops there; however, about 800 Egyptian troops are reported in Sharm el-Sheikh. So far, no public protest from Israel. Should President Mubarack decide to depart Egypt, the coastline of Saudi Arabia is only 15 miles away. Annual toll revenues from the Suez Canal are about $4.5 billion dollars. So, the Muslim Brotherhood might not want to close the canal, although all it takes is one sunken ship in one of the canal’s narrow stretches. In normal times, the U.S., as the world’s de facto guarantor of freedom of the seas, might consider closure of the Suez Canal by the Muslim Brotherhood as an act of war. But then, given the Obama administration’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood, these times are not normal. – Nationally syndicated columnist, William Hamilton, is a Distinguished Graduate of the U.S. Naval College and a Distinguished Research Fellow at the U.S. Army War College. He was also educated at the University of Oklahoma, the George Washington University, the University of Nebraska, and Harvard University.