May, reading a British Daily Mail article about the umbrella incident, during
which two U.S. Marines
were ordered to hold umbrellas
over the heads of President Barack Obama and
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during a press conference in the
White House Rose Garden, other than expressing my disgust for the degrading
chore the Marines had to perform (against protocol), something else tickled my
memory. At the time, I was engaged in other issues and that little gray gremlin
never came out of the closet. Specifically, it was the picture of Erdogan, a
policy pal of Obama’s, flapping his gums while a Rock of Gibraltar Marine stood
stoically holding an umbrella over his head, which prompted the gremlin to make
his presence known.
At the
time, I couldn’t make the connection between Erdogan and that elusive
morning, after having imbibed over the past year a number of stories of how
Obama goes out of his way to emasculate the U.S. military or turn it into his
personal policy enforcer (Libya, Syria, etc.), the gremlin emerged, garbed in a
tall funny hat with plumes and long robes and brandishing a wicked-looking
scimitar, and greeting me in Turkish –
Uyan, yavaş zekâlı biri! – and in Bosnian – Probudi se, tupoglav jedan!*
Who or
what were the Janissaries? They were a private army of Turkish sultans
recruited from prisoners of war, chiefly from the Balkans. A Harvard
Center for Middle East Studies
study document describes this special
military arm of the Ottomans:
Janissary Corps, yeniceri ocak or
“new soldier corps,” was one of two main branches of the Ottoman
armed forces, the other being the Sipahis
or provincial free-born Muslim cavalrymen, organized in the fourteenth century.
The Janissaries were the kapukulu,
“slaves of the sultan.” The corps members were educated and trained
for the Ottoman military and government service and became the private standing
army of the Ottoman Sultan. The Janissaries became an efficient and formidable
fighting force and the most outstanding army in Europe. Over time the Corps’
essence and behavior and the empire’s needs changed and the corps was abolished
in 1826.
Janissaries were recruited from captured Christian adolescent boys who were
made to convert to Islam. They were a key element in the final capitulation of
Constantinople in 1453.
it not for Obama’s blatantly pro-Islam policies and stance over the last five
years, the notion that he regarded our military forces as Janissarian tools
would never have occurred to me. It didn’t occur to me under George W. Bush, even
though he parroted the Islamic line that Islam is a “religion of
peace,” nor even under Bill Clinton, in spite of his Bosnian intervention
in favor of Muslims.
his “New
” speech at Cairo University in June 2009 through his Libyan intervention
of 2011
to the staffing of key
federal government posts
with Muslims that rivals the Soviet infiltration
of the government from the 1930s on through the collapse of the Soviet Union,
one cannot help but think that, consequently, our U.S. military, supposedly
dedicated to defending this country and the Constitution, has become a toy of Obama’s
 ambitions. There is, of course, his
friendship with the Muslim
and his sending Marines
to Saudi Arabia
to train Syrian “rebels” or
“insurgents” (aka jihadists)
fighting in the civil war. There is the ongoing indoctrination
of American military personnel – as the Balkan adolescents were – on the
“beneficent” nature of Islam. Let us not forget his 2012 order to the
to excise all references to Islam and Muslims
from the agency’s training
materials, and his “open
” policy that allows tens of thousands of Muslims to settle
in this country. The instances are legion.
the question is: If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a
duck, is it a duck?
is: If, aside from his hateful moves against the military, Obama regards it as
his personal palace guard ready to do his bidding, can it be said that he is
treating our military as a instrument of his own personal foreign policy? Given
the pro-Islam character of that foreign policy, are there not grounds for
suspecting or thinking that?
is a theme, not a charge. An analogy, not an accusation. But all the
ingredients are there, and they comport with Obama’s character and agenda, an
agenda that is overtly pro-Islamic, proto-totalitarian, and designed to ally
this country with its ideological enemies.
If we
can characterize our military as a pliable force of Janissaries, why not our
intelligence agencies, and law enforcement entities, as well, from the FBI on
down to the local police? In Britain, local police forces act as arms of the
Home Office and its policies vis-à-vis government speech codes and immigration.
example, in 2012, the Guardian
reported on the constraints on freedom of speech in Britain, citing the Public
Order Act of 1986:
5 of the 1986 Public Order Act says a person “is guilty of an offence if
he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly
behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation
which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a
person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”.
are two things wrong with this catch-all wording. First, unlike section 4 of
the same act, and Britain’s legislation on incitement to hatred on
grounds of religion or sexual orientation, it does not require evidence
of an intention to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The standard is just
“likely to”. Who decides what is “likely to” be caused
harassment, alarm or distress? On the street, the police do.
would account for British newspapers refusing to refer to Muslim murders, gang
terrorism, rapes, and the like, but adopting instead the euphemism
“Asian.” It also accounts for the victims of Musim crime being
harassed by the government and by Muslims, such as the woman who confronted Lee
Rigby’s killers
in May of this year.
such a law possible here in the U.S.? Yes, if the Department of Homeland
Security has any say in the matter. The DHS,
governed for years by retired Janet Napolitano, regards itself as sacrosanct
and above the law, although some journalists have attempted to uncover the
corruption and waste endemic in the agency. Recently, The Daily Caller reported
that a journalist’s home was raided in the wee
hours of the morning by federal agents
, ostensively looking for guns, but
actually after the journalist’s notes about corruption in the Air Marshall
investigative reporter in the Washington, D.C., area says armed federal agents
stormed her home in August and confiscated stacks of confidential documents,
leading her to fear that her undercover government sources have been exposed.
Hudson, a freelance reporter for Newsmax and the Colorado Observer, said the
Department of Homeland Security and the Maryland State Police raided her home in
Shady Side, Md., in August….
Hudson told the Daily Caller that agents also confiscated documents containing
information on sources within the Department of Homeland Security and the
Transportation Security Administration. She said no subpoena was presented for
the documents and said the confiscation was outside the bounds of the warrant.
said about seven officers dressed in full body armor arrived at her home at
4:30 a.m. Aug. 6 and presented her with a search warrant. Hudson said an
investigator with the Coast Guard’s Investigative Service identified her as the
reporter responsible for writing a series of articles critical of air marshals
for The Washington Times newspaper.
this the wave of the future? Pre-dawn raids on journalists, or even on bloggers
like me? An administration that would side with totalitarian Islam would have
no qualms about establishing a police state in this country. It would be
imposed under the rubric of “law and order,” or “public
safety.” It wouldn’t be fair to charge the Democrats exclusively with that
predilection. Most Republicans are just as capable of wanting to set our minds right
with a law and a billy club and a “night in the box.”
As part of the indoctrination of our military
about how Islam is a “religion of peace,” and how to behave in the
presence of Muslims, the Army
has been calling Christian groups
, as well as the Tea Party, “extremists”
capable of terrorism, and warned that any soldier discovered contributing to
any of those groups would be punished according the Uniform
Code of Military Justice
. The most bizarre instance of the military’s
brainwashing of its ranks was its deeming the Founders
as “extremists.”
Infowars reported on August 24th in
its article, DoD Training Manual:
‘Extremist’ Founding Fathers ‘Would Not Be Welcome In Today’s Military
Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch
recently obtained a Department of Defense training manual which lists people
who embrace “individual liberties” and honor “states’ rights,” among other
characteristics, as potential “extremists” who are likely to be members of
“hate groups.”
Freedom as an “extremist ideology”? Does
anyone still remember Napolitano’s 2009
internal memo
about the dangers posed by “right-wing extremists”?
As the Washington Times reported then:
The Department of Homeland Security is warning
law enforcement officials about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,”
saying the economic recession, the election of America’s first black president
and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of
white-power militias. A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland
Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in
the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups
that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.
“It may include groups and individuals that are
dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,”
the warning says….
The nine-page document was sent to police and
sheriff’s departments across the United States on April 7 under the headline,
“Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence
in Radicalization and Recruitment.”
says the federal government “will be working with its state and local partners
over the next several months” to gather information on “rightwing extremist
activity in the United States.”
suppose things reached a point under Obama that the government sensed there was
an uprising afoot against his policies, or at least mass civil disobedience vis-à-vis
ObamaCare or illegal immigration? The Small Wars Journal in July 2012 published
a paper, by Kevin Benson and Jennifer Weber, “Full
Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future
.” The
authors project a Tea Party-aligned group seceding from the Union by taking
over a South Carolina town, and how the federal government would deal with it. It
discusses in detail how to quell a rebellion against “big
In this paper, we posit a scenario in which a
group of political reactionaries take over a strategically positioned town and
have the tacit support of not only local law enforcement but also state government
officials, right up to the governor.  Under present law, which initially
stemmed from bad feelings about Reconstruction, the military’s domestic role is
highly circumscribed.  In the situation we lay out below, even though the
governor refuses to seek federal help to quell the uprising (the usual channel
for military assistance), the Constitution allows the president broad leeway in
times of insurrection.  Citing the precedents of Abraham Lincoln during
the Civil War and Dwight D. Eisenhower sending troops to Little Rock in 1957,
the president mobilizes the military and the Department of Homeland Security,
to regain control of the city.  This scenario requires us to consider how
domestic intelligence is gathered and shared, the role of local law enforcement
(to the extent that it supports the operation), the scope and limits of the
Insurrection Act–for example maintaining a military chain of command but in
support of the Attorney General as the Department of Justice is the Lead
Federal Agency (LFA) under the conditions of the Act–and the roles of the
local, national, and international media….
design of this plan to restore the rule of law to Darlington will include
information/influence operations designed to present a picture of the federal response
and the inevitable defeat of the insurrection. 
Forbes Magazine’s Michael Peck, in his November
15th, 2012 article, “How the U.S. Military Would Crush a Tea
Party Rebellion,” notes:
Curiously, the authors don’t really delve the
fundamental issue of American soldiers firing on American civilians, except to
note that troops would have to comply with standing rules on force, which
require graduated levels of violence. Civil support in South Carolina makes
counterinsurgency in Kabul look like a picnic.
The old gun lobby line that a pack of civilians
with hunting rifles will stop a tyrannical federal government is silly. This
isn’t 1776, the U.S. military is a tad better equipped than King George’s
redcoats, and if the U.S. Army decides to crush an insurrection, it will do so.
the real question is this: under what circumstances should federal troops
conduct military operations against American citizens on American soil? Is this
scenario likely enough that the U.S. military prepare for such operations, or
should we worry that preparation will inevitably lead to action?
there we are. Have the rank-and-file of our military been so thoroughly
brainwashed by politically correctness and fear-mongering propaganda that they
would act as American Janissaries against their fellow citizens? Most of the
officer corps, regardless of the service, has already been suborned and
co-opted. Americans face a dark future if our military no longer exists to
defend our freedoms, but to quash them.
police state established to “protect our liberties” is an ideological
non sequitur and an ideational
has three more years of Obama. Anything can happen between now and 2016.
 *Translation: Wake up, slow-witted one!