Marine Corps Combat Veteran Jacquie Atkinson Calls Out the Iran Deal for a Fraud

Guest Column Guest Column 23 Comments


Guest Commentary
by Jacquie Atkinson

Many Obama and Scott Peters’ far left supporters may find it appealing to view the recent diplomatic negotiations between the United States and Iran as the beginning of the end of the threat posed by Iran since its 1979 revolution. That mindset ignores the fact that this “deal” hasn’t even been signed by Iran, or ratified by its government and it ignores this little thing called reality and the reality is — the Islamic Republic cannot be trusted and they remain the most dangerous actor in the most volatile area of the world.

The fact is that we are giving over a hundred billion dollars to Iran, a country that continues to stay true to its long track record of financial support for terrorist groups in the Middle East and a country that is actively working to further destabilize the region. Its Shia proxies in Iraq are responsible for the deaths of over 500 U.S. military personnel and its Iranian supported terrorist groups continue to plan for the destruction of Israel and its people. Just last week Iran thumbed its nose at America again as US sailors were captured, harassed and humiliated.

The administration’s policy of bowing down to Iran will not alter the diplomatic and strategic interests that promote such Iranian behavior. The failed Obama administration and its puppet Scott Peters have given this anti-American regime a victory with nothing to show for it beyond Iran’s word that they will follow through. A word that history tells us we cannot trust.

Over the weekend the administration admitted that a portion of the funds released will go to fund terrorism. A shocking admission from an administration that rarely admits its policies have negative consequences – and yet how is that acceptable? If even one dollar is going to assist in killing more Americans, why release any?


To learn more about my campaign for Congress in California’s 52nd Congressional District against Congressman Scott Peters, visit my website:


Comments 23

  1. Jacquie,

    We have had no diplomatic relations with Iran since 1979 and as you point out they are still “the most dangerous actor in the most volatile area of the world.” Maybe, it is time to admit that what we have been doing for the last 36 years has not been productive and perhaps we should try something new (i.e. diplomacy)

    At least this time, our “hostages” were only held for a few hours as opposed to 444 days.

  2. Neville Chamberlain thought the same thing in 1938. And we know how wonderful that turned out. There is such a thing as bad diplomacy, or wrong diplomacy. Sometimes the full extension of diplomacy (conflict as defined by Von Clauswitz) is we did with Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union. Simply “talking” let alone acquiescing is not diplomacy. It has to be applied in a way that is advantageous for both parties. No one to date, especially Dem security experts, have defined what, if any, advantages the US levered from this deal.

    Nothing gives the US more leverage over Iran than about 95,000 displaced tons of diplomacy in the form of an American Aircraft Carrier poised to respond in the Arabian Gulf.

    Regrettably, President Obama will be seen by history as the President that gave Iran the bomb. He, and the Obama Democrats, with Hillary center stage, will replace Chamberlain at Munich as the greatest diplomatic blunder in the modern era. It took the Nazi regime about 4-5 years to round up and murder 6 mil Jews, The Democrats have paved the road for the Iranian regime to do the same in about 26 mins.

    That’s a great resume’ filler.

  3. FF,

    Agree to disagree. Time will tell who is right, but what we do now is that 36 years of no diplomacy resulted in Iran being “the most dangerous actor in the most volatile area of the world.”

  4. I am reminded that the one thing we learn from history is we forget it.

    Should I be concerned that a person with military experience wishing to lead has such little understanding of the history of our intervention in the Middle East and the consequences of such?

    “dangerous actor in the most volatile area in the world”

    Who was the ‘dangerous actor” in 1953 that upset the peace and overthrew freely and popularly elected Prime Minister Mossadegh creating the return of the Ayatollah?

    Whose foreign policy radicalized Iran and installed a puppet that could only stay in power (see Schwarzkopf’s trained SAVAK) by terrorizing the very citizens it’s responsibility was to defend and protect?

    Who has the most military bases around the world intervening in foreign lands while burdening their citizens with unsustainable debt, Iran or the United States?

    Does Ms. Atkinson agree or disagree with Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the national debt is the biggest threat facing the U.S. – “I’ve said many times that I believe the single, biggest threat to our national security is our debt …”

    Ms. Atkinson states,
    “Its Shia proxies in Iraq are responsible for the deaths of over 500 U.S. military personnel”.

    What about the 500,000 Iraqi children killed by our intervention whom Madeleine Albright said on national TV “was worth it.”?

    I compliment Jacquie on her “pro-life” position. I would just encourage her to be consistent and extend it to adults in foreign nations and American soldiers. What if we cared enough about our soldiers not to put them in harms way when our freedom is not at risk?

    Would be interested in Jacquie sharing which of our freedoms is at risk in Iraq justifying the life or crippling of one more American soldier let alone more debt?

    And finally this statement,
    “Iranian supported terrorist groups continue to plan for the destruction of Israel and its people.”

    Does Jacquie’s foreign policy make a distinction between Zionism and Judaism? Does she make a distinction between “freedom fighter” and “terrorist”? From what I understand those practicing Judaism got along wonderfully with Ahmadinejad. Zionists, on the other hand, those who reject the Torah and the spirituality of Moses, do not.
    See link:

    Does Ms. Atkinson expect our nation to be respected and live in peace and prosperity while we uphold one standard for our nation and another for those in the Middle East?

  5. The Iran deal was bad because we got fooled by Iran.

    I really don’t think Iran is serious about acquiring the bomb? Yes, I know they back terrorism and chant death to Israel and the US. BUT, I find it hard to believe that a regime would struggle for 15 years (Suxtnet or no) to develop an atomic weapon that the US was able to do 70 years ago in 4 years and a much poorer North Korea has done. If they wanted a bomb they wouldn’t have been so public about it. You’d do it like North Korea and announce it by testing it. Iran in contrast incrementally announced what they were doing. Just baiting us to come to the table.

    Why? They know making an actual bomb would push their neighbors like Saudi and Turkey to go for a nuke which would complicate their real ambitions – a new Persian Empire from Iraq to the Mediterranean. Nukes would have complicated their subversive strategy and they would have to invest in defense in a regional cold war.

    So what did the deals do for them? They got international recognition, access to the US, more money coming in now, an implied acceptance of suzerainty in Iraq, US forces providing Intel and air support to them and their Shia Iraqi allies against ISIS (we are fighting with them!). They are more powerful than the Iranians have been since the Safavid Empire 500 years ago.

    In exchange we got a promise to not do what they didn’t want anyways. We got nothing, they got everything.

  6. (Please disregard if this is a repeated comment)

    HQ- Iran surrogates (Hezbollah and Quds) killed 243 Marines and Sailors and scores more in another embassy in 1983; nearly a hundred Jewish Argentinians in 1994, scores of US personnel at Khohbar towers in KSA, along with hundreds of other nationals, many Israeli and American, all over the world. They have disrupted international freedom of navigation, blown up civil airliners, and assassinated political undesirables on 4 different continents. They are one of the vilest regimes in the world. They are that way not because we didn’t conduct diplomacy with them; they are that way because they were allowed to act that way. Appeasement, whether in Munich, Geneva, or Minsk does not work…it, in fact, kills. It invites regimes that will stop at nothing to achieve hegemonic, tyrannical, or historical aims.

    Eric- Really? America is to blame? I get the standard 1953 Mossedegh argument. However, it was the Cold War, and a Soviet-controlled (or heavily influenced) Iran was not going to be tolerated in an age of Stalin, Mao, and communist brush wars breaking out all over Asia and Africa. Despite how some may choose to blame America for the ills of a historically and unstable region, the Iranian people (not the Aytollahs) would rather seek the US to assuage their plight than any other country. They expressed as such just a few years back and we ignored them. WRT the many bases the US maintains around the world; I can’t believe one could be so patently naïve as to think those bases constitute anything other than obligations to greater bilateral and multilateral security arrangements that whether one wants to believe or not actually prevent “our boys” from having to deploy and chase the challenge poorly situated, ill-equipped, and ill prepared in the area and with the allies with whom we would be engaged with to fight. If anyone doubts what happens when America relinquishes its sought roll as leader and facilitator of internationally desired justice and free market economic constructs. If one doubts that, one only needs to witness what has transpired in E. Europe, S. China Sea, and (again) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Elliot- They’d sell it (the bomb) or have a surrogate cell deploy it where they see fit best to harass and thwart the Great Satan.

  7. Founding Father,
    Please forgive my naivete. I will attempt to raise my game. Since your position seems to advocate violence, foreign intervention, tyranny, the right to self-determine, the use of force against individuals not harming us, the denial of natural rights and the United States as global hegemon would you mind changing your name?

    I find it disingenuous to refer to oneself as ‘Founding Father’ and to associate oneself with liberty while simultaneously denying their ideas about “the laws of nature and Nature’s God”, inalienable rights and the idea that all men are created equal.

    If one wishes to deny American families their God given freedom and property via socialistic ideas or neoconservative ones it makes no difference to me. The cost to our families to sustain such intervention (oops my naivete is showing) and respond to the blowback from such is the same.

    All I ask is that you consider the using a name during this conversation which properly represents your ideas about law and ethics.

  8. Eric,

    Please …call me Frank. (No sense in confusing you with a name…problem solved.) 

    I apparently struck a nerve. In all candor, it wasn’t my intent.
    My intent is to craft a narrative where good people are not swayed to think if we simply “lay hands” or “pray really hard” or bury our pacifist heads in the sand, the fallen world will become a safer place all on its own. While I’m a big proponent of prayer, I also understand (as do millions of other God-fearing American “tyrants”) that good men also must sometimes leave their hearth and home and engage America’s enemies with violence. We can bicker as to the degree and extent. However, never once in the countless times I or any of my “violence advocating, foreign intervening, tyrannical, rights denying , force-using against individuals not harming us, deniers of natural rights and advocates of United States as global hegemon” buddies who actually left hearth and home did so we could be seen and considered by those like yourself as tyrants. The same is true for many of the civilian planners and decision makers.

    Have you ever left hearth and home to engage America’s enemies, Eric? Have you ever considered a time in American history where that was actually warranted by millions that have? How about D-Day, Iwo Jima, or Anzio? Did we exude our tyrannical aspirations then? Would the world, and America’s place in it in the 20th Century been a better place if we had just taken the isolationist/pacifist route? Do you truly believe by creating a fanciful Randian security utopia of “Fortress America” that we actually make ourselves safer in the age of Islamic Jihadist Terror? Were the people of San Bernardino safer because we withdraw from Iraq or ignored the “red line” on Assad? Do you believe “tyrants” and “neo-cons” like me are the cause of the fanatics that stuck in SB, or Paris for that matter?

    Would it be better for us to roll up the gear and stop pursuing determined killers hid up in ungoverned places all over Africa, ME and Asia that are determined to kill as many Americans as possible (including your and my loved ones)? Do you believe if we handed out more soccer balls, dug more village wells, and inoculated more kids that ISIS, AQ and Hezbollah would recede into the shadows and not bother us again? Or are you of the camp that if we deconstruct NATO, pack up and come home, relinquish our position in S. Korea, or pull our carriers out of the Arabian Gulf or the South China Sea that all the real hegemons, Russia, DPRK, Iran, PRC, would without hesitation cease their aggressive aspirations and military adventurism because, as you claim, the “tyrants” have left?

    We indeed live in a fallen world. Sometimes (not every time and not always violence) it requires men of courage, action, and determination with righteousness in their hearts to leave their comfortable lives and give America’s detractors a moment of pause. We do that by displaying military prowess and exuding a position that we will use it if and when necessary. I am confident 100s of millions of people around the world agree with that and are comforted by it; especially those living in E. Europe, The Philippines, Thailand, South Korea, Bosnia, and yes, Iraq, Kuwait, and the Gulf States.

    You do not agree…ok. Yet, I am proud to have left my home and hearth, and been part of a legacy of those that have in the past, so people just like you, can live in a country that they think those who defend our freedoms and those of millions around the world in far off places are “tyrants” and can sleep peacefully at night.

  9. Frank,

    “Pacifist heads in the sand”
    Believers as well as unbelievers, can be proponents of a strong military. Indeed I am an advocate for such and believe a powerful military is helpful in deterring aggression. Are you familiar with “just war theory”?

    The issued at hand is the morality of the initiation of violence against an individual who has not placed us in immediate danger. I think we both recognize such is immoral.

    If you have “left your hearth and home” please share who attacked you and what God given freedom was in immediate danger. The only individuals that I am aware of who have deprived us of our rights are U.S. Congressmen. The same individuals who misuse the American soldier, cripple him and leave him to the unsatisfactory care of the VA.

    Like our Framers, I have never left home to fight a foreign war. Like our founders, I would be more than happy to meet any foe who dares to trespass on our land and threaten our freedom. I would not call trespassing on my neighbor’s property “courageous” or “righteous”.

    You have used the word “righteous” which is a biblical term meaning “just”. Do you have a verse to support your position?

    This is a propaganda term used by imperialists who are threatened by a) The moral foreign policy of our Framers, b) The military industrial complex giving up billions of tax payer dollars to the private sector that could be used to create jobs and prosperity.

    Those they wish to label “isolationist” are really just the opposite. They are internationalist whose desire is not to be isolated but to live and trade freely with all nations. After all, war is the health of the state. This term is used to censure meaningful dialogue and discussion.

    “determined to kill as many Americans as possible”.
    So was George Washington and his troops. The issue is whose is initiating aggression and violating natural rights?

    Understanding the Middle East isn’t difficult. We are there. They are not here. It’s their rights that are being threatened not ours. If we understand human nature, put ourselves in their “shoes”, read a number of CIA counter terror experts we can understand the blowback. They react to a foreign presence in the same way we would. They dislike our foreign aid and our military presence that keeps our puppets in power and keeps them from free elections.(See Batista, Noriega, Jordan’s King Abdullah, Shah, Saddam Hussein, Musharraf and Mubarak)

    I suggest the issue is a little deeper than what is being shared on this post. Our nation/economy is dependent upon inexpensive energy and the USD having hegemony. The largest source of energy in the world is located in the Middle East and the Caucuses. Don’t take my word for it. See Brezinski /Grand Chessboard. Maintaining power requires maintaining control. See WWII. How did cripple Japan and Italy? We shut down their access to energy.

    Our government and oil corporations simply use our military and American tax dollars to “buy off” foreign leaders. Folks in other countries are human too. It doesn’t matter if one is a Christian, atheist or Muslim. If a foreign country did to our family, business and home what we have done to Iraq families I would become a freedom fighter as well. Of course, they would refer to me as a “terrorist”.

    The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is the freedom fighter is on his own land reacting to aggression. The difference is a freedom fighter is defending what God has given him, liberty.

    Would like to see you address our government’s overthrow of Iran’s freely elected Prime Minister and its subsequent radicalization.

    Would like to see you address/justify the 500,000 Iraqi children killed in Iraq by our intervention and the 1T debt placed on American families as a result.

    Would like to see you reconcile your faith and understanding of our founding documents with American imperialism, expansion and hegemony.

    I don’t see evidence that you understand that the Muslim nations throughout the Middle East and Africa lived in peace with our nation until the end of WWII. Why? What is it they want?

  10. Eric- I understand that yours is a heavy libertarian view of world affairs. Mine is a more historical American view steeped the school of Realism and America’s universally recognized role and example as for Just War Theory, I used to teach it.

    While I appreciate your lengthy though somewhat jaunted view of America’s role in a very complex and dangerous world, you failed to even address some of the most basic issues at hand as introduced in my last comment- Was American entry into the Second World War justified? If so, were the deaths of millions of civilians as a result justified? (Including the allied carpet bombing of 100,000s of German and Japanese citizens surrounding industrial areas) Do you prescribe to the notion that the US shouldn’t have dropped the atomic bombs? If so, are you of the camp that an estimated 1 mil US forces would have been required to invade mainland Japan were acceptable losses vice the loss of Japanese with whom we were at war?

    Do you believe Islamic Jihadist Terror is a real and present danger to US citizens and US Interests? If so, do you think we need to declare war or wait for the bugger-eaters to arrive on American shores before we solve the problem? If a declaration, with whom exactly are we declaring war ? Islam? ISIS? AQ? Terror?

    I know Libertarians were forever jaded by US involvement in Iraq. It spawned unprecedented internal condemnation of US military and intelligence officials and (some) nutty conspiracies that impugned very loyal and dedicated Americans who also agreed the post-military strategies both in Iraq and AF were misguided. Understandably- it was handled poorly after the immediate military objectives were met.

    Here’s a news flash; AQ. PLO, Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah were crafting nefarious designs against the US long before we ever led the coalition invasion of Iraq. While an argument can be made that US involvement accelerated Islamic Terror efforts (call to Jihad, Crusaders are here, etc), they were determined to inflict damage on US citizens and interests for decades. And many voices, including the Fortress America ilk fed right into that narrative for the terrorists.

    As for Muslim nations “lived in peace” with our nation is a little confusing; starting with the Arab pirates of the early 19th century harassing American shipping and killing American sailors (Shores of Tripoli), and the Ottoman Empire waging war against the US-supported Allied powers of WWI.

    I don’t believe you understand what imperialism, hegemony or expansion mean in the context of US security arrangements and intent; name one place we reside in presently uninvited by a working and viable government with ? Where precisely has America demonstrated imperialism? Which emperor in the US government declared this expansion? These are rather peculiar American-agnostic positions. I have worked in and among US security professionals for 30 years…have yet to have met one imperialist, hegemon, or wanton expansionist. (Despite some rather whacky Libertarian tin-foil-hat wearing Bildiburger/Trilateral Commission blaming isolationists who see Neo Cons in every plot)

    Of course, calling out those who see America’s role as a greater responsibility to ensure that free market and trade you referenced as “advocating violence, tyranny, and denying the rights of people that did nothing to us” doesn’t stifle discussion..does it? 🙂

    Perhaps in the future, you might not conflate America’s diplomatic and security obligations with willing and mutually invested nations and security organization’s with the idea that America needs or wants to be any more extended than it Is. Now that would be naive.

  11. Eric- You also raised some detailed and complex questions regarding US FP and America’s role- I am fully prepared to answer them. They will need some detailed and complex answers. I would like to address them as I believe this fundamental security argument is a major schism within the various degrees of right politics in the US (I would say “GOP”, but I believe as many do that to define that with any accuracy is problematic of late).

    I may respond via a Guest Post as I did in an earlier discussion with Brian Brady and juxtaposing our positions on politics and the issues of Life and Marriage.

  12. I think we are talking past each other which makes for boring copy for Rostra readers.

    Frank, you mention courageously leaving hearth and home to fight for our freedom.

    Would you share which freedom that was and from whom was the threat coming?

    If you can support your political philosophy with a transcendent principle (natural law, Bible or founding documents) that you are attempting to conserve you score extra points. At least with me.

    If you will directly answer my question I will be happy to respond directly to one of yours.

  13. Exceptionalism is a term used to justify the use of force for the benefit of corporate entities. This is ,also, the definition of Fascism according to Musselini. Have you read “War is a Racket” by Smedley Butler ? Smedley was the most decorated soldier in U.S. history.

  14. United States Marine Corps Major General, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. I have read his book. I think he is a man of principle.

  15. “Do you truly believe by creating a fanciful Randian security utopia of “Fortress America” that we actually make ourselves safer in the age of Islamic Jihadist Terror?”

    Yes and no.

    Exacting overwhelming and destructive force, upon those who would attack America, certainly makes sense. Hunting them down and killing them does too.

    Setting up billion dollar embassies and entering long-term lease agreements for military bases doesn’t. In fact, those permanent bases are what antagonizes them. Moreover, the unintended consequences produce European welfare states which rely on the US to defend them–it’s a wealth transfer from productive Americans to convalescing Europeans.

    Maybe a bigger Navy is the proper way to engage across the globe, Frank?

  16. Brian- I recently wrote a response in a guest column to Eric that addresses some of these issues in a more detailed and cogent way. I have requested TA and the gang post it as a guest column. We’ll see if they oblige.

    To address your question- There is real operational merit to increase what are known as Advanced Forward Operating Bases, or AFSBs. These are in the form of classic aircraft carriers and amphibious assault carriers, and other mobile naval platforms. They provide viable options for expeditious operations that allow for permissible and when necessary non-permissible military entry and activities. This surely decreases the need for large land based facilities with often complex, convoluted and expensive arrangements and often in areas where portions of the population simply don’t like us very much. Having said that, virtual presence is actual absence. This translates to while AFSBs are mobile and can provide much more politically palatable options (no long term boots on the ground) they are not stationary and may not provide the necessary operational or security comfort a host nation may require to best support our mutual security requirements. Think S. Korea.

    AFSBs are very expensive, both to build and to maintain.

    Remarkably, under the current administration we have atrophied what was once the most powerful navy in the world at over 500 combatant ships, including 14 aircraft carrier battle groups sailing in every major ocean and sea to now having less than 280. This has produced the conditions for the unprecedented military encroachments of the PRC in the South China Sea and Russia in the Eastern Med and Syria. Additionally, this also puts increased stress on deployed crews, maintenance schedules, and our ability to project American influence when and where needed.

    As I lay out in the (potential) upcoming article how we are in a new epoch of military and security concerns with the rise of greater and greater assymetrical threats coupled with accelerated technology and instantaneous global social media, it changes the way we need to address the threats worldwide.

  17. To clarify…AFSBs is an acronym for Afloat Forward Staging Bases. They constitute a subclass of Advanced Forward Operating Bases…

    Gotta love military TLAs…Three-letter acronyms.. 🙂

  18. FF,

    “The U.S. naval force is currently made up of 273 ships, which is the smallest number since the fleet stood at 245 ships in 1916. While fleet size has fluctuated significantly throughout history, topping out at 6,768 during World War II, today’s Navy is only slightly smaller than it was in 2006 under President George W. Bush, when it employed 281 active ships.”

    Even if you don’t like the “smaller” Navy, it seems disingenuous to blame the current administration.

  19. HQ,

    The atrophy of the US naval assets is decades-long process that began after the fall of the Soviet Union under Clinton. The decision made to decrease naval assets was made years before the W administration. When BHO took office, he was briefed extensively on the state and ramifications of this trend of naval assets. He and his administration have done nothing to address this vital issue. In fact, the US armed forces as a whole are far more extended, ill-equipped, and operationally stressed as the policy choices and actions by our detractors put the US in a weaker, less prepared, and more dangerous position.

    Apparently, you don’t need as much stuff when you lead from behind.

  20. FF,

    You originally said “Remarkably, under the current administration we have atrophied what was once the most powerful navy in the world at over 500 combatant ships, including 14 aircraft carrier battle groups sailing in every major ocean and sea to now having less than 280.”

    Anyone reading that would think that it was the current administration that cut our naval assets almost 50%. This is simply not true and I pointed that out.

    The bipartisan sequester has as much as any other factor to do with any decrease in military spending and the cause of “operational stress” can be laid at the feet of too many unnecessary operations.

  21. HQ- The take-away is there is no question amongst military planners and analysts that the US armed forces under Obama are worse than when he took office. That is irrefutable despite all the sugar coating and rainbow dust thrown at it.

    Do you truly believe we as a nation are safer under Obama’s leadership and HRC’s role in that policy making? Libya, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, a proto-nuclear Iran, N. Korea with the H-bomb, European identity, sovereignty and security on the precipice, PRC provocations in the Pacific? How about San Bernardino, Ft. Hood, Time Square, Boston, completely unsecured borders? In the meantime, the President declares Global Warming the greatest threat to US national security along with the rights of Gays and Transgenders around the world. Yet he has done nothing of consequence as ISIS killers throw Gays and Trangenders off roof tops, rape 1000s of women, and kill Christians at a rate we haven’t seen since the invasions of Muhammad. How is leading from behind working out for you?

    Have you questioned that hypocrisy? I know you are a defender of Democrats and of the president and ostensibly HRC; I respect and support one’s choice to do so. However, in the realm of national security, many are concluding in the age of Islamic Terror, we will need to bring the varsity grown ups and get away for this dangerous naivety and ignorance currently stifling our National Security, rise above the constant and incessant political scheming of Valerie Jarret and the President and take concrete steps to ensure our welfare, security and national identity.

    Even though he is placing just above mediocre in the polls, this is one of the many reasons the Dems are terrified of Marco Rubio.

    I sincerely appreciate your comments however. They are often thought out, and presented in a civil and cogent manner. They may still be wrong, but its the effort that is recognized. 🙂

    Have a good El Nino.

  22. FF,

    You just can’t seem to help yourself. You make many good points in most of your posts and then you ruin all credibility by insinuating (in a previous post) that President Obama reduced our Navy from “more than 500 combat ships to less than 280” and that President Obama stated that “the rights of Gays and Transgenders around the world” was the greatest threat to US national security. Your good points become a casualty of guilt by association.

    Taking the who’s responsible out of the discussion, you seem to be of the opinion that ISIS and other terrorist groups are a serious threat to our country. While it is readily apparent that these terrorist groups are capable of committing acts of horrific violence within our borders, the acts of 9-11-01 (7+ years before President Obama was inaugurated) being the best proof of that, ISIS is not a serious threat to the Republic. Germany was a serious threat, Japan was a serious threat and The Soviet Union was a serious threat, but there is simply no chance that the Stars and Stripes will ever be replaced by the black flag of ISIS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.