The Trump Strategy in Syria, An Analysis on Day 1


The Trump Strategy in Syria - An Analysis on Day 1

By Thomas Wise

A few moments ago, President Donald Trump struck Syria with between 50 and 60 Tomahawk missiles. I do not have much more facts than this at present, but I do not need them to tell you what's happening.

Within the last few days, Syrian citizens were gassed with chemical weapons, and children died. The Right was aghast. The Left was aghast and blamed Trump for a tepid response. Obviously, the blame game was on.

During 2013, then-President Barak Obama set a "line in the sand" with President Bashar Assad of Syria. At that time, chemical weapons were ALSO used against Syrian citizens. It is still not clear who used these weapons, neither in 2013 nor 2017. Yet it seems beyond dispute that Syrian citizens were and are being gassed with chemical weapons stored in Syria.

Here is a fact: between 2013 and 2016, Barack Obama dropped many thousands of bombs on Syria. There was no clear reason given why, and no strategy specifically stated for the raining down of bombs. Many made their own conclusion that it was in retaliation for the gassing of Syrian citizens. Without a concrete battle plan to study, the people of the USA and the world were guessing.  As usual, Obama made moves, and the world scurried to put a positive spin on it.

Meanwhile, a Syrian refugee crisis grew from continued US and other intervention in the Syrian Civil War. All this did was send many tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of Syrian citizens out of Syria. They went to many nations, in Europe and the Americas. If one wished to take a NEGATIVE spin from the Obama "Strategy," it could be he WANTED these refugees.

There is NO doubt that Obama, Merkel and other Western leaders had such a plan ready. For when these refugees hit the borders of Eastern Europe, the border guards were told to stand down. How strange! National borders were opened wide for scurrying refugees from war-torn nations that habitually harbor terrorists! Obama, Merkel, and the rest were embracing, even pleading for, these anonymous and often dangerous refugees. Not only from Syria, but also from OTHER nations Obama was bombing, such as Libya and Somalia.

Now, in 2017, President Donald Trump has swiftly attacked Syria in clear retaliation for gassing citizens. Whether you agree with the move or not, at least we know WHY Trump is doing it. Whether you want US intervention in the Middle East or not, you know the reason and goal. At least I think I know, and I believe you know.

President Trump is also not a fan of letting refugees enter the United States. Therefore, one might say that bombing Syria in this manner, clearly and swiftly, is a way to make Syria safe again. Yes, I understand, not while the bombs are dropping. However, if Trump can get Assad's attention, the Syrian Civil War might cool off enough so refugees can go home. At the very least, refugees would no longer have any back-story to tug at our heartstrings. Why would they need to come to America if their country is safe again?

Naturally, this takes time. The Syrian Civil War was not built in a day, and the Obama-Merkel refugee strategy has been in place for too long. Too many doors (and windows) are still open for all kinds of people to emigrate to the USA. President Trump has often spoken about making "safe zones" in the Middle East so refugees can stay close to home.
Whenever you want to make a safe space, you have to clear the area.
The gassing of Syrian citizens was simply a major event that paved the way for a Trump strategy.

What is this Trump strategy?

It could be that ISIS used the chemical weapons and blamed it on Assad. It could be that the CIA used the chemical weapons and blamed it on Assad. In either case, the point was to put pressure on President Trump's administration, to test their mettle. Perhaps one might say "it is a trap, government" but it is a chance that must be taken. President Trump really has no choice, since he criticized Obama for doing nothing, even if Obama did random violent things to Syria.

Above all, the Obama strategy must be dismantled. Not only the strategy to inject foreign viruses into the West (yes, Obama is a traitor, in my opinion), Trump must also dismantle the Deep State that plans, permits, and foists treasonous moves against America. I hate to say it, but we are fighting the viruses deep within our own government. Bombing Syria is a step towards ferreting out these elements, as well as standing ground.

President Trump has a duty to live up to his tough words, but also to smartly take down the Deep State. Whoever dropped the chemical weapons must be stopped.

What if it was Assad who used the chemical weapons against his own people? Then Trump wins three ways:
(1) he does what Obama did NOT do - clearly, swiftly, and boldly strike Assad,
(2) he ends the refugee immigration into the West, and
(3) he intercedes in the plans of the Deep State to keep the war going.

There is another possibility: that Assad is working with Trump to ferret out ISIS and/or the CIA Deep State. I am not sure I believe Assad is a good guy, but if I am right, it would be an interesting ploy. This is truer if Assad was formerly on the side of Obama and/or the CIA (not ISIS, however).

How does Russia fit into this? It is clear Russia has economic interests in Syrian stability. Yet Trump taking out the chemical weapon elements in Syria is NOT a direct link to helping Russia. If it DOES help Russia, it is only a by-product of the Trump strategy already delineated.

Of course, Obama's crew is not stupid. They KNOW this possibility exists that Trump could win both the outward and inward wars, and the evil forces are already deploying anti-Trump factions, saying he is helping Russia.

So, there you have it: day 1 of President Trump striking Syria. If you think this is a new war, please remember that Obama bombed Syria many thousands of times in 2016 alone. This is already authorized action, even expected and hoped-for action. In sum, this is a good, if necessary move, by the Trump administration.

God bless this nation and the world.

Iran Russia and Fake News

Iran Deal


By Thomas Wise

Barack Obama forcefully secured an Iran deal that gave the Shia nation a great chance to secure nuclear weapons. As well, he unlocked hundreds of billions in Iranian funds, giving Iran even more leverage. What was the upshot of this deal? First, Israel fiercely criticized this deal, primarily on existential grounds that it threatened the security of Israel. Second, accusations were made that Obama exceeded his authority in making such a deal. Remember? Was it a treaty or not? Why was the money delivered under cover of darkness? What safeguards were put in place to ensure Iran would abide by any deal at all? By every measure, the deal was a failure of common sense, protocol, and possibly lawfulness.

Does this mean Obama loves Iran? Well, he did call Iran a "small nation" that posed no real threat to the United States. He did pledge to make friends with our enemies, for whatever reason, whether for good, to mend fences, or for evil. He did not really push for the release of any American taken prisoner by Iran. By every measure, Obama seems to love Iran, and want that nation to succeed in whatever venture it takes on.

Is Obama a Shia Muslim? Iran is a Shia nation. By contrast, every other Muslim nation in the world is primarily Sunni. Shia and Sunni are relentlessly at each other's throats to snuff out the competing Islamic variation. Remember the Iran-Iraq War? Say what you will, that this was political, or a proxy war, but the Sunni-Shia rivalry is visceral and real. By assisting Iran in the way he did, Obama appears to have taken the Shia side. Since Islam is not only a religious but also a political movement, one could rightly say Obama acted as a good Shia Muslim.

Obama was partly raised in Indonesia, where he learned Islam. Presumably, he learned Sunni Islam, as Indonesia is primarily a Sunni nation. Did Obama turn on his Sunni upbringing to become a Shia Muslim, evidenced by his continued assistance of Iran? True, Obama has covered for the Saudis and even bowed in front of them. Yet, there is more Iranian than anything in his bloodstream, it seems. Valerie Jarrett, his chief of staff, is an Iranian.

What does this have to do with Russia?

Well, you see, Russia is ALSO on the side of the Shia. This does not mean Russia or Vladimir Putin is Shia. Rather, Russia is helping Iran to be a superpower in order to keep the spread of Sunni terrorism at bay. Russia does not tolerate Islamic terrorism or extremism in its borders, which is why we do not hear about it. Chechnya, which is Sunni by the populace, is a target for Russia in order to keep the Sunni terrorists at bay. Likewise, the Syrian civil war is a war against Sunni terrorism in order to keep the Russian gas and oil pipelines, which run through Turkey into Europe, safe. What they do not tell you on the nightly news is that Russia is interfering in Syria to save several pipelines. Bordering several Sunni nations, Russia has a real issue with Islamic terrorism. So it would appear to be prudent that Russia would team up with Iran, the Shia, to keep their mutual enemy, the Sunni, at bay.

Decidedly, the evidence points to a relationship between Obama, Russia, and Iran to fight the Sunni. Remember when Obama in 2012 leaned over to Medvedev and said, "Tell Vlad I will have more flexibility after the election"? The uproar on the Right was severe, yet the Democrats hardly blinked. Naturally, the Democrats protect their own.

The question is if Russia and Obama are on the same side, why is the Left attacking Trump for speaking with Russia? Could it be that by "speaking to Russia" the Left means Trump is undoing the Iran deal, and therefore putting Russia in danger? Does the Left love Russia and Putin? From the public displays and spectacles, one would think not. According to the placards and tweets, helping Russia in anyway is tantamount to helping Hitler, or being Hitler. The Left has turned into a vulgar caricature of Joe McCarthy (who, by the way, was right), attempting to purge from the government and public sphere anyone who seems to consort with Russia. Even SPEAKING with an ambassador of Russia (NOT a crime!) is considered worthy of public shaming and eventual impeachment.

The only conclusion which makes sense is that the Left does not want Donald Trump to retract the Iranian deal. At this late date, it is hard to see what might be retracted. The money is delivered, the nuclear material is being synthesized, and half the world, believing in Obama, has apparently gone Sunni. Nevertheless, the Left fears Trump very much, and it has not yet been revealed what they fear. Perhaps it is all Fake News outrage, and the Left is not concerned at all about Trump defeating Obama's Iranian deal, knowing it is completed. Perhaps the "outrage" is that he has the nerve to try, or to say he will try, and to beat Trump into submission, or at least silence. Perhaps the "outrage" is a false flag altogether, to cause the American people to think Trump is up-ending some delicate balance which will plummet everyone into World War 3.

Oddly, Russia does not appear to mind Trump interfering in the Iranian deal, though it is Russia which has much to lose in this respect. Perhaps Putin has calculated that the Iranian deal threatens Russia more than helps Russia, and is on Trump's side. Perhaps Putin wants some imbalance as a pretext to invading Chechnya, Georgia, or even Ukraine, meaning Trump is being used. Regardless, it is not as if Trump works in a vacuum. His generals, advisers, dignitaries, and other officials have all been around long enough to know the real story. We must have some faith that Trump is not working by himself, even if the Left insists he is a combination of Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon, a paranoid recluse with an enemies list and a plethora of compulsions.

The Iran deal is yet another piece of the puzzle in trying to discover what exactly is going on with the Left? Why is the Left foaming at the mouth about Russia when Russia is the birthplace of their beloved Leninism? Is modern-day Russia not communist enough for the Left? Alternatively, is Russia EXACTLY the way the Left likes it and is Trump interfering with Leftist world domination? If so, why do they say Trump is a Russian spy? Typically, the Left uses Alinsky methods to mock and alienate their enemy, in this case projecting that Trump is a communist when of course it is the Left who are communists. Will this ploy work? With Trump, it has not so far. He knows how to handle stress, the press, Fake News, and apparently politics also. Marginalizing Trump has only served to make him stronger and more popular, SO LONG AS he does not turn into a mealy-mouthed Republican and begin apologizing, explaining, and firing people who ought not be fired.

So what's next?  Difficult to say.  In 2015, Putin and Obama congratulated each other for their respective roles in making the Iranian deal happen, and the press loved it (LINK)!  Today, the press would have you think Russia is against the Iranian deal and against Obama. The facts say otherwise, but this will not stop the Left from denying history and making their own truth.  I can only say, beware the press and keep an eye on things for yourself!

Russia, Syria and Turkey A Fake News Perspective

Turkey NATO

Russia, Syria and Turkey: A Fake News Perspective

By Thomas Wise

A recent Bloomberg Article about Turkey said:

"A go-ahead by the Trump administration would bring an immediate gain for Erdogan by signaling that the U.S. no longer sees Kurds as an essential
element in the fight against Islamic State, a view that has infuriated its
NATO ally. Turkey, embroiled in a three-decade conflict with Kurdish
separatists regards Kurdish attempts to establish autonomy in northern
Syria as a direct national security threat.

Erdogan said on Tuesday in Istanbul that troops are on the verge of
capturing the town of Al-Bab, an Islamic State stronghold. He’s also asked
the U.S. to persuade Kurdish groups to withdraw from the border town of

“Manbij belongs to Arabs,” he said. "

In this article, Bloomberg barely makes it clear that Turkey is a NATO member (List of NATO countries here), making it seem instead that Turkey is attacking NATO.

These excerpts and this article, in general, are a culmination of propaganda by the left-wing press. Huffington Post, for example, has been attacking Turkey for some time:



HuffPo Turkey

Why is this propaganda, this Fake News, happening?

Clearly, the Left is against Russia. Why? Russian pipelines run through Turkey, providing oil and gas to Europe. The Syrian civil war is a threat to that pipeline, so Russia is also acting in its own interests. But let's be clear: the Left is not interested in competing with Russia in capitalist terms. This is not "Russia is stealing our business." In fact, the Left has barely acknowledged the Russo-European pipelines, instead focusing on Vladimir Putin as an infiltrator of elections.

Turkey's leader, Erdogan, is a similar target by those same Leftists. Again, the Left is attacking a leader who is attempting to stabilize the region. Whether it's Putin or Erdogan, the Left is insanely decrying any attempt at peace in Syria except on its own terms. Remember when the Left made wild claims regarding Assad using chemical weapons on his own people. Did this actually happen? Or was it Fake News? What was the purpose?

All the Left has succeeded in doing is making the situation in Syria worse, by telling Syrians they need to flee their own country.  This obviously has led to the "refugee" crises we see in Europe and around the world.

Why, if one didn't know better, one might think the Left WANTS a Syrian civil war in order to foster and facilitate the "refugee" crisis! Oh, but there is NO evidence of that. No leader in Germany or France or Canada has ever taken in or desired to take in an inordinate number of Syrians. No one named Obama has ever flooded any part of the USA with Syrian, Somali, or Iraqi refugees. Obama never bombed those countries 26,000 times in 2016 alone. Oh wait- yes he did, yes he did, and yes they did.

Leftist leaders in Europe and the Americas attack Putin and Erdogan for attempting to stabilize the region for their own interests. These same Leftist leaders then brazenly take in massive numbers of Muslims into their countries, claiming a moral duty. Moral duty? To whom? According to the Left, it's Putin and Erdogan who have the moral duty. So why is the Left so willing to take on the burden of what they say belongs to Putin and Erdogan?

One might say, "To be better than them!" How are you "better" when your countries suffer under the weight of these Muslims? In fact, this weight makes Putin and Erdogan RIGHT, not wrong. How? If the Left hadn't interfered, this would've been settled already, one way or the other.  Now, the West is reeling from "refugee" crime and tumult.

This is not to say Putin or Erdogan are good people or have noble intentions. It's all business, stability, and good for the Russians and Turks. Let me be clear: I get nothing out of applauding anything Putin or Erdogan do. However, the Left is destroying the West by taking in Muslim "refugees" under the guise of fighting against Putin and Erdogan.

Why do I keep putting "refugees" in quotes?  Well, the "refugees" are mainly men of military age. Why are these cowards fleeing their homes and families? They are entreated and encouraged to do so, by the Left. Why is the Left encouraging this?  The Left wants to destroy the West intentionally. Why? Guilt complexes, self-hatred, and coveting the success of others: these would seem to be self-evident psychoses of those on the Left who are bent on this destruction.

The same psychotic Left that writes Fake News articles regarding the intentions of Turkey and Russia also writes Fake News about America, Donald Trump, Europe, Brexit, and so on. Why so much Fake News? The answer is simple- To further their agenda, fueled by a seething hatred of America and Americana. They desire to destroy not only the West but also every vestige of Western civilization. They, in my opinion, are the Western version of ISIS.

The Syrian civil war could literally be over if the Left would stop interfering. Right-wingers are called "neocons, " but liberal nation-building is more insidious and subtle. Rather than build, they destroy and keep destroying. Sound familiar? They do the same thing with the African-American community in America. Keep them down, keep them angry, and blame the Republican white man. The same is happening in Syria: keep blaming NATO ally Turkey, and the Russian bear, while at the same time pretending to stand up for Turkey against Donald Trump, who is actually FOR the peace.

Why is the Left against Russia?  In a sentence, Russia is no longer communist enough for the Left. Remember when Barack Obama leaned over to Medvedev and said, "Tell Vlad after the election I'll have more flexibility."



Why is THAT not criticized? Not only, as you might think, to protect Obama, but to safeguard the agenda of the Left. "But if the Left is against Russia, why did Obama say that?" Have you ever thought that Obama said what he said into the hot mic because he KNEW it was hot?  A master of deception, Obama waves his hand one way while he does other things with his tentacles. Sure, we are aware Obama is a snake, but this image doesn't matter to him if he can make it appear that Russia manipulates the American Presidency. Get it?

Why is Turkey important? It is Asia Minor, the link between Europe and Asia. It is the seat of the old Ottoman Empire and the old Holy Roman Empire. It is a neighbor to Syria. It is a conduit for Russia. It is part of NATO. If you do not take Turkey seriously, you do not take anything seriously.  The Left wants you to think Turkey is a devilish ally of Russia, while at the same time demanding that President Trump accepts NATO, which includes Turkey, without question. Then, when he accepts NATO, they will demand he sanction Turkey!

So remember, when you read anything about Russia, Turkey, or Syria in the left wing press, it's almost always lies. There is NO possible way the Left can be FOR peace and FOR unlimited refugees AT THE SAME TIME. Peace brings the refugees home, which appears to be something the Left resists because these refugees are part of the Left's destruction of the West.


Was President Trump Right About Sweden?


Was President Trump Right About Sweden?

By Thomas Wise

What's going on in Sweden?

According to the wonderful globalist media, not a thing.  Well, not really "not a thing."  Rapes and other crime rates are still up 25% since 2001.  The media, however, is not equating any lines on a graph with Muslim
immigrants or refugees, even though it's obvious that Sweden is suffering.

Sweden, of course, is not suffering alone.  Germany, France, Belgium, and other European nations are also experiencing disastrous culture clashes.  Taken as a whole, Europe is on fire. Literally.  So when Donald Trump tells us that Sweden has problems with Muslim immigrants, it is undeniable.

Yet the lying Fake News media can only say "a nation is baffled" (here) and "Sweden scratches its collective head" (here) in response as if nothing is happening.

This itself is not new or news.  The Fake News media regularly takes a portion of the news and angles it just right, and magnifies things disproportionately.  With Sweden, the Fake News is saying "There is no terrorist attack there."  Really? (Read this!)  "That was six years ago!"
I'm sorry, I did not realize there was a 5-6 year statute of limitations on
terrorist outrage.

Listen to what ABC says: Listen.  Our own American media goes to great lengths to disprove our President.  Something is rotten in Denmark!  Does the media have Stockholm Syndrome?  Is there enough terrorism and crime to pay penance for media guilt feelings for who-knows-what?  There is, however, an even BIGGER issue than whether the media is minimizing the facts.

The bigger issue is that the lying Fake News media is HIDING the facts!  (PROOF!)  This recent story EXPOSES that Fake News has been corrupting even FACTS about Sweden so that we cannot trust what we hear!  In the name of their agenda, or perhaps for the sake of pure evil, the facts on file are FAKED!

Wikileaks has exposed media in several nations that are in on the conspiracy to falsify facts.  Certainly, the result of such conspiracy is to protect Muslims and Islam.  We could go on all day theorizing why the lying media would do this, but the upshot is they ARE doing it!

If you look into Wikileaks' Twitter, you will see Wikileaks attacked by Leftists for exposing the truth!  This means Leftists are ALSO protecting Muslims.  Why?  We might say Leftists have made a choice, thrown the gay community to the wolves.  Why?  Islam holds power for Leftists; the gay community leverage is limited.  I hate to be blunt, but that is the truth: Islam has 1.5 billion adherents,  all, or almost all, of whom oppose homosexuality.  So the Leftist cannot actively promote BOTH at the same time, except if part of the homosexual community goes along with it.

Without going too much further into this, the result is a whitewash of the news for the sake of Islam.  There is little else that can be said.  Sure, the Left HATES Donald Trump, so to smear him by denying facts regarding
Muslims in Sweden is convenient.  On the other hand, it only hurts Sweden, that country held up for so long by the Left and Bernie Sanders as paradise itself! So Sweden, and what it means for socialists, has also been sacrificed for the sake of Islam.

At the foundation of any investigation into Swedish crime rates, one must rely on facts.  However, the facts on file are, according to Wikileaks, corrupt.  Therefore, any argument we might make against Muslims in Sweden is cut down INTENTIONALLY before the argument begins!  Donald Trump is correct: there IS a Muslim crime problem in Sweden (and elsewhere).  However, since the criminal media and their cohorts have corrupted the facts, it is hard to make the case stick.  On top of that, anyone who says the facts have been corrupted is branded a "conspiracy theorist."

Even so, one day after the Fake News media smeared President Trump, at least one Muslim riot broke out in Sweden: HERE.  Strangely, Leftists are justifying this riot.

"Oh, you cannot judge the whole group by one riot."   "What about all the times they DIDN'T riot?"  Excuse me??  When confronted by facts which have not been corrupted, Leftists still corrupt the ethics and morals of it.
All things are permitted for the sake of Leftism, but those same things,
and far less, are forbidden for conservatism.

Finally, just in case you think I'm exaggerating about a cover-up, WATCH this Swedish ambassador lie to Tucker Carlson.  Truly, we live in bizarre times.

Putin Hacking Off France?

Putin Hacking Off France?

By Thomas Wise

CNN reported yesterday that the French election was under scrutiny for Russian hacking (Read more here). They reported this breathlessly as if it were fact. They spoke of past Russian hacking of a television station as if this were not only 100% proven but also far-reaching (Read more here). No mentions of any other nation or group as possibly hacking the French election were made (Read more here). It was a foregone conclusion to CNN that Marine LePen's victory would be due to Russian intervention into the free elections of France. If any notion that anti-globalism was at the root of a LePen win, anti-globalism itself must be caused by Vladimir Putin. So let's examine that.

Whenever an election is questioned as being illegitimate, there ought to be some sensible accusation. In the United States, voter fraud is as easily proved as reading the morning paper (Read more here). Non-citizens voting is not a new thing, nor should it be dismissed as a fantasy. In fact, the Democrats DEMAND it! Why should it come as a surprise that they would also facilitate it?  Not only this, but Democrats frequently accuse Republicans of obstructionism when a Voter ID is demanded, saying it is racist, among other things. This too, they say, is a form of voter fraud.  Furthermore, all manner of people think setting district lines through parties is gerrymandering votes, and that either American party can rig voting machines. So let us not pretend that voter fraud is the sphere of just foreign entities, or specifically the Russians.

The Russians are just a convenient excuse for one party to blame the other for its loss. The mere fact that Putin is blamed in advance probably means the globalists fear the anti-globalist LePen will win. The all-powerful Vladimir Putin, who Jill Stein said hacked the American elections, is now in full control, apparently, of the French elections too. But wait!

If they KNOW that Russian hacking is imminent, why are they allowing it to happen? Rather than crying over a loss which hasn't yet occurred, why not check all the machines NOW, institute stringent voter ID laws, demand hand-counts, and so forth? This is a good question which is not being asked! Rather than examining HOW Putin and the Russians will steal the French election away from the globalists, should we not be examining how to PREVENT such a hack? No, that would be too easy! In fact, refraining from such investigation is evidence that the globalists themselves must be up to some thievery. An Investigation would out THEM. Am I extrapolating? What other explanation is there for SAYING Russia will hack but doing nothing about it?

Now, what about those globalists? Can we say that LePen's opponents are globalists? Considering that she considers herself an anti-globalist, and considering the vast online movement against her, which consists mainly of globalists, such as communists, Muslims, and New World Order corporate types, a resounding YES! Globalists DO oppose the anti-globalist LePen. Communists do oppose the anti-communist LePen. Muslim supremacists do oppose the anti-refugee LePen. Other groups, such as self-righteous Christians and anti-nationalists, also oppose LePen, but these are merely bleeding-heart "useful idiots" for the world supremacists. So isn't it interesting that the globalists are now saying LEPEN is the globalist (Read more here)!

While it is important to be informed, it is equally important to know what a fact is and what a fact is not. Unfortunately, due to the agendas of the various factions, including the globalists and anti-globalists, we are bombarded with propaganda daily. I cannot even assure you that the research I do and the facts I present are not tilted or omitting things. However, in the case of supposed Russian hacking of the French election, there is one overt logic problem: if the French government KNOWS there is a hacking problem, why are they not simply ELIMINATING the problem with better cyber-security and better voting mechanics?  Why are they expending so much energy trying to advertise that they HAVE a problem? I think the answer is self-evident.

Follow me on Twitter


World Was 3

WORLD WAR 3 - Isn't That Nice?

By Thomas Wise

On Monday, Jan 30, 2017, Yemeni Houthi "rebels" took three bomb-laden small boats and smashed into a Saudi Arabian frigate in the Red Sea, off the coast of Yemen. Two Saudis died and three were wounded.

According to Fox News, the suicide-bombing jihadists shouted, in Arabic, "Allahu akbar, death to America, death to Israel, a curse on the Jews and victory for Islam." All of a sudden, there are whispers that World War III has begun. Why?

Apparently, that generic radical Islamic war-cry means this attack was meant for a U.S. warship. Why?

Apparently, the so-called "Muslim ban" initiated through President Donald Trump's Executive Order has set off outrage to such a degree that Islamic radicals are now attempting to kill Americans. Why?

Apparently, the Executive Order which calls for identification and some vetting of people traveling to the United States from seven Islamic countries is too much to bear. The shock, the dismay, the disappointment, the oppression, of the Islamic people! Why?

Apparently, everything was going along swimmingly until President Trump came along. OK, let's hold on just a minute here!

First of all, jihadists have been bombing American targets for decades. "The USS Cole bombing was a terrorist attack against the United States Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Cole on 12 October 2000, while it was being refueled in Yemen's Aden harbor" (quoted from Wikipedia). This was during Bill Clinton's presidency, when also the US Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, was bombed (Aug 07, 1998). Oh, and let's not forget that Osama bin Laden's FIRST attack on the World Trade Center ALSO came under Bill Clinton's watch (Feb 26, 1993).

So let us please dispense with the idea that jihadists began their attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, or that they especially hate Republicans. They hate America, as is evident from their war-cry.

Second, in 2016 Barack Obama directed the dropping of 26,171 bombs, of which 12,192 fell on Syria, 12,095 fell on Iraq, 496 fell on Libya, 35 fell on Yemen, and 14 fell on Somalia. None fell on Iran or Sudan. Apparently, Mr. Obama believed 5 of "Trump's 7 countries" constituted some sort of threat to America. In fact, Obama declared war on those five countries. Oh, we can parse words and deeds, but you don't bomb inside a country's borders unless you are at war with them.

What about Iran? We're not at war with them, are we? Here's the rub: Obama as President handed over to Iran billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets, and his blessing to continue enriching uranium. Again, we can parse words, whether that's the actual deal, whether it's a deal at all, and so forth, but our new President, Donald Trump, made it VERY clear that Obama's Iran deal was bad- REALLY bad. How bad?

This Daily Caller article (read here), does a good job explaining just how much damage Barack Obama did with his Iran deal. In fact, DURING the negotiations, the "supreme leader" of Iran, Khamenei, called Obama a liar and manipulator: "He accused Washington of holding negotiations with Iran only so it can influence the country and impose its demands, he said, according to state-run Press TV." (read more here)

So it's not as if Iran is a friend of the United States, nor is this a change in Iranian temperament or rhetoric due to Donald Trump. No, folks, Iran has been an enemy of the United States since at LEAST 1979, when they took the US embassy hostage. The so-called "Muslim ban" (which is neither) is not the match that "tipped over" Iran. It's just another excuse for Iran to do what it does best - spout death and destruction.

The Yemeni Houthis are Iran-backed (details here). This should not be a surprise to anyone who pays attention. Nevertheless, well-known Leftist apologist website Snopes published an article claiming that the number of Americans killed by citizens from the 7 countries in questions equals... ZERO (read more here). Yes, my friends, apparently no Americans were ever killed by Libyans, Somalians, Iraqis, Iranians, Sudanese, Yemenis, or Syrians. If I just say the word "Benghazi" the entire premise of Snopes and associated "journalists" is brought down. Even so, I can name many more episodes of deadly incidents. For example, read this CNS article regarding a Somali terrorist killing in Minnesota.

Yet, I don't have to cite any news articles. The State Department, in 2014, under Barack Obama, ALREADY named Iran, Sudan, and Syria as state sponsors of terror (read more here). In 2015, again under Obama, the State Dept reported (see report here) that Somalia is infiltrated by Al-Shabaab terrorists. The same report states: "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) remained the greatest threat globally, maintaining a formidable force in Iraq and Syria, including a large number of foreign terrorist fighters."

President Trump, as America's top cop, is not only ENTIRELY within his constitutional authority to exclude ANY person from entering the United States, but also has a DUTY to fully investigate ANY person entering from ANY place the State Department has deemed a hotbed of terrorism.

It should be very clear that anyone saying World War 3 is upon us due to a random terrorist attack, which is similar to many other terrorist attacks, is either naive or a propagandist.

It should be very clear that anyone saying President Trump's Executive Order inflames Muslims to terrorism is incoherent. If checking their identification causes them to perpetrate terrorism, his Order is more than reasonable.

It should be very clear that President Trump is CONTINUING the policies of counter-terrorism begun under former President Obama, except with much more vigor.

The key element of difference is the media, which is not only spotlighting Mr. Trump's every move but also deliberately twisting the facts to make Trump appear reckless.

There is nothing reckless in President Trump's Executive Order. There is, however, great recklessness in the media spewing its hatred towards our President as he does his damnedest to keep America safe.