Kit's Weekend Thoughts: Paris

This afternoon I went for a brief walk at a local park. When I came back to my apartment I checked Facebook and saw a message from my Mom asking if I knew about Paris. I replied "No" and went to google. At the top of the search was a headline mentioning several attacks in Paris and 35 dead with several held hostage at the Bataclan theater.

now, CNN has the death toll at 153, with over 100 of those occurring inside the theater, and, with over 50 seriously injured, that number is likely to go up. France has since been placed under a state of emergency and Paris has a mandatory curfew for the first time since 1944. We have some reports that a few of the gunmen at large while others say all were killed.

There is so much we as of yet do not know. While there is much in the news that ISIS was responsible, I must remind you that it is at times like this, in the midst of a chaotic event, that rumors fly. We have heard from some that it was carried out by ISIS, I have seen at least 3 different death tolls (120, 153, 158). We don't know if they were refugees or if they came from the cités around Paris. It will be at least 24 hours before we know much of the details of who was behind it, who the men were that carried it out, and the ultimate death toll.

What is clear is that this was not an attack by a deranged quack or a lonely duo of losers; this was well-planned and well-orchestrated terrorist attack. This was not Fort Hood, this was not Boston, this was Mumbai.

Some have said ISIS, if they were truly behind this, wants us to strike back. They want us to strike back. Well, in response to that sentiment I quote William T. Sherman:

"War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. Yon know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want; not a word of argument, not a sign of let up, no cave in till we are whipped or they are."

I will post updates as the story develops.

Update (9:58am): ISIS has claimed responsibility. LINK

Update (1037am): Death toll has been lowered to 127.

Update (2:49pm): Death toll now at 129, including 1 American. 352 injured, over 90 "critically". Arrests in Brussels.

Update (5:24pm): A good article on the topic and what France can do going forward, as well as the problems they face: LINK

Update (12: pm): Evening mass at Notre Dame (may be winding down), LINK* while French law enforcement hunt for a person involved.

*Yeah, it's a Russia Today affiliate, but it was the only one I could find. Sorry.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

You Are Not Charlie

Three thoughts today that have come to bother me lately.

(1) Je suis Charlie. You may have noticed dozens of celebrities lately wearing buttons or designer t-shirts with the French phrase “Je suis Charlie” upon them. Translated, this phrase means: I am Charlie. And the idea in wearing this phrase is to show the world that the wearing celebrity supports the French newspaper and its staff who were brutally assassinated by Islamic extremists last week. This bothers me. Why?

Because there is an intense egotistical, self-centeredness to this phrase, which lets the wearer inject themselves into the event in a way that never happened. Indeed, rather than just stating their support for one side or the other, this phrase goes further and suggests that the attack was an attack on the celebrity themselves... as if this had been an issue dear to the heart of the celebrity and that they themselves were involved in it to such a degree that they too share the same or similar danger/risk as the victims because of their pursuit of this cause.

Yet, this is bunk. These celebrities never were involved in this issue. They weren’t there on that fateful date. They never supported this newspaper or its mission publicly before this. They never once showed an ounce of courage against these killers. They never even took their own opportunities to make bold statements of a similar nature – to the contrary, these cowardly celebrities typically condemned the paper and others like it for being “provocative” to Islam. But suddenly, through the wearing of the one button, they are not only claiming that they support Charlie’s mission, but that they are part of it. Bullsh*t.

Even worse, many of these cowards are calling each other “brave” for taking this very easy stand.

Now, I know that some of you are thinking that I’m splitting hairs, but this really does bother me. It is one thing to state support, it is quite another to claim a similar status. Indeed, consider this: if a mother loses a child, would it be appropriate for me to wear a button saying this was my child too or does that not seem that I am injecting myself too personally into something where I have no right to claim to speak for that level of intimacy with the event. And then to act that this is brave when the celebrity has done nothing more than wear a mass produced button shows a blindness to the difference between taking a stand and cynically wanting the world to think you took a stand.

Further, there has been a fascinating related story making the rounds. Lots of liberals are suddenly upset at a new McDonald’s commercial in which the company shows sign after sign where franchises put up signs of support for various tragedies and outrages, everything from the simple “We support our troops” to well wishes for Katrina victims to signs related to 9/11. These liberals are upset that McDonalds is “exploiting” these events to sell products. Yet, at the same time, they think it’s brave for their fellow actors to wear “Je suis Charlie” signs to up their publicity quotient, even as they have never once done anything to defend freedom of speech or freedom of worship against Islamic extremism.

How hypocritical is that? McDonalds actually puts its money where its mouth is by donating money, goods and time, by letting soldiers eat free, through the Ronald McDonald House, etc. These celebrities by comparison have done nothing... or have even been on the wrong side. How twisted is it to see the fake and false “Je suis Charlie” button as courageous, but then to condemn the McDonald’s commercial as exploitive. That’s bunk.

(2) Raising Breast Cancer Awareness. A similar issue involves the delusional, self-centered idea of “raising awareness” of breast cancer (or other causes). Millions of people get together each year to do things they enjoy, like holding dinners or participating in charity walks, and they do them in the name of “raising awareness” so that they feel they have done something special. But they haven’t.

Seriously, is there anyone who needs their awareness of breast cancer or AIDS or homelessness raised? Does anyone not know what these things are? And if there is, will some schlub walking through a park actually give them the knowledge they are missing? Hardly.

Sometimes these events are connected to fundraising, which is a valid (i.e. useful) form of charity, but many are not. Many simply traffic in the delusional idea that the participant has done something worthy of praise merely by seeking to “raise awareness.” This is pathetic. It is again this self-centered impulse to inject oneself into a tragedy and to demand praise for working to solve the problem, when the reality is that all the person did was wear a ribbon or button that changed nothing. It is pure arrogance to draw attention to yourself as somehow having worked to fix something when all you did was have a good time which resulted in zero positive effects toward solving the problem.

(3) Carving Trees Is Not Cool. Finally, in a related note, there is a commercial that just makes my hypocrisy radar explode. The entire premise of the commercial is about two people going into the woods to find a tree upon which they carved their initials when they first fell in love. The idea is to revel in how cute and romantic a gesture this is and how happy it makes them to revisit what they did years later... as they enjoy the product (some granola snack) of course.

What bugs me here is that at the bottom of the screen, these good liberals commercial makers write the following: “Carving trees is not cool.”

See why I’m annoyed? Here you have liberals lecturing us that we should not be carving anything into trees because that is morally wrong. Yet, at the same time, they are using the romanticism of carving your initials into a tree to sell their product. This is just like Hollywood telling us that guns are evil but then using gun violence to sell their films... or claiming to support freedom of expression against Islamic terrorism when the same people will turn around and lecture us on being “provocative” by using that freedom of speech... or condemning McDonalds for showing its signs of support while calling celebrities brave for wearing buttons that serve the exact same purpose as those McDonald’s signs.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Drawing Has Never Killed Anyone

In light of the yesterday's terrorist attack in France, let's take a moment to reflect. Twelve people were killed including four well-known cartoonists at satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, who were in a staff meeting. These people spent their talents daring to satirize political leaders, religious leaders, and most importantly showed no fear satirizing Mohammed and Islam. Ironically, Stephane Charbonnier, editor in chief of Charlie Hebdo once quipped that "a drawing has never killed anyone." At this writing, the terrorist are still at large.

This isn't the first time I have written about cartoonists being targeted by Islamic terrorists Remember Molly Norris from her "Draw Mohammed Day" incident in 2010? Her call to pen was in response to a "South Park" episode that was scrapped by weak-kneed television executives who, maybe rightly, feared this kind of scenario.

To keep this all in perspective, here is list of terrorist attacks around the world since 2000. If you make to the bottom of this list, you may notice that attacks are only getting more frequent and the UN responds by declaring that the world must work to curtail...hate speech.

[Note: This list is from Wikipedia and contains only attacks or attempted attacks. There's another long list that contains potential attacks that were stopped before they could carry out any violence.]

2000

Yemen/United States
October 12, 2000 – Attack on the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden. 17 American sailors were killed, 39 injured.

Indonesia
December 24, 2000 – Christmas Eve 2000 Indonesia bombings of churches in eight cities, 18 killed.

2001

United States
September 11, 2001 – 4 planes hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda hijackers: two planes crashed into World Trade Center and one into the The Pentagon. Nearly 3000 dead.

India
December 13, 2001 – Suicide attack on Indian parliament in New Delhi by Pakistan-based Islamist terrorist organizations Jaish-E-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba, aimed at eliminating the top leadership of India and causing anarchy in the country. 7 dead, 12 injured.[12]

Indonesia
October 12, 2002 – 2002 Bali bombings in the tourist district of Kuta on the Indonesian island of Bali, killing 202 people and injuring 240.

2003

Indonesia
August 5, 2003 – 2003 Marriott Hotel bombing in Mega Kuningan, South Jakarta, Indonesia; suicide bomber detonated a car bomb outside the JW Marriott Jakarta lobby, killing 12 and injuring 150

Turkey
November 15–20, 2003 – 2003 Istanbul bombings, killed 57 people and wounded 700.

2004

Spain
March 11, 2004 – Madrid train bombings, killed 191 people and wounded 1,800.

Russia
September 1, 2004 – Beslan school hostage crisis, approximately 344 civilians including 186 children killed.
Indonesia

Australia
September 9, 2004 – 2004 Australian Embassy bombing in Jakarta, Indonesia; suicide bomber exploded a one-tonne car bomb, which was packed into a small Daihatsu delivery van, outside the Australian embassy at Kuningan District, South Jakarta killing 9 and injuring over 150

Netherlands
November 2, 2004 – The murder of Theo van Gogh by Amsterdam-born jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri.

2005

India
July 5, 2005 – Attack on the Hindu Ram temple in Ayodhya, India. 6 dead.

United Kingdom
July 7, 2005 – Multiple bombings in London Underground. 53 killed by four suicide bombers. Nearly 700 injured.

Egypt
July 23, 2005 – Bomb attacks at Sharm el-Sheikh, an Egyptian resort city, at least 64 people killed.

Indonesia
October 1, 2005 – 2005 Bali bombings in Jimbaran & Kuta, Bali, Indonesia; a series of bombings kills at least 20 and injures over 100.

India
October 29, 2005 – 2005 Delhi bombings, India. Over 60 killed and over 180 injured in a series of three attacks in crowded markets and a bus.

Jordan
November 9, 2005 – 2005 Amman bombings. a series of coordinated suicide attacks on hotels in Amman, Jordan. Over 60 killed and 115 injured. Four attackers including a husband and wife team were involved.

2006

India
July 11, 2006 – 2006 Mumbai train bombings, Mumbai. Seven bomb blasts over a period of 11 minutes on the Suburban Railway in Mumbai. 209 killed and over 700 injured.

2007

United Kingdom
February 1, 2007 – The 2007 plot to behead a British Muslim soldier – A group of British Pakistanis in Birmingham, England planned to kidnap and behead a British Muslim soldier in order to undermine the morale of the British Army and inhibit recruitment of Muslims.

Iraq
August 14, 2007 – Qahtaniya bombings. Dour suicide vehicle bombings in two predominantly Yazidi towns in northern Iraq. 796 killed, 1,562 wounded.

2008

India
July 26, 2008 – 2008 Ahmedabad bombings. 56 dead, over 200 injured.

India
September 13, 2008 – Bombing series in Delhi, India. Pakistani extremist groups plant bombs at several places including India Gate, out of which the ones at Karol Bagh, Connaught Place and Greater Kailash explode leaving around 30 people dead and 130 injured, followed by another attack two weeks later at the congested Mehrauli area, leaving 3 people dead.

India
November 26, 2008 – Muslim extremists kill at least 166 people and wound numerous others in a series of coordinated attacks on India's financial capital, Mumbai. The government of India blamed Pakistan based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba and stated that the terrorists killed/caught were citizens of Pakistan, a claim which the Pakistani government first refused but then accepted when given proof. Ajmal Kasab, one of the terrorists, was caught alive.

2009

Somalia
June 18, 2009 – 2009 Beledweyne bombing by Al-Shabaab. 35 dead.

Indonesia
July 17, 2009 – 2009 Marriott and Ritz-Carlton Hotels bombing in Mega Kuningan, South Jakarta, Indonesia; suicide bombers hit the Marriott and 5 minutes later the Ritz-Carlton. 9 killed and 53 injured

United States
November 5, 2009 – Fort Hood shooting, at Fort Hood near Killeen, Texas. 13 dead, 33 injured.

United States
December 23, 2009 - Abdul Farook Abdulmutallab was arrested after Northwest Airlines passengers jumped him to avoid his detonating an explosive device above the city of Detroit.

2010

Russia
March 29, 2010 - Moscow Metro bombings. 40 dead, 102 injured. Caucasus Emirate claimed responsibility.

United States
May 1, 2010 – 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt, New York, New York, USA. Faisal Shahzad, an Islamic Pakistani American who received an American citizenship in December 2009, attempted to detonate a car bomb in Times Square working with the Pakistani Taliban or Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan.

Pakistan
May 28, 2010 – Attacks on Ahmadi Mosques Lahore, Pakistan. Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan claimed attacks on two mosques simultaneously belonging to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, killing nearly 100 and injuring many others.

India
December 7, 2010 – 2010 Varanasi bombing, India. 2 dead, 37 injured.

Sweden
December 10, 2010 – 2010 Stockholm bombing, Sweden. killing the bomber and injuring two people.

2011

Russia
January 21, 2011 - Domodedovo International Airport bombing. 37 killed, 173 wounded.

Germany
March 2, 2011 – 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting, Frankfurt, Germany. 2 dead, 2 injured.

China
July 18, 2011 – 2011 Hotan attack, Hotan, China. A group of 18 young Uyghur men who opposed the local government's campaign against the full-face Islamic veil perpetrated a series of coordinated bomb and knife attacks and occupied a police station on Nuerbage Street, killing two security guards and taking eight hostages. The attackers yelled religious slogans, including ones associated with Jihadism.

Nigeria
December 25, 2011 - Christmas Day bombings were bomb blasts and shootings at churches in Madalla, Jos, Gadaka, and Damaturu. Over 41 people are reported dead.[33]

2012

Iraq
January 5, 2012 Iraq bombings, Baghdad and Nasiriyah, Iraq by Islamic State of Iraq. 73 dead, 149 injured.

Iraq
February 23, 2012 Iraq attacks, Baghdad, Iraq by Islamic State of Iraq. 83 dead, 250+ injured.

Iraq
March 20, 2012 Iraq attacks, Baghdad and at least 9 other cities, Iraq. 52 dead, ~ 250 injured.

France
March 20, 2012 – Toulouse and Montauban shootings in France. 7 dead, 5 injured.

Russia
May 3, 2012 - Makhachkala attack. 14 dead, including 2 suicide bombers, 130 wounded.

Libya/United States
September 11, 2012 – 2012 Benghazi attack on the U.S. Consulate. 4 dead, 11 injured.

2013

India
February 21, 2013. – 2013 Hyderabad blasts, two bomb blasts killed 16 people and injured 119.

United States
April 15, 2013. – Boston Marathon bombings. Two brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnev, planted two bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The blast killed 3 and injured 183 others. [Trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnev began on Monday in Boston]

Turkey
May 11, 2013 – Reyhanlı bombings, killed 52 people and wounded 140.

United Kingdom
May 22, 2013 – Two men with cleavers kill British soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich.[36][37]

Syria
August, 2014. - Islamic State fighters massacred some 700 people, mostly men, of the Shu'aytat tribe in Deir ez-Zor Governorate.[38]

Kenya
September 21, 2013 – Westgate shopping mall attack, 67 killed, 175 wounded.

Pakistan
September 22, 2013 – Peshawar church attack, 80-83 killed, 250 wounded.

Nigeria
September 29, 2013. - Gujba college massacre. 44 students killed by Boko Haram

2014

Nigeria
February 14, 2014. - Borno Massacre at lest 200 killed by Boko Haram[43]

Nigeria
May 20, 2014. - Jos bombings at least 118 killed and over 56 injured[44]

Belgium
May 24, 2014. - Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting. Gunman opened fire at the Jewish Museum in Brussels killing 4 people.

Australia
September 23, 2014. – 2014 Endeavour Hills stabbings. Numan Haider, an Afghan Australian stabbed two counter terrorism officers in Melbourne, Australia. He was then shot dead.

Russia
October 5, 2014 - 2014 Grozny bombing. 5 officers and the suicide bomber, were killed, while 12 others were wounded.

Canada
October 22, 2014 – 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa. Lone attacker shot a soldier at a war memorial and attacked Parliament.

United States
October 23, 2014. – Zale H. Thomson, also known as Zaim Farouq Abdul-Malik, attacked four New York policemen in the subway with a hatchet, severely injuring one in the back of the head and injuring another policeman in the arm before being shot to death by the remaining officers, who also shot a bystander.

Nigeria
November 28, 2014. - Kano bombing. Around 120 people were killed and another 260 injured.

Russia
December 4, 2014. - 2014 Grozny clashes. 26 total dead, including 14 policemen, 11 Jihadist from Caucasus Emirate, 1 civilian

Australia
December 15, 2014. – 2014 Sydney hostage crisis.[disputed – discuss] 2 dead, 4 injured.

Pakistan
December 16, 2014. – 2014 Peshawar school attack. Over 140 people dead, including at least 132 children.

Yemen
December 16, 2014. - Two suicide car bombers rammed their vehicles into a Shiite rebels' checkpoint killing 26, including 16 students.

Nigeria
December 18, 2014. - 2014 Gumsuri kidnappings. Boko Haram insurgents killed 32 people and kidnapped at least 185 women and children.

Syria
December 18, 2014. - Mass grave of 230 Tribesmen killed by Islamic State found in Eastern Syria.

Nigeria
December 22, 2014. – Boko Haram insurgents bombed a bus station in the city of Gombe, killing at least twenty people.

Iraq
December, 2014. - Islamic State militants execute 150 women Iraqi province of Al-Anbar, some of whom were pregnant at the time, who refuse to marry their fighters.

Iraq
December 24, 2014. - A suicide bomber killed 33 people and wounded 55 others in Madaen, about 25 km (15 miles) south of Baghdad.

Somalia
December 25, 2014. - Al-Shabaab (militant group) attack in Mogadishu leaves 9 dead.

Cameroon
December 28, 2014. - Boko Haram attacks village in Cameroon leaving 30 dead.

2015
France
January 7, 2015. - At least 12 killed in shooting at office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, Paris.

Any questions?

***UPDATE***: Here is an Op/Ed by Ayaan Hirisi Ali Our Duty Is To Keep Charlie Hebdo Alive that was published on The Daily Beast. If you don't know about her, read up. She is truly an inspiring woman. Most recently, Brandeis University cancelled their plans to give her an honorary degree and revoked their invitation to speak at their commencement because they "...cannot overlook that certain of her past statements are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values." After reading this article by Ms Ali, I wonder just exactly what those "core values" might be? Incidentally, DB has also published all of the offending cartoons.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

ISIL = Worse Than Hitler

It seems that things are about to blow up with regard to ISIS or ISIL or whatever they want to call themselves. So we should probably talk about them. Here are my thoughts.

● Islam Is The Root Cause: It’s funny how liberals love talking about root causes when it comes to crime or domestic violence or poverty, but somehow it’s anathema and racist to talk about it when it comes to Islamic terrorism. ISIL like al Qaeda and the thousands of other Islamic terrorist groups have continued to show that Islam breeds terrorists. There is no denying this. Hundreds of thousands of Islamists have joined these groups with the intention of hurting, killing and maiming innocent and unsuspecting people all in the name of spreading Islam by fear and force.

● Backing Into A Corner: Team Obama is really backing themselves into a corner on this ISIL issue. For years now, they have denied that al Qaeda or Iran or anything else really poses any threat to the United States or her people. Yet, this past week, various Obama team members, including Defense Secretary Hagel, played up ISIL as “something we’ve never seen before” and “more dangerous than al Qaeda.”

This is bizarre. Team Obama are literally backing themselves into a corner where they will have no choice but to start a ground war to eliminate ISIL. Indeed, it’s impossible for Obama to make ISIL out as an existential threat to the United States and the free world and then do nothing about them. And don’t forget, this isn’t a group he can sanction with any credibility.

● Elitist Priorities: It’s funny to me that the left always attacked Bush and Bush and Reagan for not caring about “real” people but instead only acting when the interests of their friends were at stake. So what are we supposed to make of this? Until ISIL decided to kill a journalist, Team Obama completely downplayed the threat from ISIL. Sure, they had taken over 1/3 of Iraq and a good chunk of Syria, but they were nothing but a group of thugs who would soon fail once the Iraqis got their act together. This wasn’t our problem.

Then they killed a journalist... a sacred journalist... and suddenly Team Obama springs into action: “This is an outrage! This is unheard of! They’re worse than Hitler!” What kind of statement is that? “Gee, so sorry all you dead Iraqi Christians and you wrong kind of Muslims, sorry all you girls who lost your human rights, but all of you together do not add up to the worth of the life of a single journalist.” This is what caring about real people is supposed to look like?

● Stop With The Money: One of the things Hagel said was that ISIL is better at fund raising than al Qaeda ever was. He links their funding to their threat level. As I’ve pointed out many times before, I find this to be intensely stupid thinking. It doesn’t take money to be a great terrorist. I can cause more chaos in this country than al Qaeda ever did with just a good set of tools. This idea that it takes money to rain destruction on a country is silly

● Cover-Up: Finally, I don’t think ISIL is any worse than al Qaeda, but I think Team Obama is pushing this line because he doesn’t want to be the president who let Iraq become a failed terrorist state. Hence, he’s planning to send in the troops. And the only way he thinks he can justify that while still pretending that Bush’s invasion was inappropriate it to pretend that something bigger and more dangerous has invaded Iraq than what caused Bush to go to war in Iraq. Ergo, his decision was smart and justified whereas Bush was being stupid.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Our "Elite" Enable Terrorism

The Boston bombing is frustrating on many levels. For one thing, it’s obviously frustrating that people were hurt or killed and that lives have been disrupted. Yes, people die every day, but it’s frustrating that this was done intentionally. What’s really frustrating, however, is that so many of our chattering/political class seem intent on giving these terrorists exactly what they need.

Terrorism is an act of impotence. Essentially, there are two types of people who commit terror. The first group is the impotent loner. This is someone who is so pathetic and insignificant that they decide the only way to make themselves into a complete person is to commit some act of heinous violence so the world finally pays attention to them. These weirdos are usually shooters.

The other type is the radical. This is someone without the brains or muscle to sway the public to their cause and without the courage to stand up publicly for a cause they think is right. In effect, they are impotent to create the change they want and they think that if they can kill enough people, then the world will take them seriously and will bend to their will.

What both groups have in common is a screaming NEED for recognition. They NEED the public to take an interest in them. The impotent loner gets off on the attention. To him, this is the moment that he enters the history books, the moment where he becomes something special instead of a nobody. These losers revel in the attention – good or bad, because it gives them what they need. . . it gives their lives significance. The other group needs the public’s attention too. They need the public to hear about their pathetic cause, be it some idiotic black-helicopter cult that thinks it stands for freedom or some gutter-religion that somehow thinks their flying spaghetti monster told them to kill non-believers. They need the public to acknowledge them and to fear them.

This is what they have in common. Without attention, they are nothing.

So what does this tell us? It tells us that the only way to fight terrorism is to deny terrorists the one thing that makes it worthwhile: attention. Indeed, it is a law of human nature that people don’t do things they don’t think will give them what they want. So to stop conduct, you take away the benefit. This works with kids, it works with dogs, it works with everyone.

Unfortunately, this is where things go wrong. In our modern media world, the chattering class loves to exploit terrorism for their own gain. Within minutes of the bombing, journalists are salivating at the opportunity to throw out crocodile tears to earn ratings. “Good God! There could be a Pulitzer if I find the right words!!!” They can’t get enough. The papers, the radio, the television all go into uber-coverage mode. Every detail must be revealed, analyzed and speculated over a million times. “Oh... what does this all mean?!!!”

Then the political savages get started. The conspiracy nuts spread their poison to make themselves feel important too. Meanwhile, the Chris Mathewses of the world try to use the event to smear groups they don’t like. “Must be the Tea Party!!!” The Democrats actually called a press conference to blame the Boston bombing on sequester. At least none of them tried to wear a bloody shirt this time. The conservative chatterers are no better. They start pointing fingers at Islamic terrorism within seconds. Soon the left and the right are hacking away at each other, with both giving all the terrorists of the world. . . exactly. . . what. . . they. . . want: attention and significance. Suddenly, the impotent terrorist isn’t really so impotent because the whole world seems to be dancing to their tune.

These enablers even do stories pointing fingers at other people for encouraging terrorism.

Then comes the next wave. This is when everyone cancels events and holds vigils and does entire shows dedicated to talking about the horror of these events and how the world has changed. This is when bloggers and talk radio hosts and whatnot demonstrate how impotent they are against the terrorists by struggling to find ways to express how helpless they feel. Sure, they talk about being resolute, but their words ring “helpless.” This is the moment the impotent terrorists realize their power as they see the helplessness of their victims.

Finally, we get a break in the case. We find out who did it! Woo hoo! It’s time to really exploit this sucker! Journalist after journalist will dive right in. They will splash the name of the impotent fools all over the news. They will analyze everything they did and why they did it. They will repeat manifestos and lists of demands and will carefully explain why we should all care about this weirdo’s cause -- often with a fake disclaimer that they don’t endorse the manifesto they are publicizing. This completes the cycle. This immortalizes the impotent-loner or the forgotten-causer. For a brief moment, their pathetic, impotent little cause is the most important story on Earth, and their names now sit next to Jesus, Caesar, Hitler, and Reagan in the history books. And the only reason that happened is because our media and our political class are so determined to play right into the terrorists’ hands.

This is the problem.

If you want to stop terrorism, you deny them the benefit of being terrorists. You don’t spend time dwelling on what happened. You never explain why they did what they did. You never tell the world their names. You make it impossible for these impotent little pricks to find satisfaction through terror and you let them die unknown. That deprives them of everything they were after.

Unfortunately, our entire chattering class is determined to do its damnedest to help these people succeed. They are to blame here.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Drones And Our Warlord In Chief

When Bush was in office, the left screamed that Bush’s use of drones was a “war crime.” When Obama took over, the left became strangely silent on this issue, as well as all the other issues that they considered “war crimes” when Bush did them. Let’s talk about Obama’s foreign policy generally and why there is good reason to be upset at Obama’s use of drones.

Let me start by pointing out the hypocrisy here. When Obama first ran for office, he ran on opposition to the invasion of Iraq. He also opposed Bush’s use of secret C.I.A. prisons and the warrantless surveillance of the Patriot Act. He attacked Bush for denying Guantanamo Bay detainees civil rights, and he promised to close the facility. He said he would ban “harsh interrogation techniques.” And many on the left, though I don’t recall Obama saying this specifically, really hated the use of drones and wanted it stopped. And he spoke of having a humbler foreign policy.

Well, Obama took over and lo and behold, he did none of this – except ban waterboarding. To the contrary, Obama became uber-Bush. His Justice Department tried to strip the Gitmo detainees of person status, in violation of the Constitution and international law. His Justice Department decided that military tribunals rather than civilian courts were just fine. And now, his Justice Department has not only decided that drones are cool, but they’re way cool and they should be used with reckless abandon.

The left has remained completely silent on these points, just as they cheered when he tried to bully Honduras (after saying we needed to stop interfering in Central America), just as they cheered when he sent troops to kill pirates, to fight rebels in Africa, to bomb terrorists in Somalia and Yemen, and to basically fight a Laos-type war in Pakistan, just as they pounded their chests when he bombed Libya, just as they are now screaming for him to bomb Syria. This is all the things the left hated about Bush, only on steroids. As an aside, they also used to fight things like land mines and the use of depleted uranium in shells... until Obama took over, now they’re cool.

Now get this, this is rich. When the Justice Department issued their memo on drones the other day, the left finally decided they need to say something. Said some ACLU hack:

“That memo coming out, I think, was a wake-up call. These last few days, it was like being back in the Bush days. It’s causing a lot of cognitive dissonance for a lot of people. It’s not the President Obama they thought they knew.”

Cognitive dissonance my smoking rear end... try willful collaboration. You’d have to be willfully blind to somehow fail to see what Obama has been doing for four years and to only now understand that Obama=Bush.

Anyway, here’s the deal with drones.

First, the problem I’ve had with the left on this issue is that there is no logic to their reasoning. Leftists have opposed drones on principle, and the reason seems to be that they don’t like the idea of the American military killing someone without those people getting a chance to kill American soldiers. This is what they are saying when they whine about wars being fought by “remote control.” This is bull. There is no logic to this whatsoever, nor is there any morality to this. The idea that it’s only acceptable to kill someone if you endanger yourself in the process is, frankly, retarded thinking. And I think it comes from their anti-American sentiment in that they don’t want the American military to be able to fight without suffering casualties. This is as stupid as arguing that soldiers shouldn’t be allowed to use guns because it’s too easy to kill someone with a gun before they have a chance to try to knife you, and it’s immoral to argue that if we are going to go to war, then we need to take proportional causalities.

Over time, they’ve added a new strain to the anti-drone argument. This one holds that the problem with drones is that they are “indiscriminate.” This is, of course, nonsense. The US is not flying drones that are out there picking their own targets and fighting a war without human input. That’s the science fiction view, not the reality. And it doesn’t take a human pilot to be able to identify the targets that will be hit. So again, this is stupid.

Then they came up with the idea that drone strikes are evil because they are depriving terrorists of their constitutional rights. Only, they have no such rights. So the left hunted around until they found some dead terrorist with American citizenship and they claimed, “see, Bush is killing Americans with drones without due process.” The counter to this is, of course, that when you engage in armed combat against America, you really have no rights. Sadly for the left, however, before this issue caught on, Obama took over and they had to shut up for fear of hurting the image of their Warrior in Chief. So the issue went away.

BUT... now we come to what Obama is doing, and this is where the problem arises. Not only has Obama’s Justice Department decided that killing Americans is fine, but they went further. They decided that something called “signature strikes” are fine. Signature strikes are the racial profiling of the terrorism world. Basically, the CIA is allowed to blow you up if you engage in conduct that appears to be terrorism related even if it doesn’t have a clue who you are. In other words, Obama is letting the CIA blow people up because they are doing things that fit the profile of terrorist without any idea of who these people are or what they are doing. That actually is a violation of international law which doesn’t let you target non-combatants.

So the question now is, will the left stand by their supposed principles (fat chance) or will they continue their deafening silence to support Obama? To give you a sense, feminists haven’t said word one about the massive gender-based pay disparities in the White House, gays stayed silent for four years about Obama’s lack of support for gay marriage, environmentalists still won’t admit that Obama sold them out in Copenhagen, etc. etc.

I think conservatives need to turn up the heat here. Rand Paul is doing this and I’d like to see others do it too. Obama gets away with talking self-righteously but acting the opposite. It’s time to put an end to that. Make him choose... expose his left flank. Don’t think that by remaining silent, you will leave the door open for the next Republican president to do the same... the left doesn’t work that way.

Finally, there’s an interesting point someone made the other day which is worth tossing into the discussion. The thinking is that the reason Obama is using massive numbers of drone attacks is purely political: he wants to avoid capturing terrorists because he doesn’t want to deal with the headaches created by his rhetoric. Basically, he doesn’t know what to do with them, where to put them, or how to keep them without trying them, because his rhetoric wiped out all the options. Nor does he want to deal with the possibility of being in charge when a terrorist attack happens and people find out it could have been prevented if his administration had actually questioned the people they caught. Thus, he thinks it’s safer to kill them all. Interesting. Maybe they should have waited on that Nobel Peace Prize?

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Not Again....

Boy, the Arab Spring is really the gift that keeps on giving, isn't it? It's time for one more headache in that great arid part of the world--and also one more nail in the coffin for poor neoconservatism and its friends.

Welcome to Mali, home of sand, poverty and forgettable Matthew McConaughey movies. If you don't remember hearing anything out of this North African nation in--well--ever, that's okay; most people aren't even aware of its existence. But thanks to the unpredictability of foreign policy, we may have to start paying attention.

In a nutshell, here's what's happening: In the past four years, the U.S. has been heavily involved in counterterrorism work in Mali and other Saharan countries, providing military training and equipment to their armed forces. These armed forces, theoretically, could then do our job for us, keeping out Islamic terrorists in these nations without requiring a direct military presence on our part. As so many things do, it probably seemed like a great idea at the time. So what's the situation now? Well, a revolt has broken out in the north, a revolt which is both gaining steam and has fallen under the control of said Islamic militants, namely Al-Qaeda and assorted other jihadist groups, which is always fun--especially since some of the army officers who received our military aid defected to their side. To make things worse, another of those army officers we just invested time and money training took it upon himself to overthrow the government and establish authoritarian rule. So the choice now is between a strong-arming tyrant in the capital and rebels proclaiming a mixture of democracy and radical Islamism. Is this ringing any bells?

As usual, there's all kinds of potential geopolitical ramifications at work. A success by Al-Qaeda and company in taking over Mali, or even in carving out a chunk of territory, would firmly establish Islamic terrorists in North Africa, creating a whole new front next to Libya and Egypt, which will become so much more stable as a result. As for what the U.S. has been doing in response, we've already pledged to send drones in to help out the government and the French, who have sent in a handful of ground troops and are being their typical effectual selves. Where our involvement goes from there is anyone's guess, but more importantly, the whole episode is another argument against such an involved foreign policy.

While I still don't like to knock Bush too much for how the War on Terror played out, it is undeniable that the goal of retaliation against our enemies became badly entwined with the dubious aim of "building democracy" in the Middle East. We saw it in Iraq, we've seen it in Obama's interventionist policy in the Arab Spring, and now it appears we may see some form of it in North Africa. The idea--under both Bush and Obama--has been to establish and safeguard democracy in the Arab world, partly because it's the "right thing to do" and partly because it serves our interests. There are any number of reasons why this has been coming back to bite us, but the main one is this: However popular it is or isn't, a democracy/republic/constitutional government can not simply be called into being one day. It's something that has to evolve over decades, even centuries. The West doesn't have such a form of government because of its religion or culture or superior technology (although those didn't hurt); it developed democracy after long periods of interaction and competition between elements of society. I can't write an essay on it, but the point is that you have to work with the political culture and structures you find, not simply create carbon copies of whatever the U.S. has. No one in Washington, Republican or Democrat, seems to understand that, and we keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

Bottom line: I'm becoming more and more sympathetic to the idea that we ought to end our foreign involvement in its current form altogether. In a fight between authoritarian rulers and Islamist democrats, what's the scenario where we win? I don't see a way out of it. Maybe these areas are best left alone.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Thoughts On The Middle East

This has been an interesting couple weeks in the Middle East. Israel attacked Hamas in Gaza. A peace deal was reached. Meanwhile, Egypt erupted into chaos, but that appears to have stopped. And then the UN recognized Palestine as kind of sort of similar to a state. Should we be worried? Actually, no.

Issue One: Stop Shooting! Get Him!

When Israel started sending Hamasters to meet their virgins, the President of Egypt jumped right in and did his best to negotiate a ceasefire. For those who don’t know, this dude’s name is Mohammed Morsi, and he’s from the Muslim Brotherhood, who dominate the Egyptian government. No sooner did Morsi arrange a ceasefire than the head of the Muslim Brotherhood condemned the ceasefire. This freaked out Team Obama, who issued a sternly worded letter.

What does this mean? Believe it or not, it’s probably a good thing.

Look, when the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt, I wasn’t worried. A lot of conservatives were worried because they don’t really understand what the Muslim Brotherhood is. They see them as an arm of al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization and they never bothered to learn their history. Liberals weren’t worried at first because they saw the Arab Spring as all unicorn poo and fairy dust. They wanted to believe that now that the oppressive dictators were gone, the Muslim people (who we know are just like liberals everywhere) would create a peaceful democratic government that would usher in a utopia. But then liberals changed their minds once the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t turn out as cuddly as they seemed. So now they’re worried too. Everyone is worried. . . except me.

History and human nature tell us that there is a huge difference between the way people speak when they have no responsibilities and how they act when they are actually given power. Bill Shakespeare picked up on this in “Henry V” when Hal’s friends are shocked to discover that the playful, irresponsible drunk they knew suddenly morphs into a joyless, serious King. It’s human nature. With power comes responsibility. And once you take over a government you suddenly discover that it’s not all “kill the infidels” anymore.... it becomes, why wasn’t my garbage picked up... do something about crime... there ain’t no jobs. At the same time, you pretty quickly learn that you can’t really go angering the Great Satan because Uncle Satan gives you billions of dollars a year which keep your economy from going down the Khomeini. And about wiping out those dirty Jews... well, let’s just say it gets a little harder when you know the Jews plan to bomb your house first in retaliation.

What’s going on here is that the Muslim Brotherhood has done exactly what history, and their history, suggests they would. They took over the government and they intend to govern. This is what they’ve done in other countries where they’ve been the loyal (non-loony) opposition. This is what they said they would do when they swore off violence. This is what revolutionary movements almost always do. And them negotiating a cease fire is evidence they want to become a respectable government.

“But they still condemned the ceasefire!” Yeah, so? This actually gives me even more hope, quite frankly. Think about this for a moment. Think about how cynical this is. This is the Muslim Brotherhood making a choice to ACT responsibly while cynically lying to their followers to maintain the image of being irresponsible. Does that remind you of anyone? That’s right, they’re the Democratic Party in pyramid print. What this means is that they grasp the difference between rhetoric and action and they have chosen the path of making the world happy, not their followers. That is a great sign.

Moreover, the statement they issued to their followers has a laughable caveat. They state that, yes, the evil Jews must die, but not today... not today... we shouldn’t even try to fight them until “all the Arabs are unified.” Wink wink. That will never happen.

Seriously, pay attention to the cynicism. This is how a revolutionary party becomes a respectable government without losing its supporters. This is how China can be both deeply communist and deeply capitalist. It’s intensely cynical, but it also gives me hope that they’ve made their choice and they want to steer Egypt away from the Irans and the al Qaedas.

Issue Two: I Am Your Pharaoh, Beeeatches!

The more interesting (read: more disturbing) issue happened while Morsi was making peace between the infidels and the Hamasters. When no one was looking, Morsi issued a decree which allowed him to re-try anyone for any crime committed prior to his taking power from Mubarak. Within this decree was a pardon for everyone on the winning side. It also held that any decrees Morsi issues from now on will be unappealable. In other words, rule of law is dead.

This resulted in a serious backlash from any number of groups, with the Supreme Court itself calling for strikes. People are saying he made himself into a modern Pharaoh and they point out that this is more power than even the evil dictator Mubarak had. Should we be worried? No. Honestly, this strikes me as a win-win-win for us.

● Scenario one: he becomes an evil despot and the people hate him. We win in that regard because it destroys the credibility of Islamic movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. No longer will the reason for the people’s suffering be this fake claim that an American imposed dictator is making them suffer, this time it will be someone they chose themselves. That takes us a step closer to ending our role as permanent scapegoat.

● Scenario two: he becomes a benign despot and uses his power to impose needed reforms. Again, we win because Egypt would become less of a basket case. And the more middle class they become, the less dangerous they become.

● Scenario three: the public rises up and he needs to back down. Again we win because that’s another seed that can sprout democratic ideas and institutions. . . the public demanding rule of law.

The worst case is that he becomes evil and attacks Israel out of desperation to save his butt when things go wrong, but that doesn’t really fit his prior actions or his personality. Plus, the military doesn’t support him enough for him to do that. Not to mention, Egypt’s army wouldn’t make it fifteen steps into the desert before Israel destroyed them because their army is decrepit and is really just built to control the public.

Issue Three: Hey, I Know You!

The UN Department of Thugs and Perverts voted to give the Palestinians observer status, which kind of implies they’re a real state. Ok. Yawn. Sorry. This has upset a lot of people, but honestly, so what? The Palestinians basically run their own state now as it is. How does UN recognition change anything? Iran already arms them. Saudi Arabia already funds them. Egypt already helps them smuggle in toys for the kids.... Torture Me Hosni is very popular this year. Seriously, how does this change anything?

Frankly, the best solution for the Palestinian/Israel issue has always been for Israel to carve out territory, hand it over, throw up a wall, and say, “you got what you want, now go away.” This is because once the Palestinians have a state, everyone else is going to get sick of hearing their whining. Why? Because “They stole our homeland and are keeping us prisoner” is a pretty compelling argument, “We wanted better land for our homes” is not.

Honestly, I see this recognition as a mistake by the Arabs. They have basically taken a step to make Palestine less interesting to everyone by making their demands a lot less compelling. Less compelling means less interesting. And less interesting means lower ratings. And lower ratings means you get cancelled.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Glimpse of the Future

Now that we’ve had a day to digest the election, let me tell you why Obama won and why his followers won’t be happy with him.

● Why He Won: A lot of people are giving a lot of reasons why this election went the way it did. And to a degree many of them are right at the margins. But at its core, this election turned out the way it did for one simple reason: “short-sighted self-interest.”

Our government is a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment where people are enticed into investing with promises of unsustainably high returns. Those returns are paid for with the money taken from new investors. Essentially A’s benefits are paid using the investment of B and C. B and C’s benefits are paid using the investments of D, E, and F. And so on. As long as enough new people keep entering the scheme, the benefits will flow. But the moment the new money slows down, the entire scheme collapses. That is how our government is structured, as a fraudulent investment that pays out way more than it can afford because it is stealing from the future to pay the present.

Many people don’t understand this. They only see the high benefits they get, so they want the scheme to keep going. To them, it is manna from Heaven and they don’t want it to stop. These are core Obama supporters – progressives, welfare cases, minorities. Others understand the nature of the scheme but still invest in the hopes that the system won’t fail until they have made more than they invested. These are suburbanite Obama supporters – soccer moms, professionals. Others know the system will collapse any day, but also realize that so long as everyone else will get these benefits, they might as well get them too until the system collapses. These are union workers and government workers.

Here’s the problem for Obama. He can’t keep the benefits flowing. Why? Consider these problems Obama now faces.

● The Deficit: In the past four years, Obama added more to the national debt than all prior presidents combined. Our debt ($16 trillion) now equals the size of our economy (102%), it was 51% in 1988. This means we can no longer spend money without risking a Greece-like meltdown. Moreover, we are still headed in the wrong direction. The deficit is now one trillion dollars per year. This means Obama cannot spend more because there is no more. But he has a problem. . .

● Interest: Because of the deficit, our credit rating was downgraded already and we are warned of worse to come. The cost of servicing the national debt is already $450 billion at 2.8% interest (historic lows). That’s 12% of the budget. If we continue on this course, we will be downgraded again and again and our interest costs will rise. Every 1% rise in rates adds $160 billion to the deficit each year.

● Military: Right now, the budget is balanced on the idea of taking about $200 billion a year from the military budget. This was always fake and will return to the budget. Moreover, war with Iran (or Syria) will add about $300 billion a year.

● Medicare: Obama faces two problems with regard to Medicare. First, he’s promised to steal $700 billion from it (about $150 billion a year). That is a fake accounting gimmick and will return to the budget. Secondly, Medicare is becoming a worthless benefit because doctors will no longer take it because it doesn’t pay enough. Fixing this will cost around $100 billion per year, increasing by 20% per year.

So if Obama does nothing else, the deficit will increase by between $350 billion a year to $750 billion a year, plus interest cost increases. We could be looking at $2 trillion a year in deficits by 2015. And that’s just the beginning.....

● Obamacare: If you assume a best case scenario, Obamacare is estimated to cost $1.76 trillion over ten years, or $176 billion a year. But you never get best case in government. The long-term reliable estimate for government spending is five times the initially estimated cost. That would be $880 billion a year. Moreover, this assumes most people will stay on private plans, but there’s no reason for employers to keep those plans. Also, health care costs, which were projected to go down, are going up 21% per year.

● Unemployment: There are 23 million unemployed after the prior jobless decade. Another 20 million jobs will be needed just to stay level with population growth. Obama’s policies kill jobs. Moreover, estimates are that if taxmaggedon happens, we are looking at another 6-10 million jobs lost. All of those unemployed people will need benefits. Even if we give only $10,000 a year to these people, you are looking at adding $480 billion a year in support payments, not to mention the lost tax revenue from them not working. Black unemployment will remain in the 20% range as will youth unemployment.

So now we’re looking at deficits of $3-$3.3 trillion a year. And it gets worse.

● Retirees: The federal government owes $2 trillion in unfunded retirement benefits to its workers. The state governments owe $5.2 trillion in unfunded retirement benefits to their workers. But that’s nothing compared to the coming Boomerpocalypse. The Boomers never bothered to save for retirement, choosing instead to rely on SSI. Over the next three decades, 81 million boomers will retire. That will create a $25 trillion unfunded liability in Medicare, plus another $21 trillion unfunded liability in Social Security. Moreover, these people will stop contributing to the tax base.

Further, there is strong evidence that all the economic bubbles we’ve experienced are actually the result of the boomer bubble itself. The boom of the 1990s appears to have been fueled with a massive spending binge by baby boomers. And now that the boomers have stopped spending, the economy may not recover. In fact, long term stock market trends predict that we are in a long term collapse nearly identical to the Great Depression. . . because of the boomers.

● State Bankruptcy: Several states, with California taking the lead, will go bankrupt in the next 2-4 years. They have committed to spending too much and cannot raise taxes enough to cover their debts. They are hoping for a Federal bailout, but that won’t come because there is no money to give them. Look for the shock of this to push the economy into depression and to result in court ordered (1) breaking of state employee union contracts, (2) massive across the board tax hikes, and (3) slashing of benefits, which will worsen the death spiral.

So this is what Obama faces, an economic and fiscal catastrophe caused by the actions of his party over the past twenty-plus years, actions his own policies made worse. He now faces stark choices: bankruptcy or letting Medicare die as an effective benefit, bankruptcy or killing Obamacare, bankruptcy or letting the unemployed starve. His supporters will now face (1) a likely depression or deep, jobless recession, (2) broken state budgets resulting in jobs cuts for union workers and benefit cuts for core Obama supporters, and (3) a federal government that has no power to spend money to save any of Obama’s supporters from the problems they will face. The ponzi scheme has run its course and his drones will not be happy when the money stops flowing.

Moreover, Obama will need to go to war with Iran or watch as London or New York goes up in smoke. He will need to turn his back on Eurozone requests for a handout to save them from their folly – not to mention, our economy still drives the world and our depression will drag down everyone else. He will need to spend vast sums on military preparations to face down a China made aggressive by their own economic malaise and by Obama’s perceived weakness. The falling dollar will crush Mexico, Germany and China, who rely on exports to us. His policies will make gas, food and electricity costs more expensive. And he can’t deliver on any of his legislative promises.

And all the while, his people will be wondering why the ponzi scheme has stopped paying out.

It’s going to be an ugly four years.


Also, let me stress... I am NOT predicting doomsday here. That is not what this is. Each of these issues can be overcome, but they can't be overcome with Obama's policies or in ways that will leave his supporters happy.

That is the real point here, Obama faces a dilema: let the country sink and outrage his followers when the money stops OR fix things and outrage his followers by taking away their benefits.

So don't read this as an end of the world prediction.... leave that to the Mayans.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Libya/Egypt: An Opportunity

As with all international incidents, it takes time to understand what is really going on across the Middle East. There are a lot of conflicting reports and some obviously false ideas being batted about. With several days to observe, here are my thoughts, and what I think needs to be done next.

As often happens during crises like this, everyone sees what they want to see. If you see Islam as evil, then this is proof that all Muslims are evil. If you want to see Islam as a victim of the US, then this is proof that America continues to provoke Muslim outrage. Both views are ridiculous. Let’s start with some inconvenient facts which the idiots on both sides want to ignore:

● (1) The video did not cause these attacks. These attacks were premeditated to coincide with 9/11. The video was simply given as an excuse. How do we know this? For one thing, Egyptian intelligence warned the US three days early that an attack was planned. For another, there is no way this video could even have been seen across the Middle East – not to mention, why would it only outrage Muslims in a handful of countries but not others?

For yet another, these were not spontaneous crowds. We know this because not only did they bring heavy weapons, such as mortars, but they actually knew the location where the US Ambassador to Libya would flee after the riots began and they shelled that location with sufficient accuracy to convince military experts that this was a highly coordinated, professional attack. These were planned attacks.

● (2) This was not aimed solely at the United States. German and other Western embassies have been attacked as well.

● (3) The Libyan and Egyptian governments were not behind these attacks. Egyptian intelligence actually warned the US this was coming. Both governments have condemned attacks. Libya has arrested around 50 people who were involved. And crowds of Libyans also demonstrated against the attacks.

So what does this mean? It means that this was likely just another terrorist attack by al Qaeda, who have indeed claimed credit and say this was in retaliation for the killing of their number two man. More importantly, this and the reaction by the Egyptian and Libyan governments means that there is an opportunity here.

It is clear that both the Egyptian and Libyan governments very much wish to avoid being seen as hostile to America. That tells us something significant. That tells us that they are much more reasonable than people have been giving them credit for and that we have an opening to work with them to forge a better relationship.

Why is this important? For one thing, if these countries drift into the world of radical Islam, then we are looking at new havens for terrorists, right on Europe’s southern border. It makes a lot more sense to engage these countries, who are giving off signs of being willing to engage with us, to try to bring them into the fold of responsible countries, than it does to write them off. As Sen. John McCain correctly said this weekend:

“It’s a fight, a struggle in the Arab world between the Islamists and the forces of moderation. And they want America disengaged.”

Anyone who doesn’t understand this, simply doesn’t understand what is going on or what is at stake. McCain then claimed that Obama’s policy of disengagement is the problem. I don’t fully agree with that because al Qaeda has been plotting attacks since the 1990s, but I do agree that Obama has failed to engage Egypt and Libya (and others) sufficiently. Now is absolutely the time to (1) get these countries to guarantee individual rights, (2) change the culture of their police by training them to shake off corruption and handle riots without violence, (3) get them to crack down on radical behavior, and (4) get them to open up their economies to create jobs for all these unemployed youths.

In this regard, I think it’s a good thing Obama has invited the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood to come speak to him. The Muslim Brotherhood have actually done a lot to shake off the image of being a terrorist organization and to be seen as a legitimate, moderate Islamic organization. If this meeting is handled correctly, Obama will let the Muslim Brotherhood know that their reputation around the world and our response to them will very much depend on them helping to rid Egypt of the kind of radical elements that give aid and comfort to terrorists like al Qaeda. Whether or not Obama can be this firm is unclear – though he has shown a much stronger anti-terrorist backbone than most conservatives want to give him credit for.

Things to avoid are (1) lumping all Muslim in with these terrorists – that just turns potential friends into enemies, (2) talking about military action where none is possible – that just inflames the situation and makes the US look weak, (3) turning our backs on these governments at this moment of opportunity – which is exactly what al Qaeda wants, and (4) further disengagement -- you cannot control what you do not participate in. Obama also must stand up for free speech and make it clear that Muslims must learn that they have no right to control the views of other people. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton has gone the completely wrong way on this and keeps trying to blame the tape.

Politically, I think this has been a disaster all around so far. Romney looked bad by speaking too quickly. He gave the MSM a chance to redirect the crisis at him. I think he was right in what he said, but he should have waited to say it. Clinton looks horrible because the State Department clearly has flopped back and forth between pandering and denying reality. She has presented an image of a liar who is desperate to cover up her mistakes and avoid blame. Obama looks like a fool as well. Indeed, many commentators left and right, including the German magazine Der Spiegel have declared his foreign policy a “failure” because he obviously has failed to “reconcile” the Muslim world. They also criticize his handling of this crisis, particularly his blaming the video. Indeed, they say that it is illegitimate to blame this video because either this was a terrorist act, in which event the video was irrelevant, or this was “an expression of a frightening ignorance,” in which event he needs to stand up to the ignorance. Obama also has had a problem keeping his administration on the same page and his running off to fund raisers rather than dealing with this are, frankly, shocking. Let’s hope everybody learns from their mistakes.

In the end, I think the key to remember here is that we must learn to tell friend from foe. We have received a clear signal of friendship here from the Libya and Egyptian governments and an opportunity we have not had since the Arab Spring began to shape these new countries. It’s time to seize that opportunity, rather than squander it in a false narrative designed to hide what really happened or a blast of ignorant bias.

This is one of those moments that turns history. Let’s hope people start to realize this.

Thoughts? Questions?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Liberalism Is Sick

Totalitarianism and privilege runs in the blood of liberals. They want to control everyone else, but place themselves above the law. We’ve just had some classic examples of this. Observe the vile petulance of the left. . .

● S.W.A.T.ing: For some time now, prominent conservatives (including bloggers like Erick Erickson of RedState) have experienced the joys of finding the SWAT team showing up at their homes. Why? Because some liberal group has learned how to hack into the phone system and call 911 pretending to be the conservative. These calls go something like this: “I am Erick Erickson and I just shot my wife.”

Obviously, this is a crime. It is also despicable. Think about the kind of pathetic, abusive mindset someone would need to send the police screaming to someone’s house on a false murder claim? That’s Nazi-tactics. What happens when the cops show up and shoot someone by mistake? What about the emotional toll on these people’s children? Think of the people who might get killed because the police are distracted? Think of the waste of resources and the effect on the 911 system when police start doubting the veracity of calls.

But this has become the modern liberal mindset. They are abusive little Nazis who seek to instill terror in their enemies and they don’t care about the damage they do in the process. To them, it’s all legitimate -- calling out the cops, death threats by phone, mail or twitter, bomb threats to events they don’t like, property damage, arson. We have reached a point where liberals are becoming a menace to society. And something will need to be done about them. . . perhaps the old liberal favorite of re-education?

● Uncontrollable Rage: Wisconsin once again exposed the twisted emotional wreckage that is liberalism as liberals everywhere devolved into whiny rage about the election results. One guy told a camera he hopes Lt. Kleefisch dies of colon cancer. Another liberal idiot was so incapable of handling rejection that they actually slapped Dem. Candidate Tom Barrett right after he gave his concession speech. Apparently, it was Barrett’s fault the public didn’t hate Walker. . . or this liberal wanted Walker to cling to the “slim” hopes of overturning a 6.9% defeat. So much for losing with grace. Another liberal sobbed “this is the end of democracy.” How idiotic. Just because the public doesn’t agree with your view, somehow that’s the end of democracy? Someone needs a civics class. Then we have the violent Twits. They posted things like this:

KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER! Ole Bitch Ass Pig Ass Nigga!!!!

Somebody need to Abe Lincoln Scott Walker cave frog lookin ass.

I wanna kill scott walker so fucking baddd!!!!! & the racist dumb assholes that voted for him #nbs

Please somebody kill Scott Walker.

You couldn’t find a less intelligent, less hateful set of morons if you tried. And note the obvious racism. Yet liberals like to think they’re smarter? Ha. These fools can barely speak and certainly can’t think. Heck, if you want to proof of evolution, this is it -- liberals are the missing link. . . not quite human yet.

Again, frankly, it’s getting to the point that liberals need to be medicated or locked up for everyone’s good. They prove time and again that they are violent, racist creatures of hate who seek to instill terror when they don’t get their own ways. That’s called psychosis, and psychotics should be locked up for everyone’s protection.

● Heil Moochelle: Madame O has jumped on the food Nazi bandwagon once again and is expressing support for the idiotic idea of banning large drinks in New York City. This is laughable nonsense. For one thing, as with all other liberal ideas, this is unworkable. How, pray tell, do you stop someone from buying two 16 oz. drinks? Whoops, I just found the hole in the security net.

This is more evidence that liberals really are Nazis. They want to control every aspect of your life right down to how much cola you can put into a single container at a time. Think how petty that is! In fact, calling them Nazis is a bit unfair to the Nazis because they weren’t nearly the control freaks liberals are. And why am I not surprised that the people with the least grip on reality (see above) are the people most inclined to tell everyone else how to live? Pathetic.

● I Am Above The Law: Amanda Bynes (who?) is pathetic. She’s apparently an actress, though you wouldn’t know it by me, and she’s a drunk, a fool, a liar and a fascist. Two days ago she got caught DUI. Did she quietly pay her ticket like everyone else who gets caught? Heck no, she’s a liberal celebrity! Laws aren’t meant for people like her!! So first she refused to blow into the breathalyzer (which is a stupid move, especially for someone who claims they weren’t drunk). Then she took to Twitter, where all morons go to display their moronism, and she tweeted this:

“Hey @BarackObama, I don’t drink. Please fire the cop who arrested me.”

Well, honey, that’s not how the world works even for you. For one thing, your lord and master has ZERO power to fire a local police officer. You would know that if you weren’t liberal and stupid (but that is redundant). Secondly, they don’t fire people for doing their jobs just because some celebrity turd doesn’t like how they do it. But this is how liberals think: laws are meant for the little people and if you dare to apply the same law to them, well, then you need to be fired because you failed to recognize the superiority of the person you so ruthlessly treated like everyone else. What a vile little creature she is, I hope the cop sues her for something. By the way, appealing to the President to save your butt from a DUI is pretty much the definition of narcissism, another standard liberal trait.

● Who Cares About Human Life?: Patti Smith, a singer, just made a fascinating statement. For decades, liberals have whined about how any death is a tragedy and how we should go to any extent (including wrapping kids in bubblewrap) to prevent any death. But we know their willingness to take any step is selective and depends on who gets hurt and by whom. Enter Patti Smith, who is upset with Obama for continuing the war on terrorism. Why? I’ll let the callous dipsh*t explain it herself:

“[Terrorism is] not the most important issue in the world. When you think about how many people the terrorists have killed, its nothing. It’s not as many as die on a bicycle in America probably in a year or something.”

In other words, who cares, it’s only a couple people. And to make her point clear, she added this:

“I’ve said this over and over, but I’ll say it a million more times — I’m concerned more about the death of a bee than I am about terrorism. Because we’re losing hives and bees by the millions because of such strong pesticides. We can live with terrorism. We can’t live without the bee.”

Nice huh? Not only does she write off the deaths from terrorism (cost of business, I guess), but she’s more concerned about bees than the people who died. Wanna bet she believes products which might kill someone should be banned?

● Misplaced Tolerance: Finally, we have this little bit of intense hypocrisy. Janice Roberts, a 63-year old Masshole “anti-war” activist, has refused to rent an apartment to Sgt. Joel Morgan because he’s a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. So much for tolerance and so much for the lie that “we’re against war, not soldiers.”

What’s more, at the same time, over in New Mexico, the state’s Court of Appeals has ruled that a private photo studio cannot refuse service to people based on sexual orientation. The studio owner had argued that this violated his religious and moral beliefs but the court didn’t really care. This is so typical of liberal tolerance. Tolerate those whose causes you like and use the force of law to crush those whose causes you don’t.

Is it just me or does liberalism seem increasingly sick to you?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

News Roundup: Anger, Insanity and Nakedness

Let’s do another news roundup. Why? Because I said so! Just kidding. Actually, because there are several little stories we can’t cover in separate articles so here they are all lumped together in a big old steaming pile of news! Get ready for dogs, sex, and Hawaiian Stalinists!

● Item One: Dog Show Gone Wrong. In case you missed it, the Westminster Kennel Club dog show started last night and finishes tonight. I never miss this as I think dogs are great. And much like the Super Bowl, part of the attraction each year is when Pedigree puts out new ads. The last few years have featured David Duchovny talking about dogs with the tag line, “dogs rule.” Here are some samples: We’re for Dogs / Shelter Dogs / Doggie Dentures / Rub My Belly.

Imagine my surprise when these commercials did NOT appear last night. Instead, we got some lame generic commercial for Purina using some nondescript song. Totally forgettable pabulum. Hmm.

So I promptly turned to the internet to discover what had gone wrong. It turns out that Westminster decided to drop Pedigree as a sponsor because they didn’t like Pedigree focusing on shelter dogs. Seriously. Said Westminster’s spokesidiot David Frei:

“Show me an ad with a dog with a smile. Don’t try to shame me. We told Pedigree that and they ignored us. Our show is a celebration of dogs. We’re not promoting purebreds at the expense of non-purebreds. We celebrate all dogs. When we’re seeing puppies behind bars, it takes away from that. Not just because it’s sad, but it’s not our message.”

To quote Bufford T. Justice, “you aaaaasshole.” Over the past few years, Westminster has gotten a bad reputation because of many of the breeding practices associated with purebreds. Specifically, their standards are creating dogs with breathing problems, back problems, bad joints and mental issues. They’ve been protested and some people have even considered legislation against the things they promote.

Pedigree, by comparison, is for all dogs, not just purebreds, and they’ve matched seven million dollars in donations in the last couple years to help the dogs who need it most. Westminster has not.

Westminster is not only stupid, they are shameful. I suggest they fix this by next year or I won’t be back. In the meantime, up yours Westminster, and your little sponsor Purina too.

● Item Two: Accidentally Naked? A high school football coach had to resign the other day when he “accidentally” posted naked pictures of himself on Facebook. How does that happen “accidentally”? Between this and Sandusky and the guy in Syracuse and the various women’s coaches who keep getting fired for inappropriate behavior with their players and the NFL assistant coach who got arrested driving naked through a fast-food drive-thru, something has really gone wrong in coaching.

● Item Three: Bringing Sexy Back. Russian dictator Vladimir Putin wants Russians to have more sex to halt Russia’s population decline. Maybe they need more coaches? Interestingly, the land of mail-order brides and alcoholism actually has finally stabilized population-wise. In the 1990s, there was speculation Russia’s population would fall by a third by 2050, but that didn’t happen and now they’ve even begun to grow by a few thousand over the past few years. Still, it’s a good political strategy for Putin: how can you go wrong telling people to have more sex?

● Item Four: Machete. Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer just learned a little something about the joys of law and order when he was robbed at machete-point in his Caribbean vacation home by a masked intruder. Being a liberal, he will no doubt draw the wrong lesson and endorse a seven-day waiting period for machetes. . . or vacation homes.

● Item Five: Big Brother Is Watching, Aloha. Finally this item. I’ve said before that Republicans get stupid when you mention terrorists or criminals. Too many “conservatives” will happily throw away all their rights in the name of safety based on false promises and vague assurances that we can trust government not to abuse absolute power. Combine this with the Democratic instinct to monitor and control you and you have the makings for an American police state. Here’s proof.

Hawaii’s legislature is debating a bill which will require Internet providers to keep track of every website their customers visit. Basically, your provider will need to keep a continuing file showing every website you visited in the past two years. In—flipping—sane!

Why would Hawaii do this? Because Republican Representative Kymberly Marcos Pine is being “harassed” by a web designer named Eric Ryan, who claims Pine owes him money. He launched a website called KymPineIsACrook.com where he makes the claim that she stiffed him (but not in a Russian way). She also contends that Ryan hacked her e-mail account. Hence, Hawaii needs “tougher cyber laws.” Of course, the Democrats jumped on this and are pushing this insane bill.

Ok, let’s cut through this.. First, if he’s lying about the money, sue him for slander. Clearly he’s not lying because she’s taken no action in that regard. Secondly, if he has hacked her e-mail, then he’s already committed a crime under the Patriot Act. So no additional laws are needed. Third, even if a law was needed, it is to punish someone for hacking an e-mail account, not a law that requires private companies to spy on all citizens so some messed up Hawaiian legislator can get her Stalin on.

Think about this. One man is harassing her, so she wants the government to keep Stasi-like files on everyone in Hawaii?? How does that make sense? What possible purpose could this serve except to let her see who visited his website. And then what? “Re-education” camps? This is pure totalitarianism, make no mistake. And for those inclined to trust the government’s motives, this should wake you up. This is why government really acts -- because some intolerant a-hole with a grudge and a debt problem decides to use the government to help them in a personal fight.

Government is evil and those who would use the government to control others are evil.


Also, don't forget that it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site (LINK), and in honor of Valentine's Day, might I recommend revisiting the Top 25 Romance Films article (LINK).

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Primer: Obama/Holder v. Iran

I figured you might like a primer on the new Iranian issue, as it’s all over the headlines and it’s an issue which could actually lead to war if mishandled -- although that’s extremely unlikely. Here’s what’s up:

● What Happened: On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the DEA and FBI had foiled a plot to murder the Saudi Arabian ambassador and blow up the Saudi and Israeli embassies. This plot was supposedly masterminded by Iran’s “elite” Quds military unit. The Quds are a special unit within Iran’s Revolutionary Guard whose job it is to “export” Iran’s Islamic revolution to other countries.

According to Holder, Manssor Arbabsiar (a Corpus Christi, Texas car salesman) was tasked by the Iranian government with finding someone to carry out the killing and the bombings. Arbabsiar turned to the nastiest of the Mexican drug cartels, Los Zetas, a group of former special forces soldiers who started their own cartel. I wrote about Los Zetas here: LINK. Arbabsiar wanted Los Zetas to do both the killing and the bombings and he wanted them to agree to funnel tons of opium from the Middle East into Mexico.

However, the person Arbabsiar contacted turned out to be a DEA informant. Whoops.

● Team Obama’s Response: The administration accuses Iran and describes this as: “a dangerous escalation of Iran's long-scale use of violence.” The reason they claim Iran did this was “the Iranians watch the Saudis roll tanks in Bahrain, and they see a key ally in Syria going down, so they step up the Quds Force.”

Joe Biden has been sent forth from the Idiotorium to take the lead on this. He described this as “really over the top” and said it was “an outrage that violates one of the fundamental premises on which nations deal with one another.” He also said that “no options have been taken off the table” for dealing with this, though the administration has already ruled out military action. Instead, they are considering sanctions, the standard response by liberals when they don’t know what to do.

● The Saudi Response: Saudi Arabia and Iran are bitter regional rivals largely because their versions of Islam consider the other to be heretics. The Saudi embassy said this was “a despicable violation of international norms, standards and conventions,” and their former head of intelligence said Iran will have to “pay the price.” They have not been more specific yet. However, Saudi Arabia does not have a military capable of defeating Iran.

● The Iranian Response: For its part, Iran denies involvement. They told the UN they are “outraged” and “strongly and categorically reject these fabricated and baseless allegations, based on the suspicious claims by an individual.” Tehran claims Obama has fabricated this to “divert attention from the Wall Street uprising.” Ha ha! They also repeated claims the US has assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists in the past two years.

For the record, the only link so far to Iran is that the car dealer apparently is a cousin of someone in the Qud and he visited Iran right before $100,000 was wired into the informant’s account by the car dealer. The FBI claims this was wired from a Qud bank account.

● The World Reaction: The world reaction has been skeptical. Iranian experts say that Arbabsiar does not fit the profile of the typical Iranian agent, who tend to be professionals. And they say it’s unlikely Iran would be behind such a plot. Similarly, an Iranian expert in Berlin said these claims would be viewed with skepticism as “everyone is extremely skeptical about US intelligence revelations” and added, “I don’t regard it as impossible but rather improbable, even if the details of the story presented by the attorney general are essentially true.”

One western diplomat said: “I don't believe Iran's regime was behind the plot. If we assume it was Iran's plot, it would seem like a group of professional gangsters hiring a careless agent for their most important project. It's impossible.”

Even a senior American law enforcement official said (on condition of anonymity) that the US isn’t quite sure what this was and it was likely a “rogue plan. . . so outside their normal track of activity.”

● Some Questions: This all leaves us with some odd questions. If we assume Holder is correct, then what will Obama do about it? Even Clinton dropped a few cruise missiles on Sudan after the embassy bombings in Africa. So Obama can’t just pretend this didn’t happen.

But if Holder is wrong, then is he simply wrong or is there more to this?

I never like conspiracies as an answer, especially when there are more likely answers -- such as this guy just being a nut job. But it is extremely coincidental that the day after Darrell Issa starts talking about subpoenaing Holder to answer for what are likely criminal acts related to Fast and Furious, that Holder manages to unveil a huge distraction involving the very elements of Fast and Furious -- DEA, drugs, Mexican cartels and cross border crime. This is one of those coincidences you can’t put in films or people will lose their suspension of disbelief.

My normal response would be to trust professional law enforcement. BUT we’ve already seen how compromised they’ve been by Democratic Justice bosses, such as when Janet Reno ordered the Branch Davidian attack to show that she was tough or the Elian Gonzalez deportation to show Castro goodwill or Holder’s actions in Fast and Furious itself, where potentially hundreds of lives have been taken or destroyed by Holder’s attempt to use the ATF for political purposes. Trust is in short supply here.

So I think we should keep an open mind at this point and not assume anything unless and until strong, verifiable, independent proof is provided.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...