I was saddened today to learn that the State of North Carolina has finally succumbed to it's self-inflicted infection of imported Yankees and instituted a state-wide smoking ban in restaurants, bars and public areas.
This is what happens when you allow several million whining north-easterners into your state; they gradually begin to remake the place according to their own whims. If they can't do it with money, they eventually get it done with votes, and if that fails, they whine...incessantly...until you give them what they want. The influx of Northerners into Raleigh and Charlotte following the technology and banking jobs, have brought you to this sorry state of affairs. You can't smoke in the state that lives and dies on tobacco?
Mark my words, North Carolina; the ban will gradually be extended. Soon, you'll not be able to smoke in front of a public building, never mind that you're outside. Not long after that, there will be great debates about whether people who own condominiums in high-rise buildings are allowed to smoke in their own home because of the proximity of their neighbors.
All the while Cigarette taxes will continue to climb, as Yankees gradually spread the misinformation that smokers burden the Health Care System, (wrong; uninsured illegal aliens and AIDS victims burden the Health Care System) which is 'underfunded'. Mostly because the same Yankees screamed that their pet disease du jour -- Juvenile Ingrown Toenails, Athlete's Tongue, Homoerotic Scrofula -- be funded to such an extent that money was diverted from basic care just to shut them up, and to show that the politicians care.
Soon, you too can live in New York; a place where you can't smoke except in a closet equipped with it's own separate air-circulation system, where cigarettes cost $10 a pack, mostly because of taxes to pay for hospitals that are full of drug addicts, AIDS patients, illegal aliens, and people who have lived far longer than they ever had any right or expectation to without insurance or savings. But it's your fault, Smokers; Even if you will eventually have that massive stroke or heart attack in your 60's that will kill you instantly, and thus save the community the burden of having you linger on for months and years, taking up valuable resources.
Things like this are ultimately driven by other motives; the first is the nerve of pushy people to believe they know better, that they can dictate the conditions of other people's lives. And then they have the nerve to say that they do it for the common good. Kathy Shaidle at FiveFeetOfFury likes to tell this sort of pretentious, presumptuous, obnoxious Soccer-Mom/Metrosexual type "You're not smart enough to tell me how to live."
The second motive is to use the process of Incrementalism to slowly erode your personal rights while simultaneously picking your pocket. Politicians cannot help but spend money -- other people's money. It's their disease (how long before that becomes 'underfunded'?). And eventually, they spend so much that the traditional sources ("revenue streams" as they say on Wall Street) dry up, and they have to find more ways to steal from the public. When they can present this theft as a positive boon for society, they're even more dangerous and dishonest. This is all about raising taxes at some point -- and then wasting the money.
And don't think you've escaped if you chew. They'll get you people next with a SNU-tax, and justify that on the basis "of an increase in oral cancers", and to keep these "gateway tobacco products" out of the "hands of the children".
It's always about "the Children." with this crowd, isn't it?
No it isn't, but that's how they fool you. It's about persecuting people they don't like, and since they can no longer persecute Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Italians, Irish, and whatnot in public anymore, they've had to find new targets for hate but in a way that doesn't get them punched in the face; so they started picking on Christians and Smokers. If I were still in Charlotte tonight, I'd start thinking about joining one of them Civil War re-enactment groups. And then I'd start thinking about how I could get them to join me in doing it for real.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Some Random Thoughts On Polar Bears
I was watching the idiot box today when Noah Wylie (since when does anyone remember Noah Wylie?) comes on for the WWF, and starts talking about Polar Bears. Now, I'm not sure just when Vince McMahon and Hulk Hogan started caring about Polar Bears, but I haven't followed wrestling since I was 12...I grew up and discovered girls after that.
Anyways, Noah starts talking about how Polar Bears are dying because of Global Warming. Apparently, Polar Bears need nut-numbing cold in order to survive.They don't know any better. All this warming is so bad that mother bears can't feed their cubs, and so they die. Why is never explained. The gist is that it's a problem with retreating ice and Polar Bears being too stupid to swim, although every David Attenborough documentary I've ever saw shows Polar Bears with Micheal Phelps-like water skills. Maybe Noah doesn't know what he's talking about (See the pictures, do they look like they're drowning?).
Probably not, since two million scientific studies (it seems) say there's more Polar Bears now than there have been in several hundred years, but what the hell do I know? I though tin the world of Global Warming Science, if you had two million studies that all said the same thing, the science was, therefore, settled. I guess that only applies to studies the Warmies conduct and concoct data for, but I digress.
So, there I am, watching a cute-as-a-button Polar Bear Cub (who will one day grow up to be an 800-pound killer, red in tooth and claw, feeding on whale carcasses that no one but the Japanese would want, see above) frolics in the arctic snow, probably already doomed to die a horrid death and seemingly unaware, when I began to think of Charles Darwin.
Just in case you live in a cave, or go to Harvard, Charles Darwin was the author of the Theory of Evolution which states that organisms which best adapt to their environments tend to flourish. And Here's Noah Wylie, and the people in Copenhagen, and Al Gore and the legions of brain-dead college kids and communists-in-sheep's-clothing all trying to conspire to stop a natural process (evolution) in the name of...saving all the other natural processes?
I mean, it's man's special talent to adapt through technology, through the manipulation of his physical environment. That's what's allowed us to survive and inhabit every corner of this planet. In the process, yes, we do some sort of damage to the natural world, but according to Darwin, the natural world (wildlife, plants, bacteria, etc) should adapt in order to survive. Those that adapt will live, and those that don't will go extinct. Extinction is a is part-and-parcel of evolution.
And I thought libs were all great believers in Evolution, so much so that they sue school boards to keep Creationism and Intelligent Design out of classrooms. So, why save Polar Bears if they won't or can't save themselves? And why does Noah Wylie need my money to do this?
Then I was struck by another thought (two in one day? I need to start drinking again); I remember Irving Krystal, the father of modern Conservatism, once said (paraphrasing) that a "Conservative is someone who stands in front of the runaway freight train of progress, yelling "STOP!" The Tree Huggers are trying to stop industrial progress so that they can save polar bears, and snail darters, and spotted owls, and three-toed Cambodian Cockroaches, in defiance of the Theory of Evolution, and asking for money to finance the project, sorta like when some televangelist(in this case, Noah Wylie) tells his flock that God will do the worst and take him if he doesn't raise $3 bazillion dollars for the new Tabernacle-Theme Park-Casino and Bait Shop.
Then I got confused (I don't need to drink for that to happen): Doesn't all of this halting of progress, asking for voluntary contributions to serve a higher purpose sound a lot like conservatism? I mean, would this sorta-kind make them, these self-proclaimed Progressive Liberals, that is...Conservative...in some fashion? I mean, aren't they denying Evolution and adopting the Judeo-Christian view of man as the Steward of All Creation?
I mean, the similarities don't end there, either. Conservatives are always accused of wanting to 'turn back the clock', to some supposed Golden Era which liberals laughingly insist never existed, only how do you explain their own behavior; True Believers in Global Warming theory have to accept two premises:
a) There was a time when the climate of this planet was somehow 'perfect', not too hot, not too cold, and suitable for the flourishing of all life as we currently perceive it. A Golden Era if ever there was one. And...
b) That if we simply arrest and re-direct progress in the proper way (i.e. under oppressive Government direction), mankind can return to that climatic Golden Era.
So, I guess that Noah Wylie and the Wrestling Folks are out there trying to recruit Conservatives and not save Polar Bears after all?
I wonder, if any Tree Huggers out there have ever thought this same way...and had their heads explode.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
CIA Outpost Bombed, 7 Killed...
The bomber was apparently not searched...at all. This is in Afghanistan, no less. The CIA let a complete stranger walk into a 'secret base' and blow himself up. As JammieWearingFool points out in his post, though, at least one Administration official finally used the word terrorism. I guess that's some kind of progress.
But where have we heard of this sort of thing before? Starting to see a pattern develop vis-a-vis Muslim bombers and the Government's security mindset? If someone had searched Pantybomber, he would have been caught. If someone had searched this guy, he would have been caught.
Lesson: search Muslims, find bombs. But apparently our government hasn't figured this out yet. It probably needs another 18-month-long-and-horrednously-expensive "study" to confirm this.
But where have we heard of this sort of thing before? Starting to see a pattern develop vis-a-vis Muslim bombers and the Government's security mindset? If someone had searched Pantybomber, he would have been caught. If someone had searched this guy, he would have been caught.
Lesson: search Muslims, find bombs. But apparently our government hasn't figured this out yet. It probably needs another 18-month-long-and-horrednously-expensive "study" to confirm this.
What Are They Smoking?
TSA pats itself on the back for a Very Successful 2009. The nerve of these people! They didn't even wait for Jan 1 to make that claim! Must be a bureaucrat clearing up that last minute we-don't-function-without-all-of-you-we-really-thank-you-for-your-efforts-managerial-bullshit exercise that they all do, but never mean (it's only intended to make people feel better about themselves in lieu of a raise) , before taking his extended holiday vacation (I wonder, was that asshole flying anywhere?).
"Successful" is defined as "nobody got blown up", in the final analysis, but that this sort of thing didn't happen had very little to do with TSA. If I recall my news coverage, most of the incidents aboard aircraft this past year seem to have involved passengers and crew ganging up against the criminals, the drunkards, the insane and the terrorists.
But, some might say, it's all in how you define success that really matters.
If you defined "successful" as "we found a bomb taped to a guy's dick and kept him as far away from a plane as possible, and had him in custody before he could do any harm", then I might find that a reasonable claim to make.
If you defined "success" as "we kept a guy who was on a terror watch list, travelling with no luggage, no visas or other travel documents, on a ticket bought with cash, who had recently traveled to Yemen, with a Muslim-sounding name, who -- go figure! --just happened to have had a bomb hidden in his drawers", I might find that a reasonable claim to make.
If you defined "successful" as "stopping that guy with the Muslim-sounding name, the bomb in his drawers, on a terrorist watch list, on the radar at the State Department, CIA and British security services, who was in Yemen, and travelling on a ticket paid for in cash, with no luggage and no visas before he ever got on an airplane in Nigeria, or Amsterdam, and made the Trans-Atlantic crossing", then I might find that a reasonable claim to make.
If you defined "success" as "we stopped the guy with the underwear bomb, the Muslim-sounding name, the ticket paid for in cash, with no visa, on the watch list at CIA, State Department and the Brits, who wasn't stopped in Nigeria or Amsterdam, and made the Trans-Atlantic Crossing, and then tried to set himself and the plane on fire before an alert (and very brave) civilian stomped his ass and beat the flames out with his bare fucking hands", then we have a problem. A huge one. Because nowhere in any of that do I even see "TSA" mentioned.
Because you did none of those things, and the report points out there are problems elsewhere in your shop. Listen, TSA, as much as we do appreciate the (little) that you do for us, you have to understand -- you need to be perfect. Not pretty good, not satisfactory, not win-more-than-you-lose. Fucking Perfect. Every day. All the time. And even if you achieved that elusive goal, you'll still get no praise for it because that's your fucking job. This might be the last pat on the back any of you ever get.
Stuff your pat on the back, and go find me a Muslim Killer with a dirty nuke in his rectum and stop him in Riyadh before he gets here.
Update: Ann Coulter agrees with me.
Update-Update: OMGOMGOMG! So do Gay Democrats! What is this world coming to? I'd laugh about how people who scream for tolerance can be so blatantly hypocritical. It probably doesn't occur to them in the first place (no surprise), and is probably more a visceral reaction to the Muslim practice of stoning homosexuals than it is standing upon the principles of 'equality' that they're always crying about. I just wish they didn't have to make the point with pastel-colored teddy bears because...well...that's gay.
"Successful" is defined as "nobody got blown up", in the final analysis, but that this sort of thing didn't happen had very little to do with TSA. If I recall my news coverage, most of the incidents aboard aircraft this past year seem to have involved passengers and crew ganging up against the criminals, the drunkards, the insane and the terrorists.
But, some might say, it's all in how you define success that really matters.
If you defined "successful" as "we found a bomb taped to a guy's dick and kept him as far away from a plane as possible, and had him in custody before he could do any harm", then I might find that a reasonable claim to make.
If you defined "success" as "we kept a guy who was on a terror watch list, travelling with no luggage, no visas or other travel documents, on a ticket bought with cash, who had recently traveled to Yemen, with a Muslim-sounding name, who -- go figure! --just happened to have had a bomb hidden in his drawers", I might find that a reasonable claim to make.
If you defined "successful" as "stopping that guy with the Muslim-sounding name, the bomb in his drawers, on a terrorist watch list, on the radar at the State Department, CIA and British security services, who was in Yemen, and travelling on a ticket paid for in cash, with no luggage and no visas before he ever got on an airplane in Nigeria, or Amsterdam, and made the Trans-Atlantic crossing", then I might find that a reasonable claim to make.
If you defined "success" as "we stopped the guy with the underwear bomb, the Muslim-sounding name, the ticket paid for in cash, with no visa, on the watch list at CIA, State Department and the Brits, who wasn't stopped in Nigeria or Amsterdam, and made the Trans-Atlantic Crossing, and then tried to set himself and the plane on fire before an alert (and very brave) civilian stomped his ass and beat the flames out with his bare fucking hands", then we have a problem. A huge one. Because nowhere in any of that do I even see "TSA" mentioned.
Because you did none of those things, and the report points out there are problems elsewhere in your shop. Listen, TSA, as much as we do appreciate the (little) that you do for us, you have to understand -- you need to be perfect. Not pretty good, not satisfactory, not win-more-than-you-lose. Fucking Perfect. Every day. All the time. And even if you achieved that elusive goal, you'll still get no praise for it because that's your fucking job. This might be the last pat on the back any of you ever get.
Stuff your pat on the back, and go find me a Muslim Killer with a dirty nuke in his rectum and stop him in Riyadh before he gets here.
Update: Ann Coulter agrees with me.
Update-Update: OMGOMGOMG! So do Gay Democrats! What is this world coming to? I'd laugh about how people who scream for tolerance can be so blatantly hypocritical. It probably doesn't occur to them in the first place (no surprise), and is probably more a visceral reaction to the Muslim practice of stoning homosexuals than it is standing upon the principles of 'equality' that they're always crying about. I just wish they didn't have to make the point with pastel-colored teddy bears because...well...that's gay.
(Ooops! I screwed up my HTML and posted that Care Bears pic up top of the post! Actually, I kinda like it. Now, where are my Liza Minelli CD's?)
A New Year's Resolution...
Judicial Watch lists the 10 most corrupt politicians of 2009. I wonder how many are up for re-election in 2010 and 2012?
Can we make a resolution, one and all, that when these criminals come up for re-election, that none of them gets your vote?
The country needs to be saved by us, the citizens, exercising common sense and good judgement because our so-called "leaders" are devoid of either. Make these your priorities in the coming mid-term elections:
1. Re-establish the power of The Governed over The Government,
2. Say NO to graft, dishonesty, and stupidity.
3. Hold President Obama and Nancy Pelosi to their pledges on Transparency and Ethics. We want all bills on the Internet five days before any voting takes place, we want to know what gets said in closed-door ethics hearings, we want up-and-down votes when called for, we want debates --we have the right to know what you're doing before you do it.
4. Say NO to a government take-over of 1/6 of the US Economy with a policy crafted in the Senate Men's Room in the dark of night. We want the government out of our financial institutions and GM, as soon as possible. No more bailouts, ever.
5. Pray for and support our troops, urge our leadership to fight the Islamonazis, and bring them all home victorious and safe.
6. Put Chris Dodd and Charlie Rangel in prison, where they belong, Tar-and-feather Barney Frank (he might enjoy certain jailhouse activities a just a wee too much), chip in to buy John Kerry a personality, please give to the John Ensign I-Can't-Stop-Cheating-On-My-Wife-Fund -- he has an ex-paramour to bribe into silence.
7. Demand lower taxes and less government interference in your personal lives.
8. Keeps your eyes and ears open for Muslims Terrorists, since Homeland Security ain't.
9. Dispel the rumor that a Congresscritter can go through life anonymously -- keep in touch with your Congressional Delegates and let them know you care, you're watching -- you pay taxes and you vote.
10. Find like-minded people, form your own Tea Parties, and get involved in discussions of local politics and political action. Don't wait for the Republican or Democratic Party to do anything for you, because they won't if they believe they can get away with it. Make yourself heard, and your presence felt.
Can we make a resolution, one and all, that when these criminals come up for re-election, that none of them gets your vote?
The country needs to be saved by us, the citizens, exercising common sense and good judgement because our so-called "leaders" are devoid of either. Make these your priorities in the coming mid-term elections:
1. Re-establish the power of The Governed over The Government,
2. Say NO to graft, dishonesty, and stupidity.
3. Hold President Obama and Nancy Pelosi to their pledges on Transparency and Ethics. We want all bills on the Internet five days before any voting takes place, we want to know what gets said in closed-door ethics hearings, we want up-and-down votes when called for, we want debates --we have the right to know what you're doing before you do it.
4. Say NO to a government take-over of 1/6 of the US Economy with a policy crafted in the Senate Men's Room in the dark of night. We want the government out of our financial institutions and GM, as soon as possible. No more bailouts, ever.
5. Pray for and support our troops, urge our leadership to fight the Islamonazis, and bring them all home victorious and safe.
6. Put Chris Dodd and Charlie Rangel in prison, where they belong, Tar-and-feather Barney Frank (he might enjoy certain jailhouse activities a just a wee too much), chip in to buy John Kerry a personality, please give to the John Ensign I-Can't-Stop-Cheating-On-My-Wife-Fund -- he has an ex-paramour to bribe into silence.
7. Demand lower taxes and less government interference in your personal lives.
8. Keeps your eyes and ears open for Muslims Terrorists, since Homeland Security ain't.
9. Dispel the rumor that a Congresscritter can go through life anonymously -- keep in touch with your Congressional Delegates and let them know you care, you're watching -- you pay taxes and you vote.
10. Find like-minded people, form your own Tea Parties, and get involved in discussions of local politics and political action. Don't wait for the Republican or Democratic Party to do anything for you, because they won't if they believe they can get away with it. Make yourself heard, and your presence felt.
This Just In: Lincoln Wasn't Gay...
Of course not! He was Italian -- everyone knows that! Eventually, every historical figure and icon gets co-opted for the purposes of identity politics, and sometimes it just goes to extremes that stretch the boundaries of credulity and good taste. Like this one. The guy who wrote the article even points out the progenitor of the rumor doesn't care whether it's true or not.
Yeah, we get it, -- you're gay -- okay? You only talk about it incessantly, and even if you didn't, most of us can tell. Really. After 20 years of working with homosexuals (of all stripes), I'm pretty sure I could identify about 95% of the gay folks in a room, despite their best efforts to hide it. In fact, most of you make no effort to hide it at all. So, could you please stop? It's getting embarrassing and annoying, which is why no one takes you seriously no matter how badly you misbehave, stretch the truth or try to shock our sensibilities. You're acting like petulant children. It's why we don't care.
I do, however, care that you think I should care. What's it me if you're gay? Has no bearing on my life, and I already have my own problems, thank you very much. I'm sorry it doesn't make you feel special to know that I actually don't think about you 24/7/364, and I know it'll really stings when you discover that I'm no longer paying attention. I don't need to be told that you're different, and I don't believe in the formulation that your 'difference' entitles you to a special place in the legal system, and society. I also don't believe that your difference entitles you to extra-constitutional rights either, which is what the whole Gay Rights thing really is all about.
Hey, it worked for the blacks, so why not, right?
It's about time identity politics ended in this country. It's really doing no one any good, and it gets ever more ridiculous with each passing day.
(H/T to JammieWearingFool)
Update: More on the attempt to elevate "Muslim" to the level of a race. (H/T FiveFeetofFury)
More: Now the Care Bears are gay. Go figure.
Yeah, we get it, -- you're gay -- okay? You only talk about it incessantly, and even if you didn't, most of us can tell. Really. After 20 years of working with homosexuals (of all stripes), I'm pretty sure I could identify about 95% of the gay folks in a room, despite their best efforts to hide it. In fact, most of you make no effort to hide it at all. So, could you please stop? It's getting embarrassing and annoying, which is why no one takes you seriously no matter how badly you misbehave, stretch the truth or try to shock our sensibilities. You're acting like petulant children. It's why we don't care.
I do, however, care that you think I should care. What's it me if you're gay? Has no bearing on my life, and I already have my own problems, thank you very much. I'm sorry it doesn't make you feel special to know that I actually don't think about you 24/7/364, and I know it'll really stings when you discover that I'm no longer paying attention. I don't need to be told that you're different, and I don't believe in the formulation that your 'difference' entitles you to a special place in the legal system, and society. I also don't believe that your difference entitles you to extra-constitutional rights either, which is what the whole Gay Rights thing really is all about.
Hey, it worked for the blacks, so why not, right?
It's about time identity politics ended in this country. It's really doing no one any good, and it gets ever more ridiculous with each passing day.
(H/T to JammieWearingFool)
Update: More on the attempt to elevate "Muslim" to the level of a race. (H/T FiveFeetofFury)
More: Now the Care Bears are gay. Go figure.
Happy New Year!
I wish you all a very happy New Year. Let's hope we we can all look forward to a year of good health (before the democrats tax us for it), happiness (before the terrorists try to kill us all), and prosperity (before the National Debt makes the dollar worth less than a bucket of warm spit), and good cheer.
I want to thank everyone who comes here every day, and even those of you who stop by to browse every once in a while, for; a) not reporting me to the authorities, and b) encouraging me to spout my caustic bullshit. I can't do it without ya, and this has been my best year traffic-wise, which means mooooo-lah for your's truly (not much, but every little bit helps, right?).
Don't drink and drive!
And for your New Year's Eve entertainment, here's an oldie-but-goodie from our friend Mr. Steyn as we come to the end of the first decade of the 21st Century. Enjoy!
I want to thank everyone who comes here every day, and even those of you who stop by to browse every once in a while, for; a) not reporting me to the authorities, and b) encouraging me to spout my caustic bullshit. I can't do it without ya, and this has been my best year traffic-wise, which means mooooo-lah for your's truly (not much, but every little bit helps, right?).
Don't drink and drive!
And for your New Year's Eve entertainment, here's an oldie-but-goodie from our friend Mr. Steyn as we come to the end of the first decade of the 21st Century. Enjoy!
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Undi-bomber Flotsam and Jetsom...
Just some odds and ends:
Maureen Dowd reaches for a cigarette, her Obama Orgasm has ended.
Obama finds out what I could have told him: The 9/10 mentality is alive and well in the Fed'ral Bureaucracy. This quick-and-dirty evaluation probably cost millions of (borrowed) dollars, when they could have gotten that evaluation here for a fraction of the cost. And they want ot Unionize these people?
But They'll get Health Care Right. Government can always be trusted to get the really important things right, can't they?
Maureen Dowd reaches for a cigarette, her Obama Orgasm has ended.
Obama finds out what I could have told him: The 9/10 mentality is alive and well in the Fed'ral Bureaucracy. This quick-and-dirty evaluation probably cost millions of (borrowed) dollars, when they could have gotten that evaluation here for a fraction of the cost. And they want ot Unionize these people?
But They'll get Health Care Right. Government can always be trusted to get the really important things right, can't they?
I'll Tell You Why, You Idiot!
Okay, I've gotten a very nasty e-mail from a dissenter, upset over this post. A Liberal Dissenter. I know this because it was a) rank with misspellings, b) a full-throated defense of Barack Obama and a vilification of George W. Bush in words of four letters or less, and c) was apparently written by someone with a 5th grade education (If not a Master Degree from Berkeley), and d) ended with a repeat of the mantra that GW, the CIA, the Illuminati and the Freemasons (you can see where this is going, right?) all planned and executed 9/11 in a grand conspiracy, so that we could steal Arab oil at the behest of the Israeli lobby, yada, yada, yada.
She (it must be a she because no straight man could be this hysterical) contends that Liberals have 'inherited' a fucked-up world and are doing their level-best to un-fuck it, and the Anointed Savior (ordained by Gaia to save mankind, and the planet, by people who think like She does) can't do it if we're all sniping at him, and criticizing his most-holy policies, and are not approaching our problems from the standpoint of love, rather than war. She finishes with a verse of Kumbaya that is so saccharine sweet (and mind-numbingly naive) that only someone who lives in San Francisco could believe it, and which made me physically ill.
That's all well-and-fine. I don't mind a dissenting point of view, I encourage it because I love to argue, and I don't even mind a dissenting point of view that is so divorced from reality, and full of egregious spelling errors, more expletives than even I use, and with more than a few questionable remarks about my parentage. But, for those reasons (and because it would really annoy her), I shan't reprint it. But, I will explain the differences between her vision of the world (and by extension, Barack Obama's, She assumes) and mine.
She lives in a world where consequences don't exist, or worse, they only apply to other people. She lives in a world where She never expects to have to bear the consequences of what She advocates. She lives in a world where power exists to satisfy Her every selfish whim, and to keep that which is unpleasant at arm's length, at any cost. She lives in a world where the illusion of the Noble Martyr, fighting the 'good fight' tilting at windmills (whether the martyr is an ardent communist, the artist, the religious dissenter, or the Islamic Terrorist) is a romantic one. It is the worldview of someone who has never lived a day in the real world and who has never had to fend for Herself. It is the world of the college student who believes she is actually becoming an educated person because She attends a supposed-institution of higher learning, but who will be very disappointed to eventually discover, Sh'se only succeeded in keeping reality at bay for another four, five, seven or fifteen years -- or however long it takes her to finally graduate with such poor spelling and grammatical skills (probably as long as her parent's money holds out).
She lives in a world, along with most Liberals, where concepts such as physical courage, faith, moral certainty, self-sacrifice, are considered anachronistic, at best, and barbaric, at worst. They inhabit a world of supposed-reason in which the only other inhabitants are people who think like they do, where no counter-argument is allowed, and where the people simply parrot the same soft platitudes over and over to each other as a daily affirmation. These are people who, as Orwell once noted, get "Their cookery from Paris, and their politics from Moscow", meaning they are pretentious little twits who believe they are somehow more sophisticated than the rest of us who don't use words like "jingoistic" every five minutes, and they've discovered the naughty 'secret' of Socialism. She lives in a world that is inhabited by people who never expect, nor even truly wish, to ever be in a position of responsibility...for anything....but who nonetheless expect their cares and fears to be catered to by those who will bear the responsibility.
She lives in a world where violence is never the answer. To people like her, the only time violence has any place in society is when you can safely destroy the local McDonald's during a Earth Day 'celebration' without being shot by the police, who have strict instructions not to engage the mob, in any case. Liberals only use, or talk up the threat of violence when they know there is no realistic chance of retaliation.
Because people like you are absolute worms, Missy, the Enemies of this Culture (and yes, they are the enemies of Western Civilization, not just the United States) are smug and confident in their ability to ultimately kill or enslave us all. They look at people like you, and they laugh. They listen to people like you, and they drool over the thought of the power they will one day exercise over us. They like people like you, because you're easily cowed, compliant, willing to submit. You'll make a very good Dhimmi one day, Young Lady.
In the Real World, where I live (not the one on MTV), people like you are just as, if not more dangerous than the terrorists themselves. Because people like you encourage them. You are every Islamofascist's wet dream, Sunshine. Lenin had a nicer name for people like you; he called you Useful Idiots.
Your Messiah is cut from the same cloth, but I still hold out a (slim) hope that reality will invade his bubble in away it hasn't (yet) invaded yours. Given enough time, even the most stubborn liberal eventually grows up...usually when reality smacks them in the mouth. In the meantime, ask yourself this: how many will have to die before Barack Obama (or you) will have that moment of clarity?
Update: Here are the people you're trying to accomodate. (H/T Lumpy Grumpy and Frumpy).
FiveFeetofFury and The Closet Conservative chime in on the Religion of Peace, and it's liberal defenders, on an-almost daily basis.
She (it must be a she because no straight man could be this hysterical) contends that Liberals have 'inherited' a fucked-up world and are doing their level-best to un-fuck it, and the Anointed Savior (ordained by Gaia to save mankind, and the planet, by people who think like She does) can't do it if we're all sniping at him, and criticizing his most-holy policies, and are not approaching our problems from the standpoint of love, rather than war. She finishes with a verse of Kumbaya that is so saccharine sweet (and mind-numbingly naive) that only someone who lives in San Francisco could believe it, and which made me physically ill.
That's all well-and-fine. I don't mind a dissenting point of view, I encourage it because I love to argue, and I don't even mind a dissenting point of view that is so divorced from reality, and full of egregious spelling errors, more expletives than even I use, and with more than a few questionable remarks about my parentage. But, for those reasons (and because it would really annoy her), I shan't reprint it. But, I will explain the differences between her vision of the world (and by extension, Barack Obama's, She assumes) and mine.
She lives in a world where consequences don't exist, or worse, they only apply to other people. She lives in a world where She never expects to have to bear the consequences of what She advocates. She lives in a world where power exists to satisfy Her every selfish whim, and to keep that which is unpleasant at arm's length, at any cost. She lives in a world where the illusion of the Noble Martyr, fighting the 'good fight' tilting at windmills (whether the martyr is an ardent communist, the artist, the religious dissenter, or the Islamic Terrorist) is a romantic one. It is the worldview of someone who has never lived a day in the real world and who has never had to fend for Herself. It is the world of the college student who believes she is actually becoming an educated person because She attends a supposed-institution of higher learning, but who will be very disappointed to eventually discover, Sh'se only succeeded in keeping reality at bay for another four, five, seven or fifteen years -- or however long it takes her to finally graduate with such poor spelling and grammatical skills (probably as long as her parent's money holds out).
She lives in a world, along with most Liberals, where concepts such as physical courage, faith, moral certainty, self-sacrifice, are considered anachronistic, at best, and barbaric, at worst. They inhabit a world of supposed-reason in which the only other inhabitants are people who think like they do, where no counter-argument is allowed, and where the people simply parrot the same soft platitudes over and over to each other as a daily affirmation. These are people who, as Orwell once noted, get "Their cookery from Paris, and their politics from Moscow", meaning they are pretentious little twits who believe they are somehow more sophisticated than the rest of us who don't use words like "jingoistic" every five minutes, and they've discovered the naughty 'secret' of Socialism. She lives in a world that is inhabited by people who never expect, nor even truly wish, to ever be in a position of responsibility...for anything....but who nonetheless expect their cares and fears to be catered to by those who will bear the responsibility.
She lives in a world where violence is never the answer. To people like her, the only time violence has any place in society is when you can safely destroy the local McDonald's during a Earth Day 'celebration' without being shot by the police, who have strict instructions not to engage the mob, in any case. Liberals only use, or talk up the threat of violence when they know there is no realistic chance of retaliation.
Because people like you are absolute worms, Missy, the Enemies of this Culture (and yes, they are the enemies of Western Civilization, not just the United States) are smug and confident in their ability to ultimately kill or enslave us all. They look at people like you, and they laugh. They listen to people like you, and they drool over the thought of the power they will one day exercise over us. They like people like you, because you're easily cowed, compliant, willing to submit. You'll make a very good Dhimmi one day, Young Lady.
In the Real World, where I live (not the one on MTV), people like you are just as, if not more dangerous than the terrorists themselves. Because people like you encourage them. You are every Islamofascist's wet dream, Sunshine. Lenin had a nicer name for people like you; he called you Useful Idiots.
Your Messiah is cut from the same cloth, but I still hold out a (slim) hope that reality will invade his bubble in away it hasn't (yet) invaded yours. Given enough time, even the most stubborn liberal eventually grows up...usually when reality smacks them in the mouth. In the meantime, ask yourself this: how many will have to die before Barack Obama (or you) will have that moment of clarity?
Update: Here are the people you're trying to accomodate. (H/T Lumpy Grumpy and Frumpy).
FiveFeetofFury and The Closet Conservative chime in on the Religion of Peace, and it's liberal defenders, on an-almost daily basis.
The REAL War...And Why No One Will Fight it...
It's not being waged on the battlefields of Ashcanistan or I-wreck. It is being fought in the minds of the political elite, and both parties being slightly smarter than a slime mold (but better dressed!), they have arrived at this fight completely unarmed.
The central point in the War on Terror is the mindset of the people who will formulate and enact The Policy by which that war will be fought. In order to make the proper decisions that will become The Policy, and ultimately The Strategy, the people making them will have to recognize certain facts:
a. The Enemy is unrelenting.
b. The Enemy is part of an identifiable group.
c. The Enemy operates on a different wavelength and by different rules than we do.
d. The Enemy is not interested in making a deal, he's not interested in anything we can offer him.
e. The Enemy considers negotiation and conciliation as forms of weakness, unless it helps him to achieve his goal, then the good-feeling this engenders in his opponent is simply another weapon at his disposal.
f. The Enemy's Goal is World Domination, defined as the ultimate ascendancy of his religion and culture, culminating in the reduction to all those outside this scope to a position of semi-slavery with few, if any, legal or natural rights.
g. The Enemy is willing to do almost anything to achieve these goals, his philosophy having elevated those goals from mere political aims to the route towards personal salvation.
h. The Enemy has been in a state of Undeclared War with the United States since 1979.
i. The Enemy believes it's victory is pre-ordained and inevitable.
j. The Enemy is merciless and pitiless, and has no regard for the humanity of his opponents.
That is the reality of Militant Islam, and the Islamonazi political regime that comes with it. That is the kind of foe we're supposed to be fighting; implacable, pitiless, single-minded, undistracted by abstract thoughts of justice, fairness or decency. He is armed to the teeth, and has a billion potential soldiers at his command. He lives by a strict code of religious discipline, and routinely clears his ranks of shirkers and traitors by means of murder. He holds his host culture hostage with a climate of fear, religious orthodoxy and systematic violence, which he claims is his ancestral right either handed down from God, or magically bestowed upon his as a legacy of (pick one or more) racism, religious discrimination, colonialism, economic exploitation, etc, etc, etc.
The response and policies of both major political opponents, viewed against these realities, leave much to be desired, and in fact, seem woefully inadequate to meet the challenge of people willing to ran airliners into office buildings, tape high explosives to their groin, or indiscriminately launch unguided rockets into residential neighborhoods.
And the reason is because the political leadership of this country, Repub or Dem, is too frightened or stupid, to tell itself the Truth about The Enemy. Because they fail to see what's so obviously plain, their policies and pronouncements, their actions and rhetoric, are divorced from reality. In the meantime, American troops pay the price with their limbs and lives. Americans pay more for their energy, more in taxes, and make ever-more personal sacrifices in order to support the War/NotWar, and have to deal with a government who's response to terrorism is to prevent blankets from being handed out, keep nail clippers off aircraft, and restrict the use of rest rooms.
Liberals (and I'm using the term loosely, because they really aren't) see the problem of terrorism in terms of law enforcement and social welfare. They do not see The Enemy as some sort of robotic, inhuman force driven by a rabid ideology, it views him through the same lens it applies to all problems. All problems, in the liberal world, can be solved by talking and symbolism, because ultimately, all issues arise from a lack of tolerance and a dearth of 'resources' -- it would rather perform 'social outreach' (Obama's "Open hand/Clenched fist"), and get to the "root causes" of the problem (Obama's Apologies to Islam for Western Civilizations very existence and intolerance), then open a "dialogue" with them (Negotiate with Admini-doo-dad without pre-conditions), and then negotiate "terms" (Discuss the size of the bribe required for "peace"). Liberalism would rather talk, and then attach a symbolic value to that talk which is of no real value, presuming that if Obama (for example) met face-to-face with Ama-dada-doo-dad that somehow gives the Iranians a feeling that we respect them as equals, and that having been satisfied with the illusion of equality, they'll be ready to cave to our other demands, they being reasonable chaps and all that. It absolves them of the Guilt they feel when they recognize that other people are making sacrifices they don't have the courage or intelligence to make themselves.
It's an extension of the "There are no truly Bad Boys..." argument; if you talk to the Islamic Radicals, show them some respect, get down on their level, and perhaps provide them with Midnight Basketball, they won't turn into cold-blooded killers. It's like watching your middle-aged dad try to relate to your teenaged friends; he starts calling everyone "Dog", pretends an interest in rap music, tries to fit in and "be hip", high-fives everyone, and he doesn't realize how ridiculous he looks, or how embarrassing it is for you.
When that strategy fails, they always fall back on the police. Liberals, despite their protests to the contrary, actually love the power of the police...when it's used in ways they want it to be. The greatest danger to American Society in the last 20 years was not, as Libs would have you believe, John Ashcroft armed with the Patriot Act --it would have been Hillary Clinton similarly equipped.
So, when talk fails, law enforcement suddenly becomes the only answer. To everything; Can't control handguns because of the pesky Second Amendment? Law enforcement is the answer! Can't fix the social problems created by bastardy, drug abuse and rampant street crime that were a result of Liberal policies in the first place? Law enforcement is the answer! Even when law enforcement isn't the answer, it's the answer -- as when Obama went to Columbus (I think) to pose in front of 25 new police officers whose jobs were "saved" by the Stimulus Bill...But I digress.
Law Enforcement must now protect us after the magical powers of talk and symbolism have failed. However, law enforcement must do it's job handcuffed by conditions the Liberal insist upon; you can't profile (that's racist), you can't treat terrorists like terrorists and prosecute them as such (lawyers solve all problems), you can't make mention of a certain religion or ethnicity (because that might make them feel persecuted), you aren't allowed to kill the enemy on the battlefield until you can prove with (incontrovertible evidence) that he is about to kill you.
This is why Obama (and before him Clinton and Carter, to be fair) cannot come to grips with the problem of terrorism. It's why the Liberal Elite have railed against the War on Terror since it's inception (even while cynically voting for the money to prosecute the War, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, voting for the Patriot Act and all the rest -- they were all symbolic, and politically-necessary, votes). Libs would rather talk than fight, and then when talking fails, pass the buck. They ultimately end up punishing the innocent while putting up yet one obstacle to bringing the guilty to heel.
On the other side, Republicans are laboring under the mistaken impression that "everyone is basically the same, underneath it all" which is kinda strange, since it's Liberals who insist on the truthfulness of that statement -- while they accuse Republicans of being racists, elitists and exclusionary.
In this case, they don't actually believe everyone is "the same" in terms of people having equal talents, capacities, needs, etc. Instead, they believe that all people have a fundamental yearning that makes them "the same", and that yearning is for "Freedom"(always defined in strictly-American terms) and that all one must to do is to "give people Freedom" and there is some human instinct that automatically 'knows' what that means -- and then it automatically follows that people unversed in the 4,000 year-old philosophies of democracy, free-market economics and political/religious pluralism will quickly accept them, and adapt their culture to accommodate them.
That this "bringing Freedom to those who yearn for it" must be accomplished at gunpoint, under the conditions and mentality of War, doesn't seem to occur to those who believe that "Inside every Afghan/Iraqi/Iranian/Radical Muslim is an American just dying to get out..." is telling. It means that they don't fundamentally understand the historical, philosophical and social conditions and processes which have resulted in their own "Freedom", and almost reduces the whole concept to the process to that by which you install software on your PC -- you simply put the disk in and the host system (in this case, culture) simply "knows" what to do with it once it's introduced. It allows them to frame the whole War on Terror as some Noble Crusade that is, ultimately, for everyone's benefit. It makes them feel better about risking (other people's) lives and cash.
Both, in their own ways, see Man as some sort of reasonable creature who knows where his bread is buttered, and which actually believes in concepts such as equality and peace.
It's why one side will insist on open-ended commitments of American blood and treasure trying to redeem the seemingly irredeemable, and the other will seek to delay the inevitable bloodshed by the process of holistic politics. Because the alternatives, being wrong (for Conservatives) and all-out War (for Liberals) are unthinkable to either, and so are the consequences.
If anyone in power today actually knew anything about history (something which is hardly studied honestly anymore) they would recognize that the Radical Islamists are no better, and in some cases infinitely worse, than the Nazis, the Soviet Communists or the Japanese Militarists.
Defeating those enemies required realism, it required great violence, and the expenditure of much blood, iron and treasure with the goal of laying them utterly low. This Islamic Enemy will only be defeated by the same means. They cannot be "reformed" until they have been defeated in unmistakable terms, which means the destruction of their culture by overwhelming force and great suffering, wherein it will become apparent to The Enemy that whatever he hopes to achieve is impossible, and that whatever he believes is a false system that cannot achieve his goals.
Nazi Germany had to be bombed flat and defeated militarily on two continents before Germans finally lost faith in National Socialism and surrendered. Japan had to be starved, terrorized and threatened with nuclear holocaust before the Japanese began to see that they weren't a divine people imbued with a natural right to conquest and Empire. Soviet Communism had to be bankrupted before it was seen as being unable to provide the standard of living that it promised to it's people, and which Capitalism did. The same needs to be done to Islamonazis.
They need to be reduced to the level of drinking out of mud puddles and picking the undigested thistles from camel dung before they begin to realize that, perhaps, all this stuff they're busily committing suicide for is not exactly the best way of life. It is only through abject misery that people begin to question their fundamental beliefs. One side won't inflict that misery, and the other will only inflict it up to a certain point, beyond that, neither is willing to go.
And that's why any War on Terror, any regime of Airport Security, no number of Patriot Acts and Guantanamo Bays, no negotiations, bribes or concessions, will ever solve the problem of Islamic Terrorism. Doing so requires great violence of the "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" type that both find barbaric. In the meantime, one will fight a public-relations campaign with guns to no definite end, and the other will be talking it's ass off and offering your virgin daughters up to the barbarians in order to avoid violence, and achieving even less.
Discuss.
The central point in the War on Terror is the mindset of the people who will formulate and enact The Policy by which that war will be fought. In order to make the proper decisions that will become The Policy, and ultimately The Strategy, the people making them will have to recognize certain facts:
a. The Enemy is unrelenting.
b. The Enemy is part of an identifiable group.
c. The Enemy operates on a different wavelength and by different rules than we do.
d. The Enemy is not interested in making a deal, he's not interested in anything we can offer him.
e. The Enemy considers negotiation and conciliation as forms of weakness, unless it helps him to achieve his goal, then the good-feeling this engenders in his opponent is simply another weapon at his disposal.
f. The Enemy's Goal is World Domination, defined as the ultimate ascendancy of his religion and culture, culminating in the reduction to all those outside this scope to a position of semi-slavery with few, if any, legal or natural rights.
g. The Enemy is willing to do almost anything to achieve these goals, his philosophy having elevated those goals from mere political aims to the route towards personal salvation.
h. The Enemy has been in a state of Undeclared War with the United States since 1979.
i. The Enemy believes it's victory is pre-ordained and inevitable.
j. The Enemy is merciless and pitiless, and has no regard for the humanity of his opponents.
That is the reality of Militant Islam, and the Islamonazi political regime that comes with it. That is the kind of foe we're supposed to be fighting; implacable, pitiless, single-minded, undistracted by abstract thoughts of justice, fairness or decency. He is armed to the teeth, and has a billion potential soldiers at his command. He lives by a strict code of religious discipline, and routinely clears his ranks of shirkers and traitors by means of murder. He holds his host culture hostage with a climate of fear, religious orthodoxy and systematic violence, which he claims is his ancestral right either handed down from God, or magically bestowed upon his as a legacy of (pick one or more) racism, religious discrimination, colonialism, economic exploitation, etc, etc, etc.
The response and policies of both major political opponents, viewed against these realities, leave much to be desired, and in fact, seem woefully inadequate to meet the challenge of people willing to ran airliners into office buildings, tape high explosives to their groin, or indiscriminately launch unguided rockets into residential neighborhoods.
And the reason is because the political leadership of this country, Repub or Dem, is too frightened or stupid, to tell itself the Truth about The Enemy. Because they fail to see what's so obviously plain, their policies and pronouncements, their actions and rhetoric, are divorced from reality. In the meantime, American troops pay the price with their limbs and lives. Americans pay more for their energy, more in taxes, and make ever-more personal sacrifices in order to support the War/NotWar, and have to deal with a government who's response to terrorism is to prevent blankets from being handed out, keep nail clippers off aircraft, and restrict the use of rest rooms.
Liberals (and I'm using the term loosely, because they really aren't) see the problem of terrorism in terms of law enforcement and social welfare. They do not see The Enemy as some sort of robotic, inhuman force driven by a rabid ideology, it views him through the same lens it applies to all problems. All problems, in the liberal world, can be solved by talking and symbolism, because ultimately, all issues arise from a lack of tolerance and a dearth of 'resources' -- it would rather perform 'social outreach' (Obama's "Open hand/Clenched fist"), and get to the "root causes" of the problem (Obama's Apologies to Islam for Western Civilizations very existence and intolerance), then open a "dialogue" with them (Negotiate with Admini-doo-dad without pre-conditions), and then negotiate "terms" (Discuss the size of the bribe required for "peace"). Liberalism would rather talk, and then attach a symbolic value to that talk which is of no real value, presuming that if Obama (for example) met face-to-face with Ama-dada-doo-dad that somehow gives the Iranians a feeling that we respect them as equals, and that having been satisfied with the illusion of equality, they'll be ready to cave to our other demands, they being reasonable chaps and all that. It absolves them of the Guilt they feel when they recognize that other people are making sacrifices they don't have the courage or intelligence to make themselves.
It's an extension of the "There are no truly Bad Boys..." argument; if you talk to the Islamic Radicals, show them some respect, get down on their level, and perhaps provide them with Midnight Basketball, they won't turn into cold-blooded killers. It's like watching your middle-aged dad try to relate to your teenaged friends; he starts calling everyone "Dog", pretends an interest in rap music, tries to fit in and "be hip", high-fives everyone, and he doesn't realize how ridiculous he looks, or how embarrassing it is for you.
When that strategy fails, they always fall back on the police. Liberals, despite their protests to the contrary, actually love the power of the police...when it's used in ways they want it to be. The greatest danger to American Society in the last 20 years was not, as Libs would have you believe, John Ashcroft armed with the Patriot Act --it would have been Hillary Clinton similarly equipped.
So, when talk fails, law enforcement suddenly becomes the only answer. To everything; Can't control handguns because of the pesky Second Amendment? Law enforcement is the answer! Can't fix the social problems created by bastardy, drug abuse and rampant street crime that were a result of Liberal policies in the first place? Law enforcement is the answer! Even when law enforcement isn't the answer, it's the answer -- as when Obama went to Columbus (I think) to pose in front of 25 new police officers whose jobs were "saved" by the Stimulus Bill...But I digress.
Law Enforcement must now protect us after the magical powers of talk and symbolism have failed. However, law enforcement must do it's job handcuffed by conditions the Liberal insist upon; you can't profile (that's racist), you can't treat terrorists like terrorists and prosecute them as such (lawyers solve all problems), you can't make mention of a certain religion or ethnicity (because that might make them feel persecuted), you aren't allowed to kill the enemy on the battlefield until you can prove with (incontrovertible evidence) that he is about to kill you.
This is why Obama (and before him Clinton and Carter, to be fair) cannot come to grips with the problem of terrorism. It's why the Liberal Elite have railed against the War on Terror since it's inception (even while cynically voting for the money to prosecute the War, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, voting for the Patriot Act and all the rest -- they were all symbolic, and politically-necessary, votes). Libs would rather talk than fight, and then when talking fails, pass the buck. They ultimately end up punishing the innocent while putting up yet one obstacle to bringing the guilty to heel.
On the other side, Republicans are laboring under the mistaken impression that "everyone is basically the same, underneath it all" which is kinda strange, since it's Liberals who insist on the truthfulness of that statement -- while they accuse Republicans of being racists, elitists and exclusionary.
In this case, they don't actually believe everyone is "the same" in terms of people having equal talents, capacities, needs, etc. Instead, they believe that all people have a fundamental yearning that makes them "the same", and that yearning is for "Freedom"(always defined in strictly-American terms) and that all one must to do is to "give people Freedom" and there is some human instinct that automatically 'knows' what that means -- and then it automatically follows that people unversed in the 4,000 year-old philosophies of democracy, free-market economics and political/religious pluralism will quickly accept them, and adapt their culture to accommodate them.
That this "bringing Freedom to those who yearn for it" must be accomplished at gunpoint, under the conditions and mentality of War, doesn't seem to occur to those who believe that "Inside every Afghan/Iraqi/Iranian/Radical Muslim is an American just dying to get out..." is telling. It means that they don't fundamentally understand the historical, philosophical and social conditions and processes which have resulted in their own "Freedom", and almost reduces the whole concept to the process to that by which you install software on your PC -- you simply put the disk in and the host system (in this case, culture) simply "knows" what to do with it once it's introduced. It allows them to frame the whole War on Terror as some Noble Crusade that is, ultimately, for everyone's benefit. It makes them feel better about risking (other people's) lives and cash.
Both, in their own ways, see Man as some sort of reasonable creature who knows where his bread is buttered, and which actually believes in concepts such as equality and peace.
It's why one side will insist on open-ended commitments of American blood and treasure trying to redeem the seemingly irredeemable, and the other will seek to delay the inevitable bloodshed by the process of holistic politics. Because the alternatives, being wrong (for Conservatives) and all-out War (for Liberals) are unthinkable to either, and so are the consequences.
If anyone in power today actually knew anything about history (something which is hardly studied honestly anymore) they would recognize that the Radical Islamists are no better, and in some cases infinitely worse, than the Nazis, the Soviet Communists or the Japanese Militarists.
Defeating those enemies required realism, it required great violence, and the expenditure of much blood, iron and treasure with the goal of laying them utterly low. This Islamic Enemy will only be defeated by the same means. They cannot be "reformed" until they have been defeated in unmistakable terms, which means the destruction of their culture by overwhelming force and great suffering, wherein it will become apparent to The Enemy that whatever he hopes to achieve is impossible, and that whatever he believes is a false system that cannot achieve his goals.
Nazi Germany had to be bombed flat and defeated militarily on two continents before Germans finally lost faith in National Socialism and surrendered. Japan had to be starved, terrorized and threatened with nuclear holocaust before the Japanese began to see that they weren't a divine people imbued with a natural right to conquest and Empire. Soviet Communism had to be bankrupted before it was seen as being unable to provide the standard of living that it promised to it's people, and which Capitalism did. The same needs to be done to Islamonazis.
They need to be reduced to the level of drinking out of mud puddles and picking the undigested thistles from camel dung before they begin to realize that, perhaps, all this stuff they're busily committing suicide for is not exactly the best way of life. It is only through abject misery that people begin to question their fundamental beliefs. One side won't inflict that misery, and the other will only inflict it up to a certain point, beyond that, neither is willing to go.
And that's why any War on Terror, any regime of Airport Security, no number of Patriot Acts and Guantanamo Bays, no negotiations, bribes or concessions, will ever solve the problem of Islamic Terrorism. Doing so requires great violence of the "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" type that both find barbaric. In the meantime, one will fight a public-relations campaign with guns to no definite end, and the other will be talking it's ass off and offering your virgin daughters up to the barbarians in order to avoid violence, and achieving even less.
Discuss.
Day-Late, Meet Dollar-Short...
Continued fallout from the Undi-bomber: Barack Obama emerges from seclusion to, finally, admit what everyone with the same sense God gave a retarded Irish Setter already knew.
The System Failed -- despite Janet Napolitano's insistence to the contrary, and it needs to be fixed.
The man who famously attacked George W. Bush as being too stubborn to admit mistakes, and too slow to do the right thing has, four days after a near-major disaster, decided to admit a mistake and, indeed, pledge that he will take corrective action. But only because he had to; Apparent inaction and a seemingly-lackadaisical attitude on terrorism made him look bad on TV.
Now, in this instance, I can't (completely) kick the crap out of Barack Obama for anything except poor leadership. He didn't create the Department of Homeland (In-)Security, and he doesn't personally maintain the Watch Lists, nor does he screen luggage and passengers. Be fair. His sin was to not interrupt his vacation to let the public know he was on the job with this thing, and that he was going to get to the bottom of it all, while the Keystone Kops (Gibbs and Napolitano) made the whole Administration look more stupid and rudderless than it usually is. He delivered a terse press-release-disguised-as-a-serious-Presidential-moment, and then left...only to have to correct himself, his people, and his position, all within three days, and then he had to try to spin this cluster-fuck as a victory for the good guys, somehow, with a straight face. All without making reference to terror, terrorism, terrorists, War on Terrorism, Islam, Radical Islam or them Al'Qeada people, because that would undermine his whole rationale for the non-War on non-Terror.
That's a really hard juggling act, and he couldn't do it -- and it showed. If Barack Obama deserves a swift kick for anything, it's for his stubborn refusal to face reality. In the meantime, we find out that TSA and another Border agency don't have people in charge. The TSA top job is open because the person nominated has not been voted on by the Senate. The Democrats claim that Sen. DeMint (R) is holding the nomination process up, all by himself, despite the fact there's 60 democratic senators who could vote for this guy in a heartbeat, because DeMint is concerned the guy would unionize all TSA employees. Must look to the safety of the unions before the safety of the citizenry, right?
In light of what we've just seen, that would be a singularly bad idea. We need efficiency, professionalism and dedication from the TSA... not more coffee breaks and shorter working hours. So, even after the security of an airliner has been compromised, the democrats are still playing politics with the security of other airliners, and blaming a republican for it. Go figure.
The truth is that passing a National Eyedrops and Band aids plan was considered such a priority that it has apparently brought all other business before the Senate to a screeching halt. Not that having a head at TSA would have stopped this particular douchebag, but it's kind of stupid that a year after Obama takes office, he can't fill cabinet posts with a democrat-controlled Congress because of Healthcare.
Now, the truth about Homeland Security.
I've said it before, and I must say it again; this is an amalgamation of several government agencies under one roof. If you thought the mayhem and stupidity of a single government organization could be bad, wait until you see what happens when you merge several into a Super Agency -- and make it a cabinet-level post.
The DHS was never designed to do the things we expect it to do. It's not designed to protect the homeland (what is this, Soviet Russia?), it's not designed to deliver disaster relief, it's not designed to screen luggage, it's not designed to share information. It is the creation of bureaucrats and politicians in panic mode, and as such, it's main purpose is to give people the impression that someone is doing something.
This is why FEMA failed during Katrina. It's why TSA failed to catch Undibomber. It's why the State Department and CIA each had a file on the dude that one else ever saw. DHS is very good at taking knitting needles, nail clippers, shampoo and cigarette lighters from people who offer grudging co-operation. It absolutely sucks at finding terrorists. It has, instead, decided that American servicemen returning from overseas are more of a threat than Islamic Fundamentalsts. Identifying and catching terrorists is like... hard... and like any good organization drawn up the Senate Men's Room and lavishly-funded, it does so badly -- when it even bothers to. Doing that might mean an application of common sense, which would lead to profiling, which pisses Je$$e Jackass off.
DHS's response in the aftermath of Pantybomber was classic Washington nonsense: first it claimed a victory that it had not earned ("The System Worked...an Alert and Courageous Citizenry..."), and then it overreacted after the metaphorical horse had defecated and bolted the barn (No Blankets, No Bathrooms, No Breathing for the last hour of a flight). That's how politicians and bureaucrats behave -- and DHS is the brainchild of politicians and bureaucrats, so no surprise there.
Which means that, ultimately, the safety of the American Public rests with...the American Public. As always. You have been ill-served by your government, and will continue to be, until there is a hue and cry and heads roll, starting with Janet Napolitano, and then with Obama -- if his nominee for TSA has been held up for 11 months, then nominate another. If 60 democrats in the Senate can't find the time to vote for him (basically just going through the motions), then you don't have the time to go to Hawaii. I guess Barack is finding out, the hard way, that this President thing is a 24/7 job.
Make sure you take out travel insurance every time you fly so long as the government is in charge of airline and airport security. I wish you luck.
The System Failed -- despite Janet Napolitano's insistence to the contrary, and it needs to be fixed.
The man who famously attacked George W. Bush as being too stubborn to admit mistakes, and too slow to do the right thing has, four days after a near-major disaster, decided to admit a mistake and, indeed, pledge that he will take corrective action. But only because he had to; Apparent inaction and a seemingly-lackadaisical attitude on terrorism made him look bad on TV.
Now, in this instance, I can't (completely) kick the crap out of Barack Obama for anything except poor leadership. He didn't create the Department of Homeland (In-)Security, and he doesn't personally maintain the Watch Lists, nor does he screen luggage and passengers. Be fair. His sin was to not interrupt his vacation to let the public know he was on the job with this thing, and that he was going to get to the bottom of it all, while the Keystone Kops (Gibbs and Napolitano) made the whole Administration look more stupid and rudderless than it usually is. He delivered a terse press-release-disguised-as-a-serious-Presidential-moment, and then left...only to have to correct himself, his people, and his position, all within three days, and then he had to try to spin this cluster-fuck as a victory for the good guys, somehow, with a straight face. All without making reference to terror, terrorism, terrorists, War on Terrorism, Islam, Radical Islam or them Al'Qeada people, because that would undermine his whole rationale for the non-War on non-Terror.
That's a really hard juggling act, and he couldn't do it -- and it showed. If Barack Obama deserves a swift kick for anything, it's for his stubborn refusal to face reality. In the meantime, we find out that TSA and another Border agency don't have people in charge. The TSA top job is open because the person nominated has not been voted on by the Senate. The Democrats claim that Sen. DeMint (R) is holding the nomination process up, all by himself, despite the fact there's 60 democratic senators who could vote for this guy in a heartbeat, because DeMint is concerned the guy would unionize all TSA employees. Must look to the safety of the unions before the safety of the citizenry, right?
In light of what we've just seen, that would be a singularly bad idea. We need efficiency, professionalism and dedication from the TSA... not more coffee breaks and shorter working hours. So, even after the security of an airliner has been compromised, the democrats are still playing politics with the security of other airliners, and blaming a republican for it. Go figure.
The truth is that passing a National Eyedrops and Band aids plan was considered such a priority that it has apparently brought all other business before the Senate to a screeching halt. Not that having a head at TSA would have stopped this particular douchebag, but it's kind of stupid that a year after Obama takes office, he can't fill cabinet posts with a democrat-controlled Congress because of Healthcare.
Now, the truth about Homeland Security.
I've said it before, and I must say it again; this is an amalgamation of several government agencies under one roof. If you thought the mayhem and stupidity of a single government organization could be bad, wait until you see what happens when you merge several into a Super Agency -- and make it a cabinet-level post.
The DHS was never designed to do the things we expect it to do. It's not designed to protect the homeland (what is this, Soviet Russia?), it's not designed to deliver disaster relief, it's not designed to screen luggage, it's not designed to share information. It is the creation of bureaucrats and politicians in panic mode, and as such, it's main purpose is to give people the impression that someone is doing something.
This is why FEMA failed during Katrina. It's why TSA failed to catch Undibomber. It's why the State Department and CIA each had a file on the dude that one else ever saw. DHS is very good at taking knitting needles, nail clippers, shampoo and cigarette lighters from people who offer grudging co-operation. It absolutely sucks at finding terrorists. It has, instead, decided that American servicemen returning from overseas are more of a threat than Islamic Fundamentalsts. Identifying and catching terrorists is like... hard... and like any good organization drawn up the Senate Men's Room and lavishly-funded, it does so badly -- when it even bothers to. Doing that might mean an application of common sense, which would lead to profiling, which pisses Je$$e Jackass off.
DHS's response in the aftermath of Pantybomber was classic Washington nonsense: first it claimed a victory that it had not earned ("The System Worked...an Alert and Courageous Citizenry..."), and then it overreacted after the metaphorical horse had defecated and bolted the barn (No Blankets, No Bathrooms, No Breathing for the last hour of a flight). That's how politicians and bureaucrats behave -- and DHS is the brainchild of politicians and bureaucrats, so no surprise there.
Which means that, ultimately, the safety of the American Public rests with...the American Public. As always. You have been ill-served by your government, and will continue to be, until there is a hue and cry and heads roll, starting with Janet Napolitano, and then with Obama -- if his nominee for TSA has been held up for 11 months, then nominate another. If 60 democrats in the Senate can't find the time to vote for him (basically just going through the motions), then you don't have the time to go to Hawaii. I guess Barack is finding out, the hard way, that this President thing is a 24/7 job.
Make sure you take out travel insurance every time you fly so long as the government is in charge of airline and airport security. I wish you luck.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Mike Bloomberg is A Douchebag, Which is Why He Shouldn't Be Taken Seriously...
Which is why you should never, ever, go along with him...on anything.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with the Mayor of New York City, let me supply you with a short introduction to Hizzonner.
He's a filthy rich man. I mean, phenomenally rich, so rich that he makes other rich people look poor. He sits at the head of a media empire that makes him a shitload of money and gives him the ability to manipulate the news and public information. Even though he technically is not running his company, I have the feeling that somehow, he does. He has his own, built-in propaganda machine. He's bought the office outright, twice (if I recall from this past election, his campaign against a lack-luster-second-stringer dimwit was rumored to have spent something like $20,000 per vote received, and he still barely won).
Mike Bloomberg is so wealthy that things like, oh, I don't know, laws, are for the little people. The man who famously threatened to sue his way into Gracie Mansion when Rudy Guiliani made the suggestion that he should extend his last term as Mayor in the aftermath of 9/11 was all for term limits then. But then he co-opted the City Council in New York City (which wasn't difficult; which democrat wanted to be the Mayor of New York during a recession, when there was no Wall Street money to waste?) to overturn the will of the voters and repeal the term limit laws --so that he could run for an illegal third term as Mayor.
When it comes to things like healthcare, smoking, trash, automobiles, Mike is simply reflecting the views of his Upper East Side friends: cars are slowly being forced out of Manhattan with increased tolls, restrictions on travel, requirements on the taxi fleet to 'go green', and the once-vaunted (but ultimately-defeated) "Congestion Pricing" model which would have charged drivers tolls on the Manhattan Crossings based on time of day and traffic flow. Your $6, 9 a.m. toll could have risen to $10 by 9:05 a.m. and perhaps as much as $12 by 9:15 based on some formula no one was able to explain. The City looks through your garbage with an army of Sanitation Inspectors to ensure that you're recycling properly (like anyone asked for that?), and then hands out exorbitant fines for the smallest of infractions, forcing you to attend Sanitation Court (you can't just mail your check in, you have to appear before a magistrate). You can't smoke in a bar or restaurant, and soon, you won't be able to smoke on the street -- assuming you can afford cigarettes which are now running $10 per pack, in some places.
These policies are not intended to help anyone, improve anyone's quality of life, and they aren't required to run the City more efficiently; they are intended to enforce the vision of a self-appointed, Super-rich and obnoxious elite who don't like working people, and they wish to a) exploit working folks for what little money they DO have, b) keep them out of Manhattan so that it becomes their private preserve, and c) eventually drive all the proles into the Outer Boroughs ... where they belong....Until they're ready to gentrify those neighborhoods, too.
Now, as for guns. Mike is simply doing what New York City has done for decades; New York doesn't actually interfere with your right to own a gun -- it simply makes compliance with the law impossible. In so doing, it causes many law-abiding citizens to simply give up the quixotic attempt to obtain a legal firearm permit, and it makes those who already have one jump through ever-smaller legal hoops to in order keep them.
I'm not one of those Second Amendment types who believes the Constitution gives you the right to own a flamethrower --just because -- but the crusade against personal firearms waged by Mike Bloomberg is a bit too much, especially when you consider that if Mike wanted one (despite his taxpayer-funded security detail), he'd have his 'people' make a few phone calls, and they'd fax the permit over, toot-sweet. I can tell you from personal experience what happens in New York City in an economic downturn; it gets nasty. Crime rises, violent crime rises even faster, and illegal guns proliferate...in the hands of the criminals ... as the law-abiding citizen is left defenseless because some Rich Yuppies find guns offensive.
The NYPD is the best...ever...but the cops may be minutes away when you have but seconds to act.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with the Mayor of New York City, let me supply you with a short introduction to Hizzonner.
He's a filthy rich man. I mean, phenomenally rich, so rich that he makes other rich people look poor. He sits at the head of a media empire that makes him a shitload of money and gives him the ability to manipulate the news and public information. Even though he technically is not running his company, I have the feeling that somehow, he does. He has his own, built-in propaganda machine. He's bought the office outright, twice (if I recall from this past election, his campaign against a lack-luster-second-stringer dimwit was rumored to have spent something like $20,000 per vote received, and he still barely won).
Mike Bloomberg is so wealthy that things like, oh, I don't know, laws, are for the little people. The man who famously threatened to sue his way into Gracie Mansion when Rudy Guiliani made the suggestion that he should extend his last term as Mayor in the aftermath of 9/11 was all for term limits then. But then he co-opted the City Council in New York City (which wasn't difficult; which democrat wanted to be the Mayor of New York during a recession, when there was no Wall Street money to waste?) to overturn the will of the voters and repeal the term limit laws --so that he could run for an illegal third term as Mayor.
When it comes to things like healthcare, smoking, trash, automobiles, Mike is simply reflecting the views of his Upper East Side friends: cars are slowly being forced out of Manhattan with increased tolls, restrictions on travel, requirements on the taxi fleet to 'go green', and the once-vaunted (but ultimately-defeated) "Congestion Pricing" model which would have charged drivers tolls on the Manhattan Crossings based on time of day and traffic flow. Your $6, 9 a.m. toll could have risen to $10 by 9:05 a.m. and perhaps as much as $12 by 9:15 based on some formula no one was able to explain. The City looks through your garbage with an army of Sanitation Inspectors to ensure that you're recycling properly (like anyone asked for that?), and then hands out exorbitant fines for the smallest of infractions, forcing you to attend Sanitation Court (you can't just mail your check in, you have to appear before a magistrate). You can't smoke in a bar or restaurant, and soon, you won't be able to smoke on the street -- assuming you can afford cigarettes which are now running $10 per pack, in some places.
These policies are not intended to help anyone, improve anyone's quality of life, and they aren't required to run the City more efficiently; they are intended to enforce the vision of a self-appointed, Super-rich and obnoxious elite who don't like working people, and they wish to a) exploit working folks for what little money they DO have, b) keep them out of Manhattan so that it becomes their private preserve, and c) eventually drive all the proles into the Outer Boroughs ... where they belong....Until they're ready to gentrify those neighborhoods, too.
Now, as for guns. Mike is simply doing what New York City has done for decades; New York doesn't actually interfere with your right to own a gun -- it simply makes compliance with the law impossible. In so doing, it causes many law-abiding citizens to simply give up the quixotic attempt to obtain a legal firearm permit, and it makes those who already have one jump through ever-smaller legal hoops to in order keep them.
I'm not one of those Second Amendment types who believes the Constitution gives you the right to own a flamethrower --just because -- but the crusade against personal firearms waged by Mike Bloomberg is a bit too much, especially when you consider that if Mike wanted one (despite his taxpayer-funded security detail), he'd have his 'people' make a few phone calls, and they'd fax the permit over, toot-sweet. I can tell you from personal experience what happens in New York City in an economic downturn; it gets nasty. Crime rises, violent crime rises even faster, and illegal guns proliferate...in the hands of the criminals ... as the law-abiding citizen is left defenseless because some Rich Yuppies find guns offensive.
The NYPD is the best...ever...but the cops may be minutes away when you have but seconds to act.
You Voted for this, You Hopenchange Morons...
So, I hope y'all get killed first. This is what you have wrought:
Administration's non-response response to an attempted terrorist attack.
Dems cut Airport Security funds last summer. (The twelve people who will eventually receive Obamacare Eyedrops and Band-Aids, and the 300 government employees who will make sure they get them, are extremely grateful).
Jonah Goldberg pretty much sums it all up.
(H/T to PajamasMedia, HotAir and National Review Online)
Administration's non-response response to an attempted terrorist attack.
Dems cut Airport Security funds last summer. (The twelve people who will eventually receive Obamacare Eyedrops and Band-Aids, and the 300 government employees who will make sure they get them, are extremely grateful).
Jonah Goldberg pretty much sums it all up.
(H/T to PajamasMedia, HotAir and National Review Online)
Report: Pantybomber One F****d Up Dude...
Gee, do you think? I mean, I know so many normal people who tape bombs to their tallywhackers, smuggle them through airport security on two continents, and then inject them with some sort of liquid detonator just before landing. Don't you?
(P)MSNBC has already begun the "poor, mixed up kid" defense. Yeah, that'll work.
Then again, it might, since this Administration and it's law enforcement and security arms are simply unable to come to grips with the fact that terrorism exists, that the majority of terrorists are Muslims, and that the Muslim world has been at War with us since 1979. This 'kid' is just the latest in a long line of Islamic Terrorists sent out to kill Westerners.
But no, this is "an isolated extremist" according to the President, and the circumstances of how he got a bomb and then on a flight require a "thorough investigation", but "the system worked" when an "alert citizen" averted a "man-caused disaster". That's the line from the Obama Administration. Seventy-two hours after the incident (Sorry, Mr. President, but you're supposed to cut your vacation short and make at least one (good) speech during this sort of thing, The man who consumes airtime couldn't be bothered to show himself on TV... when it was actually necessary for him to do so).
Until it isn't, and they have to backtrack on even that mealy-mouthed response a day later. After they blame George Bush (again). But there it is: nothing to see here: " No, no, no, that wasn't a Muslim with a bomb, no, no, no that wasn't the failure of the security apparatus, no, no, no, the Department of Homeland Security didn't fail spectacularly. No, No, NO! We''re not at War with anyone..."
Standard (Liberal) Washington boilerplate. A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
This was an act of war, but the libs refuse to see it that way. Now Pantybomber has lawyered up, and he doesn't have to say a damned thing to anyone. So we'll probably never know who sent him, how they got him here, who recruited him and who put him up to this. Hell, even the information the government does have, it didn't seem to put to any good use. This does not inspire confidence.
And another idiot will try a similar stunt in a few weeks or months, and maybe even succeed.
It's time to stop with the lofty rhetoric about open hands and clenched fists. It's time to stop hiding from the obvious with "man-caused disasters" and the holistic approach to fighting terrorism. It's time to forget about the niceties of the legal system when you're dealing with people who a) don't give a crap about your vaunted courts, and b) will only use them, if possible, to embarrass and denounce the country. It's time to start holding the federal bureaucracy responsible...for something. Homeland Security and the State Department knew about this guy, and did absolutely jack shit. The British had him on a watch list, and they apparently shared that information with us, but someone decided not to investigate even after his own father turned him in!
Of course not... We have bigger fish to fry like Healthcare and figuring out how to spend more money than actually exists. No time for fighting terrorism, so we'll just pretend it doesn't exist. Until it does, and then it's not really what it appears to be.
This is War. The Obama Administration doesn't think so, it acts as if it's never heard of terrorists and a War on Terrorism. It believes it can just talk unicorns and rainbow bunnies into existence and the world will be a better place. It won't, because of people like Pantybomber; this article gives you a small glimpse into who the Other Side is recruiting: lunatics who hold incessant, and inane, internal debates over what "the Prophet said". People who are unable to make simple day-to-day decisions without having to check them against the teachings of a child-molesting murderer are simply too far gone to care about legalism and morality. They don't share your vision for World Peace -- they want to rule the World and every aspect of daily life. The unicorns and rainbow bunnies need to die in order for that to happen. They only say so every goddamned day. Open those elephantine ears, Mr. President.
The article makes the kid look somewhat sympathetic, certainly (I think I know, to a certain extent, how he must have felt when he posted that stuff having suffered from depression myself), but then he loses all rights to sympathy when you stop to consider the solution that he chose: to strap an explosive to himself in an attempted suicide -- with the added "benefit" that several hundred "Infidels" would go with him. Those "infidels" didn't know him, they didn't care about his phony-baloney religion, and a sizable proportion of them might have actually helped that young man with his difficulties, had circumstances been different.
But when you reach the point of taping PETN to your pecker, you're no longer looking for help.
Sorry, but there ain't enough sympathy in the world after that.
Now, if Barack Obama thinks he can reason with people who are capable of making that formulation -- and they usually do so with great glee and confidence, to judge from the videos they typically leave behind -- with legal systems and empty rhetoric, then he's the one who really needs the psychiatrist.
And Mr. President? Get the hell back in your office.
Update: Let's see how the Administration spins this. They now have one man linked to two attacks, and if that doesn't blow the 'isolated extremist' meme out the window, then it's time to start seriously thinking about impeaching a President.
(P)MSNBC has already begun the "poor, mixed up kid" defense. Yeah, that'll work.
Then again, it might, since this Administration and it's law enforcement and security arms are simply unable to come to grips with the fact that terrorism exists, that the majority of terrorists are Muslims, and that the Muslim world has been at War with us since 1979. This 'kid' is just the latest in a long line of Islamic Terrorists sent out to kill Westerners.
But no, this is "an isolated extremist" according to the President, and the circumstances of how he got a bomb and then on a flight require a "thorough investigation", but "the system worked" when an "alert citizen" averted a "man-caused disaster". That's the line from the Obama Administration. Seventy-two hours after the incident (Sorry, Mr. President, but you're supposed to cut your vacation short and make at least one (good) speech during this sort of thing, The man who consumes airtime couldn't be bothered to show himself on TV... when it was actually necessary for him to do so).
Until it isn't, and they have to backtrack on even that mealy-mouthed response a day later. After they blame George Bush (again). But there it is: nothing to see here: " No, no, no, that wasn't a Muslim with a bomb, no, no, no that wasn't the failure of the security apparatus, no, no, no, the Department of Homeland Security didn't fail spectacularly. No, No, NO! We''re not at War with anyone..."
Standard (Liberal) Washington boilerplate. A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
This was an act of war, but the libs refuse to see it that way. Now Pantybomber has lawyered up, and he doesn't have to say a damned thing to anyone. So we'll probably never know who sent him, how they got him here, who recruited him and who put him up to this. Hell, even the information the government does have, it didn't seem to put to any good use. This does not inspire confidence.
And another idiot will try a similar stunt in a few weeks or months, and maybe even succeed.
It's time to stop with the lofty rhetoric about open hands and clenched fists. It's time to stop hiding from the obvious with "man-caused disasters" and the holistic approach to fighting terrorism. It's time to forget about the niceties of the legal system when you're dealing with people who a) don't give a crap about your vaunted courts, and b) will only use them, if possible, to embarrass and denounce the country. It's time to start holding the federal bureaucracy responsible...for something. Homeland Security and the State Department knew about this guy, and did absolutely jack shit. The British had him on a watch list, and they apparently shared that information with us, but someone decided not to investigate even after his own father turned him in!
Of course not... We have bigger fish to fry like Healthcare and figuring out how to spend more money than actually exists. No time for fighting terrorism, so we'll just pretend it doesn't exist. Until it does, and then it's not really what it appears to be.
This is War. The Obama Administration doesn't think so, it acts as if it's never heard of terrorists and a War on Terrorism. It believes it can just talk unicorns and rainbow bunnies into existence and the world will be a better place. It won't, because of people like Pantybomber; this article gives you a small glimpse into who the Other Side is recruiting: lunatics who hold incessant, and inane, internal debates over what "the Prophet said". People who are unable to make simple day-to-day decisions without having to check them against the teachings of a child-molesting murderer are simply too far gone to care about legalism and morality. They don't share your vision for World Peace -- they want to rule the World and every aspect of daily life. The unicorns and rainbow bunnies need to die in order for that to happen. They only say so every goddamned day. Open those elephantine ears, Mr. President.
The article makes the kid look somewhat sympathetic, certainly (I think I know, to a certain extent, how he must have felt when he posted that stuff having suffered from depression myself), but then he loses all rights to sympathy when you stop to consider the solution that he chose: to strap an explosive to himself in an attempted suicide -- with the added "benefit" that several hundred "Infidels" would go with him. Those "infidels" didn't know him, they didn't care about his phony-baloney religion, and a sizable proportion of them might have actually helped that young man with his difficulties, had circumstances been different.
But when you reach the point of taping PETN to your pecker, you're no longer looking for help.
Sorry, but there ain't enough sympathy in the world after that.
Now, if Barack Obama thinks he can reason with people who are capable of making that formulation -- and they usually do so with great glee and confidence, to judge from the videos they typically leave behind -- with legal systems and empty rhetoric, then he's the one who really needs the psychiatrist.
And Mr. President? Get the hell back in your office.
Update: Let's see how the Administration spins this. They now have one man linked to two attacks, and if that doesn't blow the 'isolated extremist' meme out the window, then it's time to start seriously thinking about impeaching a President.
Monday, December 28, 2009
The "System" Worked...
So sayeth Janet Napolitano, supposed-Secretary of supposed-Homeland Security in the wake of the Christmas Bomber situation in Detroit.
The System Worked? Last time I looked, that plane wasn't a mass of flame because another passenger, a civilian, not trained in security procedures, but willing to possibly risk his life -- a man who was probably not expecting to have to engage in any heroics on his trip from Amsterdam to Detroit -- actually had the testes to jump on this asshole and then risk injury to put the flames out with his bare, fucking hands!
The System Worked? This guy blasted through 'security'...at two airports. With an explosive strapped to his ding-dong.
The System Worked? The guy was on a government watch list, he was reported as a possible danger to the U.S. government by his own father, and yet, he still got a visa, and he still got on a plane.
Janet Napolitano has a very strange concept of how things should 'work'.
Jonah Goldberg on this whole thing -- and he makes a very interesting comparison between security in the Age of John Ashcroft, and security in the Age of Janet Napolitano.
Which is to say, the Age of Reason and the Age of Donkey-like-stubborn-dumbass-itude.
Ashcroft was supposed to be a modern-day Nazi, ringing in the Fourth Reich. According to his political opponents, John Ashcroft was the greatest threat to civil liberties...ever. But say what you will, no one who wasn't associated with terrorism was prosecuted under the Patriot Act, no one had their phones tapped without a warrant in this country, and there wasn't a line of liberals being frog-marched to the ovens. On the other hand, Janet Napolitano is going to get people killed. Dead. In the most horrible manner, and probably on TV. But she'll get a pass from those who wanted Ashcroft's scalp, because the furor over Ashcroft was about a White, Male, Conservative Christian having that sort of power. Napolitano, being a woman (I think)and a lesbian (I'm certain), is entitled to be the Secretary of Homeland Security because of the white male oppression she's suffered on both those accounts, and will never be held responsible for anything, let alone her own (in-)actions. She certainly is not expected to do her job. She's a token, a symbol. Liberals don't do work -- they do symbols.
All those people then (in the Age of Ashcroft) who cried about the loss of rights and the power of the government to oppress then, are the same ones now bullying banks, insurance companies, giving civilian trials to war criminals, and planning to make the American taxpayer an endangered species while ensuring that our borders and security are threatened by hordes of illegal immigrants seeking welfare, protected the shield of their stupid liberal ideology.
You know, people like....Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Joe Biden, et. al.
You tell me -- which seems more Nazi -like to you these days; the America of John Ashcroft, with all it's flag-waving, and it's tough talk of A War and Terrorism, or the America where the government can decide who gets an operation, who gets to stay in business, who should have to pay back a mortgage, who gets paid what, when and how, and where paying exorbitant taxes to support a massive federal debt that will never be paid back is "your patriotic duty?"
As long as people who can get things that ass-backwards are still in power, are still installed within the very federal bureaucracies we depend upon to keep us safe from people like Christmas Bomber, this country is capital fucked. You know what "capital fucked" is? It's" fucked" in capital letters, thus:
FUCKED.
It's sometimes hard to tell if these people are just truly that clueless, truly that evil, or truly that stupid. Perhaps all three.
Because people like this are in your government, we're all in danger from more Christmas Bombers, more Central Americans with leafblowers and no will to assimilate, more Muslims who will hide their hatred behind the shield of political correctness, more soldiers killed on foreign battlefields, more unfunded welfare mandates, more public debt. Because nothing short of dynamite will ever teach this sort of moron just what planet they're living on.
Janet Napolitano is merely a symptom, the first very visible pustule, if you will, of the underlying disease.
Update: Oh, that's different...Nevermind!
It also turns out the State Department may have known about the Pantybomber before his little fireworks show, too.
The System Worked? Last time I looked, that plane wasn't a mass of flame because another passenger, a civilian, not trained in security procedures, but willing to possibly risk his life -- a man who was probably not expecting to have to engage in any heroics on his trip from Amsterdam to Detroit -- actually had the testes to jump on this asshole and then risk injury to put the flames out with his bare, fucking hands!
The System Worked? This guy blasted through 'security'...at two airports. With an explosive strapped to his ding-dong.
The System Worked? The guy was on a government watch list, he was reported as a possible danger to the U.S. government by his own father, and yet, he still got a visa, and he still got on a plane.
Janet Napolitano has a very strange concept of how things should 'work'.
Jonah Goldberg on this whole thing -- and he makes a very interesting comparison between security in the Age of John Ashcroft, and security in the Age of Janet Napolitano.
Which is to say, the Age of Reason and the Age of Donkey-like-stubborn-dumbass-itude.
Ashcroft was supposed to be a modern-day Nazi, ringing in the Fourth Reich. According to his political opponents, John Ashcroft was the greatest threat to civil liberties...ever. But say what you will, no one who wasn't associated with terrorism was prosecuted under the Patriot Act, no one had their phones tapped without a warrant in this country, and there wasn't a line of liberals being frog-marched to the ovens. On the other hand, Janet Napolitano is going to get people killed. Dead. In the most horrible manner, and probably on TV. But she'll get a pass from those who wanted Ashcroft's scalp, because the furor over Ashcroft was about a White, Male, Conservative Christian having that sort of power. Napolitano, being a woman (I think)and a lesbian (I'm certain), is entitled to be the Secretary of Homeland Security because of the white male oppression she's suffered on both those accounts, and will never be held responsible for anything, let alone her own (in-)actions. She certainly is not expected to do her job. She's a token, a symbol. Liberals don't do work -- they do symbols.
All those people then (in the Age of Ashcroft) who cried about the loss of rights and the power of the government to oppress then, are the same ones now bullying banks, insurance companies, giving civilian trials to war criminals, and planning to make the American taxpayer an endangered species while ensuring that our borders and security are threatened by hordes of illegal immigrants seeking welfare, protected the shield of their stupid liberal ideology.
You know, people like....Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Joe Biden, et. al.
You tell me -- which seems more Nazi -like to you these days; the America of John Ashcroft, with all it's flag-waving, and it's tough talk of A War and Terrorism, or the America where the government can decide who gets an operation, who gets to stay in business, who should have to pay back a mortgage, who gets paid what, when and how, and where paying exorbitant taxes to support a massive federal debt that will never be paid back is "your patriotic duty?"
As long as people who can get things that ass-backwards are still in power, are still installed within the very federal bureaucracies we depend upon to keep us safe from people like Christmas Bomber, this country is capital fucked. You know what "capital fucked" is? It's" fucked" in capital letters, thus:
FUCKED.
It's sometimes hard to tell if these people are just truly that clueless, truly that evil, or truly that stupid. Perhaps all three.
Because people like this are in your government, we're all in danger from more Christmas Bombers, more Central Americans with leafblowers and no will to assimilate, more Muslims who will hide their hatred behind the shield of political correctness, more soldiers killed on foreign battlefields, more unfunded welfare mandates, more public debt. Because nothing short of dynamite will ever teach this sort of moron just what planet they're living on.
Janet Napolitano is merely a symptom, the first very visible pustule, if you will, of the underlying disease.
Update: Oh, that's different...Nevermind!
It also turns out the State Department may have known about the Pantybomber before his little fireworks show, too.
The Eternal Guy Debate...
Over the Christmas holiday, my cousin and I got into one of those quintessential rites of manhood which involves great quantities of beer, a few shots of Jamieson's, and naturally, sex.
Not with each other, of course.
No, we got into the Great Debate. The Discussion to End all Discussions. The one thing men can argue about passionately that doesn't involve batting averages, steroids, or the finer points of tuning up a Pontiac GTO.
The whole, sordid question of "The Top Ten Hottest Chicks...Ever."
Now, for you ladies, I must explain a few things. First, we're simply obsessed with sex, even when we say we aren't. We can't help it; our brains are hardwired to automatically evaluate every piece of womenfolk that passes for a mating opportunity. It's why we stare at women who pass us on the street while we're walking arm-and-arm with you. We can't help it. It's a biological response very often beyond our control.
Second, we like arguing, and we'll argue about anything.
Third, you have to understand that the Category "Top Ten Hottest Chicks" is rather too broad a category for us, because we'll invariably include the slut from High School who did the things the other girl's wouldn't, or the bartender with no gag reflex that we know, but no one else knows her, so they can't evaluate your choices. So, we have to refine the category, and so we pared it down to the Top Ten Hottest Chicks from Movies and TV, but one proviso; neither Ginger nor Maryann from Gilligan's Island could be on the list.
Those two are another debate entirely, and one which often leads to fistfights.
So, here's my list (in descending order, and it probably shows my age, too);
10. Sean Young (the ultimate bad girl)
9. Cybil Shepperd
8. Terri Garr
7. Jill St. John
6. Jaclyn Smith
5. Goldie Hawn
4. Kate Hudson (have to get that Mother-Daughter thing in there someplace).
3. Racquel Welch
2. Barbara Eden
and the All-Time Hottest Babe,
1. Selma Hayek
Honorable Mention: Farrah Fawcett-Majors, Phoebe Cates, and Drew Barrymore.
Ladies, discuss my sickness. Gentlemen, chime in with your additions/comments. I'll keep a six pack chillin'.
Not with each other, of course.
No, we got into the Great Debate. The Discussion to End all Discussions. The one thing men can argue about passionately that doesn't involve batting averages, steroids, or the finer points of tuning up a Pontiac GTO.
The whole, sordid question of "The Top Ten Hottest Chicks...Ever."
Now, for you ladies, I must explain a few things. First, we're simply obsessed with sex, even when we say we aren't. We can't help it; our brains are hardwired to automatically evaluate every piece of womenfolk that passes for a mating opportunity. It's why we stare at women who pass us on the street while we're walking arm-and-arm with you. We can't help it. It's a biological response very often beyond our control.
Second, we like arguing, and we'll argue about anything.
Third, you have to understand that the Category "Top Ten Hottest Chicks" is rather too broad a category for us, because we'll invariably include the slut from High School who did the things the other girl's wouldn't, or the bartender with no gag reflex that we know, but no one else knows her, so they can't evaluate your choices. So, we have to refine the category, and so we pared it down to the Top Ten Hottest Chicks from Movies and TV, but one proviso; neither Ginger nor Maryann from Gilligan's Island could be on the list.
Those two are another debate entirely, and one which often leads to fistfights.
So, here's my list (in descending order, and it probably shows my age, too);
10. Sean Young (the ultimate bad girl)
9. Cybil Shepperd
8. Terri Garr
7. Jill St. John
6. Jaclyn Smith
5. Goldie Hawn
4. Kate Hudson (have to get that Mother-Daughter thing in there someplace).
3. Racquel Welch
2. Barbara Eden
and the All-Time Hottest Babe,
1. Selma Hayek
Honorable Mention: Farrah Fawcett-Majors, Phoebe Cates, and Drew Barrymore.
Ladies, discuss my sickness. Gentlemen, chime in with your additions/comments. I'll keep a six pack chillin'.
The Christmas Bomber...
Okay, so some African dude gets on a plane, even though he's on a terrorist watch list (yet somehow not on a No-Fly list), lights up a condom full of explosives and only the heroics of a passenger averts potential disaster. Is that about the gist of it?
This guy got through airport security (such as it is) in Nigeria despite being on the list. He got past security in Holland despite being on a list, and probably at that point, carrying a dangerous explosive taped to his thingamabob. But that's okay, we can keep asking little old ladies in wheelchairs to take off their shoes for security screenings, and detain them for having an Odor Eater. Can't be insensitive and start profiling, can we?
Okay, I'm thinking of a brand new bunch of rules for airport security. Here they go:
1. Any guy named Mohammad, Abdullah, Hassan, Ramzi, Barak, Umar, Omar, or whatever, aren't allowed to fly. At all. Ever. No more American Airlines for Farouk, no more Lufthansa for Achmed. Only civilized people who don't make bombs should be allowed to fly, and then they should be screened within an inch of their lives. In fact, no one with a Muslim name should be allowed within 10 miles of an airport...and no, I don't care if they keep the bathrooms clean at JFK. I want 'em out.
2. Anyone who even smells Muslim should be kept off a plane.
3. If you make one U.S. Government List (like the "Watch out, this guy might be an asshole" list), and your own father informs the U.S. Government that you are, indeed, an asshole, then you should automatically be on the No-Fly List. See, this was the problem with the creation of the Department of Homeland (In-) Security in the first place; The government did, in the aftermath of 9/11 what Wall Street does in the aftermath of any problem; it reshuffled the org chart, 'put someone in charge' and then hoped for the best, without fixing the real problem...
The people who brought you 9/11 are still at their desks. They still have their jobs. Time passes and people forget, they become complacent.
Nine years later, this is the result. If you think this was a one-off attempt, think again. But still, this huge bureaucracy can't combine two lists into a super-list to keep terrorists and potential-terrorists off airplanes...even when their own relatives report them! Hope all that taxpayer money being spent for this sort of result makes you feel better on your next flight to Disneyland. What the hell are they doing, if not even this much?
And by the way, can someone get Janet Napolitano off television? That woman makes my innards cringe and my sphincter pucker. I don't think I've ever seen an uglier (and more incompetent) lesbian in all my life.
4. Let the U.S. Military loose in Iraq and Afghanistan to start killing these people in huge numbers. That's what a War on Terror is supposed to be; killing terrorists and potential terrorists... and the people who love them, and teaching them the lesson that fucking with Uncle Sam gets you a Napalm Shower, not 72 Virgins.
The Other Side in this conflict doesn't play by rules of evidence and the niceties of a legal framework, and it doesn't distinguish between the innocent and the guilty; it kills indiscriminately, and it seeks to ensure that those murders capture the imagination (or nightmares) of the rest of the world. The Other Side deliberately chooses targets where large numbers of unsuspecting people are just going about their daily business, and makes a pile of corpses out of them because it cannot come to terms with a modern society that is not ruled by their 7th century mentally-constipated mindset. The Other Side is really after what you have, your lifestyle, your money, your land, your labor, your rights, because it lives in a culture that cannot produce these things for itself, and so it either has to steal from you or bring your culture down to it's level because they live under a delusion that they're entitled to rule the world.
A delusion foisted upon them by a batshit-crazy, camel-fucking, child-raping thief who managed to convince enough people that he talked to God. Yeah, that's a justifiable motive for mass murder, right? They don't play by any sort of 'rules', and neither should we.
I don't believe in the fiction of a 'moderate' Muslim. 'Moderation' requires an environment of freedom, which includes the freedom to criticize, to debate, to examine free from orthodoxy; Islam will have none of that crap. It kills it's 'moderates' as apostates. Because there are no 'Moderate' Muslims, there can be no great upsurge of revulsion against this sort of thing within Islam, and without that sort of internal pressure, that internal debate, there can never be a moderate Islam.
So, stop pretending as if there can be. Keep these people off planes and out of airports, and if they scream that it 'violates their rights', then turn around and tell them that when they go out and keep their fellow Muslims from violating my right not to get blown up in coach, and they report their apeshit crazy fathers, brothers and cousins to the FBI, I'll defend their right to fly again.
But that'll never happen; Muslims are physical and moral cowards and bullies. That's why no one in a turban ever marches in the streets against this sort of thing. They know who the crazy bastards are and what they're capable of doing. So, they sit on the sidelines and spout platitudes about a 'religion of peace', and hope to go unnoticed by their friends and relatives while they arrange marriages amongst first-cousins.
But back to this bomber.
I know we're not supposed to profile, but damn, if this guy doesn't fit the profile;
Muslim from a wealthy or middle-class family, college educated, seemingly disaffected by life in the West (i.e. it probably started when the white/blond girls wouldn't go out with him), finds assimilation difficult (probably because he can't get white girls) and so turns to radical Islam to 'get even' or to find a place where he is valued in a way that conventional society doesn't, he's able to use and abuse the American and British immigration services (and his father's position as a high muck-a-muck in international banking probably helps here) to obtain visas and passports to allow free and unrestricted international air travel.
(Editor's Note: I'm generalizing, but you'll probably find in most terrorist-raised-in-West's backgrounds a tragic story of being in love/lust with a blond girl who a) wouldn't give him the time of day and humiliated him, b) emasculated and humiliated him, c) found him completely disgusting and humiliated him. I'll bet most of them turned to Radical Islam after a white girl did a number on him; having that white woman would have been the symbol that Western society actually accepted and valued him as an equal. Yeah, I know, go on and call me a racist if you wish, but it's probably true. Back to the nonsense).
That was almost the precise profile of many of the 9/11 terrorists.
But that's okay, the government will evaluate the situation that allowed this idiot to get on a flight to Detroit, and there will be answers --- just as soon as they reshuffle org chart --- and you get complacent about terrorism again.
This guy got through airport security (such as it is) in Nigeria despite being on the list. He got past security in Holland despite being on a list, and probably at that point, carrying a dangerous explosive taped to his thingamabob. But that's okay, we can keep asking little old ladies in wheelchairs to take off their shoes for security screenings, and detain them for having an Odor Eater. Can't be insensitive and start profiling, can we?
Okay, I'm thinking of a brand new bunch of rules for airport security. Here they go:
1. Any guy named Mohammad, Abdullah, Hassan, Ramzi, Barak, Umar, Omar, or whatever, aren't allowed to fly. At all. Ever. No more American Airlines for Farouk, no more Lufthansa for Achmed. Only civilized people who don't make bombs should be allowed to fly, and then they should be screened within an inch of their lives. In fact, no one with a Muslim name should be allowed within 10 miles of an airport...and no, I don't care if they keep the bathrooms clean at JFK. I want 'em out.
2. Anyone who even smells Muslim should be kept off a plane.
3. If you make one U.S. Government List (like the "Watch out, this guy might be an asshole" list), and your own father informs the U.S. Government that you are, indeed, an asshole, then you should automatically be on the No-Fly List. See, this was the problem with the creation of the Department of Homeland (In-) Security in the first place; The government did, in the aftermath of 9/11 what Wall Street does in the aftermath of any problem; it reshuffled the org chart, 'put someone in charge' and then hoped for the best, without fixing the real problem...
The people who brought you 9/11 are still at their desks. They still have their jobs. Time passes and people forget, they become complacent.
Nine years later, this is the result. If you think this was a one-off attempt, think again. But still, this huge bureaucracy can't combine two lists into a super-list to keep terrorists and potential-terrorists off airplanes...even when their own relatives report them! Hope all that taxpayer money being spent for this sort of result makes you feel better on your next flight to Disneyland. What the hell are they doing, if not even this much?
And by the way, can someone get Janet Napolitano off television? That woman makes my innards cringe and my sphincter pucker. I don't think I've ever seen an uglier (and more incompetent) lesbian in all my life.
4. Let the U.S. Military loose in Iraq and Afghanistan to start killing these people in huge numbers. That's what a War on Terror is supposed to be; killing terrorists and potential terrorists... and the people who love them, and teaching them the lesson that fucking with Uncle Sam gets you a Napalm Shower, not 72 Virgins.
The Other Side in this conflict doesn't play by rules of evidence and the niceties of a legal framework, and it doesn't distinguish between the innocent and the guilty; it kills indiscriminately, and it seeks to ensure that those murders capture the imagination (or nightmares) of the rest of the world. The Other Side deliberately chooses targets where large numbers of unsuspecting people are just going about their daily business, and makes a pile of corpses out of them because it cannot come to terms with a modern society that is not ruled by their 7th century mentally-constipated mindset. The Other Side is really after what you have, your lifestyle, your money, your land, your labor, your rights, because it lives in a culture that cannot produce these things for itself, and so it either has to steal from you or bring your culture down to it's level because they live under a delusion that they're entitled to rule the world.
A delusion foisted upon them by a batshit-crazy, camel-fucking, child-raping thief who managed to convince enough people that he talked to God. Yeah, that's a justifiable motive for mass murder, right? They don't play by any sort of 'rules', and neither should we.
I don't believe in the fiction of a 'moderate' Muslim. 'Moderation' requires an environment of freedom, which includes the freedom to criticize, to debate, to examine free from orthodoxy; Islam will have none of that crap. It kills it's 'moderates' as apostates. Because there are no 'Moderate' Muslims, there can be no great upsurge of revulsion against this sort of thing within Islam, and without that sort of internal pressure, that internal debate, there can never be a moderate Islam.
So, stop pretending as if there can be. Keep these people off planes and out of airports, and if they scream that it 'violates their rights', then turn around and tell them that when they go out and keep their fellow Muslims from violating my right not to get blown up in coach, and they report their apeshit crazy fathers, brothers and cousins to the FBI, I'll defend their right to fly again.
But that'll never happen; Muslims are physical and moral cowards and bullies. That's why no one in a turban ever marches in the streets against this sort of thing. They know who the crazy bastards are and what they're capable of doing. So, they sit on the sidelines and spout platitudes about a 'religion of peace', and hope to go unnoticed by their friends and relatives while they arrange marriages amongst first-cousins.
But back to this bomber.
I know we're not supposed to profile, but damn, if this guy doesn't fit the profile;
Muslim from a wealthy or middle-class family, college educated, seemingly disaffected by life in the West (i.e. it probably started when the white/blond girls wouldn't go out with him), finds assimilation difficult (probably because he can't get white girls) and so turns to radical Islam to 'get even' or to find a place where he is valued in a way that conventional society doesn't, he's able to use and abuse the American and British immigration services (and his father's position as a high muck-a-muck in international banking probably helps here) to obtain visas and passports to allow free and unrestricted international air travel.
(Editor's Note: I'm generalizing, but you'll probably find in most terrorist-raised-in-West's backgrounds a tragic story of being in love/lust with a blond girl who a) wouldn't give him the time of day and humiliated him, b) emasculated and humiliated him, c) found him completely disgusting and humiliated him. I'll bet most of them turned to Radical Islam after a white girl did a number on him; having that white woman would have been the symbol that Western society actually accepted and valued him as an equal. Yeah, I know, go on and call me a racist if you wish, but it's probably true. Back to the nonsense).
That was almost the precise profile of many of the 9/11 terrorists.
But that's okay, the government will evaluate the situation that allowed this idiot to get on a flight to Detroit, and there will be answers --- just as soon as they reshuffle org chart --- and you get complacent about terrorism again.
Stuff You May Have Missed...
Here's some things that I thought was worth reading while I was away.
A Trio of Mark Steyn on Health Care, The Christmas Bomber, and the (fortunate) Disaster of Copenhagen.
Then there was this from the Washington Times, which confirms about Barack Obama what you've probably always thought. The guy's a dweeb. In an expensive suit. Oh, and a very unpopular dweeb internationally, at that. Guess that Smart Diplomacy of rolling over and taking it is really getting us friends and influencing people? When world leaders go through that much trouble to simply avoid you, you know you're in trouble.
A Trio of Mark Steyn on Health Care, The Christmas Bomber, and the (fortunate) Disaster of Copenhagen.
Then there was this from the Washington Times, which confirms about Barack Obama what you've probably always thought. The guy's a dweeb. In an expensive suit. Oh, and a very unpopular dweeb internationally, at that. Guess that Smart Diplomacy of rolling over and taking it is really getting us friends and influencing people? When world leaders go through that much trouble to simply avoid you, you know you're in trouble.
I Have Returned...
I hope everyone had a thoroughly enjoyable holiday. Mine was quite good, between the food, the kids, the snow (now gone), and the Jets finally winning a game they needed to. Anyway, it's now time to start opening the flood gates, a sure-fire cure for mental constipation.
You have been warned.
You have been warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)