Just to avoid another Times Square Bombing, here's my take on what we should do:
1. Take all the guys in Gitmo, the Underwear Bomber, Jose Padilla, Taliban Johnny, and now this latest loser, the Times Square Fuck-Up, and bring 'em to a nice, comfy stadium someplace.
2. Set up lots of video cameras. Especially those ones that are capable of the Super-Slo-Mo in HD.
3. Sell tickets. Maybe $10 a head, and give the money to wounded vets, and the 9/11 cops and firemen who are suffering from sarcoidosis, cancers and immune system deficiencies since they worked on the World Trade Center pile.
4. Have all the Terrorists brought out before the rabid crowd hopped up on vast quantities of Budweiser (The King of Beers! I smell a marketing opportunity here!). March 'em out butt-naked (the terrorists, not the crowd), and with cute little messages painted upon their bodies. Things like "I blow camels", or "I'm afraid of women!", or perhaps "The Man Who Butt-Raped Me in the Madrassah said I was Cute!". My personal favorite would be "I Joined Al'Qaeda and All I got Was This Lousy Dose of Clap From Another Man".
5. Let them all be beaten to death by women and children wielding wooden clubs...with spikes set in 'em. Maybe we could set dogs on 'em, too?
6. Upon confirmation of a death of one of the terrorists, we'll have a brigade of incontinent rabbis standing by to whizz upon the corpses. Make sure the you get at least three cameras on it, and make sure at least one is a Slo-Mo closeup.
7. Slather the bodies in bacon grease, and set them alight.
8. Auction the ashes off on E-Bay, either as a once-in-a-lifetime collector's item, or as a substitute kitty litter.
9. Make sure that video gets picked up by Al-Jazeera, and YouTube. Run it 24/7/365 on basic cable systems all over America. Transmit it over every conceivable wavelength so that no one on Earth capable of receiving any form of electronic signal can possibly miss it.
10. The second the "Festivities" are complete, have the US Military begin the process of turning the heart of the Middle East (Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan) into a vast wasteland incapable of supporting human life. No more building schools, no more bringing clean water to barbarians, no more defending the next generation of Saddam Husseins and Mullah Omars behind American guns. No more Foreign Aid. We'll then issue the Great Challenge to American Science, and have them genetically-engineer an amoeba of some sort that'll eat sand and crap oil, and begin the process of repopulating the region with a more useful lifeform than Muslims.
No more visas for anyone coming fromt he Middle East, and the ones already here ought to get some deeper, and much more uncomfortable, scrutiny.
And yeah, that's hate speech, but fuck 'em. I'm getting tired of sexually-frustrated nutjobs deciding God told them it's a good idea to blow my city to smithereens.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; This War on Terror has always been short on the War part, and no one is terrorizing and killing the Muslims who started it. Until someone does this, it's simply a (very-expensive to the US Taxpayer) Public-Relations Campaign With Guns, and they'll keep trying whether the singular nutcase or the grand, organized affair.
Showing posts with label Christmas Bomber. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christmas Bomber. Show all posts
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Saturday, March 06, 2010
The Pentagon Shooting...And Healthcare...
By now you've heard the name John Patrick Bedell, the now-dead man accused of shooting two Pentagon Police Officers (who knew the Pentagon had it's own police force, and why?). who was himself killed in the ensuing gunfight.
Naturally, the Homeland Security morons were right there to assure us all that an attack at the Pentagon wasn't related to terrorism, that there was no terrorist plot, and that these were the actions of a lone psychotic.
These were the same words they used to describe the Fort Hood Shooter and the Pantybomber, you'll recall.
Only this time, Homeland Security just happened to get lucky (hey, it happens from time to time), and someone actually came along who managed to fit their pre-generated profile of the White Male Weekend-Warrior Terrorist. But, this post isn't about bashing Homeland Security any more than it needs to be. It's about the shooter.
It turns out that John Patrick Bedell was bi-polar. Mentally ill. It also turns out that his doctor and his parents were quite concerned for his safety, and worried about what he might do. They informed the authorities that their son was out there, somewhere, and possibly dangerous. He was known to have a drug problem (He was smoking pot. Yeah, that always works -- anti-depressants and marijuana. Just what you need to defeat depression; another depressant) on top of his disorder, and was known to law enforcement in his hometown.
Well, now we know what he was capable of doing. How many people have to say "this guy is fucked up..." before someone decides that the current regime of outpatient treatment just isn't enough for some people?
In hindsight, people are now taking his internet pronouncements seriously. They didn't when he was alive, because that would have meant recognizing a problem, and they might have been expected to do something about it. Let's face it; whatever he wrote on the Web was probably the same stuff he repeated, ad nauseum, to his family, doctor and whatever friends he had, it was probably all he ever talked about. No one took him seriously then, and they probably dismissed him as some harmless kook spouting conspiracy theories on everything from 9/11 to the manipulation of the stock market.
Apparently, Mr. Bedell had been under a regime of "treatment" for a very long time. I put that term in quotes for a reason; most psycho-therapeutic treatment nowadays consists of "take this pill..." and endless $400-45-minute-hours of "tell me what your mother was like..." in which the patient gets to ramble on about whatever is on their mind that day, and the therapist simply nods her head and asks often-irrelevant questions. This form of therapy takes it as axiomatic that the patient has his own answers, and that if you let them talk enough, they'll eventually stumble upon them.
For some people, usually the smart ones, this works. They eventually come to some understanding of what their problems are, and they figure out some strategy for straightening their lives out. Then there is the especially dense crowd, for whom all the talking does nothing, and they require direct instructions or advice from a therapist or psychiatrist...and then they don't get it (that violates the underlying premise of talk therapy, you see!), and wind up in therapy forever.
For other people, this routine simply never works. For people like John Patrick Bedell, the combination of feel-good-self-esteem-and-talk-based psychiatry and prescription drugs often doesn't begin to examine, or even identify, the underlying causes of their particular issues. They don't get much benefit from therapy, and the drugs usually just serve the purpose of taking the edge off just enough...something that keeps these folks from slitting their wrists or from driving a semi-trailer into an Arby's, or something. They are either unable to describe what they're feeling, or worse, they can easily recognize what's wrong with them, but they have no ambition whatsoever to change it. The worst of all are the people who consider their "issues" to be virtues: they are in possession of some great truth, or hold some greater distinction which causes the rest of the world to have a problem with them; not the other way around.
Bedell's internet ranting about a certain Colonel James Sabow -- considered a key player in many 9/11 Troofer conspiracy theories -- probably explains why he tried to shoot his way into the Pentagon; he was probably convinced that it was the only way to get at some version of truth. Maybe, he even sought fame and fortune in the attempt -- I don't know. But, I can promise you, that people who think this way don't just wake up one morning and decide to do the deed; it's usually all they can talk about for weeks, maybe months, before they actually do it. The obsession literally consumes their lives. Where was his doctor? Where was law enforcement after his parents reported him? This is a critical stage in the story, and in his treatment.
A doctor who knows that his bi-polar patient -- probably with some form of severe obsessive compulsive disorder on top of it -- is smoking marijuana while under the influence of anti-depressants, and who is probably telling anyone who will listen about his insane conspiracy theories and determination to get to the bottom of it all, if that doctor does not turn his patient into the police for his illegal activity, or better yet, have his patient committed for his own safety, he or she is derelict in his duty as a physician.
Who knows just how long this "physician" was "treating" Mr. Bedell. It perhaps it was too good a cash cow to endanger with something stupid....like helping his patient get better, or getting him off the street.
John Bedell went to the Pentagon to do one, or probably both, of the following:
a. find out the 'truth' about 9/11, and
b. failing that, becoming a martyr to the 'cause' (9/11 Troofer-ism), while simultaneously ending his own, internal conflict.
Then again, maybe there was no help for John Bedell if he had gone that far. The sad fact is that for many folks with mental illnesses there never is any, despite the highest caliber of care and professionalism from his physicians. So, what does a crackpot shooting up the Pentagon have to do with healthcare?
Having been treated for a mental illness or two in my lifetime, I'm far more likely to sympathize with John Bedell. I don't condone anything he's done; Shooting at police officers, or attempting "suicide by cop" is a stupid thing to do. It solves nothing, and is far more likely to inflict pain on innocents, needlessly. That's selfish. I also don't go for the "Rambo" mentality that believes you can shoot your way into a heavily-defended objective just because you saw Bruce Willis or Sly do it a few times; if you think this way, you're delusional and a danger to yourself and everyone else.
The question I'm asking is this: at what point -- after how many John Patrick Bedells and Joseph Andrew Stacks (the I.R.S. Kamikaze in Texas) -- do we begin to realize that there are legions of people out there who are suffering from largely-controllable mental disorders that are ticking time bombs? The care they get is often inadequate, spends too much time on pap sociology and political correctness, instead of on real medicine, and it isn't always geared towards doing much more than putting money in someone else's pocket.
Since everyones all up in the air about Health Care Reform, how about we start somewhere where a difference can be made almost immediately? Most people suffering from depression, bi-polar disorders, stress-and-trauma-related disorders can be treated effectively, and cheaply, and way before they reach a critical mass to play hide-and-seek-with-bullets with a bunch of cops. They also make up a large percentage of people who are typically treated for a range of associated physical problems; heart problems, overeating, alcoholism, drug abuse, child-and-spousal abuse, and those just start the list off. Fix those problems by changing the way the medical profession, and society, views the mentally ill, and you'd go a long way towards fixing many of the underlying issues of our "Health Care Crisis".
Many fewer people would be shot at, or have small airplanes launched at them if you did.
Just don't let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do it.
The reason we probably won't overhaul the mental health care business is because it isn't "sexy". It's not a cause du jour like AIDS, Childhood Obesity and Breast Cancer. You'll never see Scarlett Johansson or something wear a ribbon for Mental Health on a red carpet. But, it probably does just as much, if not more, damage to people and society than all three of those other maladies put together. Until someone decides that mental health issues warrant as much ink, publicity and attention than these other things, we'll see a steady stream of John Patrick Bedells on the evening news.
Shame on us.
Naturally, the Homeland Security morons were right there to assure us all that an attack at the Pentagon wasn't related to terrorism, that there was no terrorist plot, and that these were the actions of a lone psychotic.
These were the same words they used to describe the Fort Hood Shooter and the Pantybomber, you'll recall.
Only this time, Homeland Security just happened to get lucky (hey, it happens from time to time), and someone actually came along who managed to fit their pre-generated profile of the White Male Weekend-Warrior Terrorist. But, this post isn't about bashing Homeland Security any more than it needs to be. It's about the shooter.
It turns out that John Patrick Bedell was bi-polar. Mentally ill. It also turns out that his doctor and his parents were quite concerned for his safety, and worried about what he might do. They informed the authorities that their son was out there, somewhere, and possibly dangerous. He was known to have a drug problem (He was smoking pot. Yeah, that always works -- anti-depressants and marijuana. Just what you need to defeat depression; another depressant) on top of his disorder, and was known to law enforcement in his hometown.
Well, now we know what he was capable of doing. How many people have to say "this guy is fucked up..." before someone decides that the current regime of outpatient treatment just isn't enough for some people?
In hindsight, people are now taking his internet pronouncements seriously. They didn't when he was alive, because that would have meant recognizing a problem, and they might have been expected to do something about it. Let's face it; whatever he wrote on the Web was probably the same stuff he repeated, ad nauseum, to his family, doctor and whatever friends he had, it was probably all he ever talked about. No one took him seriously then, and they probably dismissed him as some harmless kook spouting conspiracy theories on everything from 9/11 to the manipulation of the stock market.
Apparently, Mr. Bedell had been under a regime of "treatment" for a very long time. I put that term in quotes for a reason; most psycho-therapeutic treatment nowadays consists of "take this pill..." and endless $400-45-minute-hours of "tell me what your mother was like..." in which the patient gets to ramble on about whatever is on their mind that day, and the therapist simply nods her head and asks often-irrelevant questions. This form of therapy takes it as axiomatic that the patient has his own answers, and that if you let them talk enough, they'll eventually stumble upon them.
For some people, usually the smart ones, this works. They eventually come to some understanding of what their problems are, and they figure out some strategy for straightening their lives out. Then there is the especially dense crowd, for whom all the talking does nothing, and they require direct instructions or advice from a therapist or psychiatrist...and then they don't get it (that violates the underlying premise of talk therapy, you see!), and wind up in therapy forever.
For other people, this routine simply never works. For people like John Patrick Bedell, the combination of feel-good-self-esteem-and-talk-based psychiatry and prescription drugs often doesn't begin to examine, or even identify, the underlying causes of their particular issues. They don't get much benefit from therapy, and the drugs usually just serve the purpose of taking the edge off just enough...something that keeps these folks from slitting their wrists or from driving a semi-trailer into an Arby's, or something. They are either unable to describe what they're feeling, or worse, they can easily recognize what's wrong with them, but they have no ambition whatsoever to change it. The worst of all are the people who consider their "issues" to be virtues: they are in possession of some great truth, or hold some greater distinction which causes the rest of the world to have a problem with them; not the other way around.
Bedell's internet ranting about a certain Colonel James Sabow -- considered a key player in many 9/11 Troofer conspiracy theories -- probably explains why he tried to shoot his way into the Pentagon; he was probably convinced that it was the only way to get at some version of truth. Maybe, he even sought fame and fortune in the attempt -- I don't know. But, I can promise you, that people who think this way don't just wake up one morning and decide to do the deed; it's usually all they can talk about for weeks, maybe months, before they actually do it. The obsession literally consumes their lives. Where was his doctor? Where was law enforcement after his parents reported him? This is a critical stage in the story, and in his treatment.
A doctor who knows that his bi-polar patient -- probably with some form of severe obsessive compulsive disorder on top of it -- is smoking marijuana while under the influence of anti-depressants, and who is probably telling anyone who will listen about his insane conspiracy theories and determination to get to the bottom of it all, if that doctor does not turn his patient into the police for his illegal activity, or better yet, have his patient committed for his own safety, he or she is derelict in his duty as a physician.
Who knows just how long this "physician" was "treating" Mr. Bedell. It perhaps it was too good a cash cow to endanger with something stupid....like helping his patient get better, or getting him off the street.
John Bedell went to the Pentagon to do one, or probably both, of the following:
a. find out the 'truth' about 9/11, and
b. failing that, becoming a martyr to the 'cause' (9/11 Troofer-ism), while simultaneously ending his own, internal conflict.
Then again, maybe there was no help for John Bedell if he had gone that far. The sad fact is that for many folks with mental illnesses there never is any, despite the highest caliber of care and professionalism from his physicians. So, what does a crackpot shooting up the Pentagon have to do with healthcare?
Having been treated for a mental illness or two in my lifetime, I'm far more likely to sympathize with John Bedell. I don't condone anything he's done; Shooting at police officers, or attempting "suicide by cop" is a stupid thing to do. It solves nothing, and is far more likely to inflict pain on innocents, needlessly. That's selfish. I also don't go for the "Rambo" mentality that believes you can shoot your way into a heavily-defended objective just because you saw Bruce Willis or Sly do it a few times; if you think this way, you're delusional and a danger to yourself and everyone else.
The question I'm asking is this: at what point -- after how many John Patrick Bedells and Joseph Andrew Stacks (the I.R.S. Kamikaze in Texas) -- do we begin to realize that there are legions of people out there who are suffering from largely-controllable mental disorders that are ticking time bombs? The care they get is often inadequate, spends too much time on pap sociology and political correctness, instead of on real medicine, and it isn't always geared towards doing much more than putting money in someone else's pocket.
Since everyones all up in the air about Health Care Reform, how about we start somewhere where a difference can be made almost immediately? Most people suffering from depression, bi-polar disorders, stress-and-trauma-related disorders can be treated effectively, and cheaply, and way before they reach a critical mass to play hide-and-seek-with-bullets with a bunch of cops. They also make up a large percentage of people who are typically treated for a range of associated physical problems; heart problems, overeating, alcoholism, drug abuse, child-and-spousal abuse, and those just start the list off. Fix those problems by changing the way the medical profession, and society, views the mentally ill, and you'd go a long way towards fixing many of the underlying issues of our "Health Care Crisis".
Many fewer people would be shot at, or have small airplanes launched at them if you did.
Just don't let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do it.
The reason we probably won't overhaul the mental health care business is because it isn't "sexy". It's not a cause du jour like AIDS, Childhood Obesity and Breast Cancer. You'll never see Scarlett Johansson or something wear a ribbon for Mental Health on a red carpet. But, it probably does just as much, if not more, damage to people and society than all three of those other maladies put together. Until someone decides that mental health issues warrant as much ink, publicity and attention than these other things, we'll see a steady stream of John Patrick Bedells on the evening news.
Shame on us.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Envoy To The Muslim World?
Chalk up another douchebag move by the Obama Administration: naming an "Envoy to The Muslim World". The only "Envoy" the United States should send to the "Muslim World" should have a nuclear warhead attached.
Why are we still trying to talk these people into liking us? What makes some dickhead politician believe that an enemy who states his primary goals as the destruction of your culture and the enslavement of your population will be won over by charm and polite dialogue? What makes the same politician think that getting someone with his own alleged ties to terrorist-supporting scum is some sort of coup?
Doesn't anyone in the White House read the papers (oh, right; they're too busy telling the papers what to print,and how to print it)? THERE'S A WAR ON. A War started by Muslims who don't play by the same set of rules that more civilized societies do. Do you expect that by simply naming an envoy that you somehow send some sort of secret signal to the more extreme elements of Islamic society that you're serious about defending yourself from their lunatics, or is it symbolically a White Flag?
I'm sure the Saudi and Pakistani governments (which are propped up and defended by American aid and military power) will applaud such a move, calling it a major step on the way to peace and understanding, but it does absolutely nothing to solve the problem; there are mentally-constipated douchebags squatting in mud huts, right this very second, trying to figure out clever and sneaky ways to kill as many Americans as possible. Do you think that because Obambi names an "Envoy" that the hearts and minds of such men will be won over? Do you think that naming an "Envoy" will cause the Saudis and Pakistanis to do the right thing and kill these slugs before they strike? Do you think that naming an "Envoy" will cause those (few) Muslims who don't want us all dead or enslaved do the right thing and turn their insane brethren into the authorities before they embark on terrorist attacks?
I've said it before, and I will reiterate: the only way there will be "Peace" is when those elements of what passes for Islamic Culture, the ones that incubate and succor the kind of stupidity that breeds suicide bombers and snipers is made to see the error of their ways. That can only be done by inflicting massive casualties and unspeakable suffering upon the populations that raise, indoctrinate, support and hide these scumbags.
When the Islamic World that gave birth to these degenerates is reduced to picking the undigested thistles out of camel dung for sustenance, drinking out of mud puddles, and otherwise too busy trying to avoid cholera and bubonic plague will they begin to see that, perhaps, antagonizing and attacking a country and a culture which can destroy their own and ensure that it never recovers for centuries, if ever, is a very bad idea. When the Majority of Muslims are made to suffer horribly for the sins of the Few, the Majority will do it's level-best to keep the Few from building explosive jock straps, blowing up public transport, shooting up shopping malls and hijacking airliners.
Stop with the crazy and impractical ideas about diplomacy being the way to Peace; it only lends credence to the idea that the "Muslim World" does, indeed, have legitimate goals that can be negotiated for. To these people, "diplomacy" only means an opportunity to change the terms of the argument and a "time out" in which to rearm and then renew hostilities.
P.S. whichever asshole-career-civil-servant-or-political-operative did such a wonderful job of vetting this guy for the job should be taken out and shot; if you simply MUST have an Envoy to the Followers of an Insane Pedophile (Peace be Upon Him), you could at least choose one who is not associated with convicted terrorists.
Update: Here's an example of just who you're sending an Envoy to. (Hat-tip to FiveFeetofFury).
Why are we still trying to talk these people into liking us? What makes some dickhead politician believe that an enemy who states his primary goals as the destruction of your culture and the enslavement of your population will be won over by charm and polite dialogue? What makes the same politician think that getting someone with his own alleged ties to terrorist-supporting scum is some sort of coup?
Doesn't anyone in the White House read the papers (oh, right; they're too busy telling the papers what to print,and how to print it)? THERE'S A WAR ON. A War started by Muslims who don't play by the same set of rules that more civilized societies do. Do you expect that by simply naming an envoy that you somehow send some sort of secret signal to the more extreme elements of Islamic society that you're serious about defending yourself from their lunatics, or is it symbolically a White Flag?
I'm sure the Saudi and Pakistani governments (which are propped up and defended by American aid and military power) will applaud such a move, calling it a major step on the way to peace and understanding, but it does absolutely nothing to solve the problem; there are mentally-constipated douchebags squatting in mud huts, right this very second, trying to figure out clever and sneaky ways to kill as many Americans as possible. Do you think that because Obambi names an "Envoy" that the hearts and minds of such men will be won over? Do you think that naming an "Envoy" will cause the Saudis and Pakistanis to do the right thing and kill these slugs before they strike? Do you think that naming an "Envoy" will cause those (few) Muslims who don't want us all dead or enslaved do the right thing and turn their insane brethren into the authorities before they embark on terrorist attacks?
I've said it before, and I will reiterate: the only way there will be "Peace" is when those elements of what passes for Islamic Culture, the ones that incubate and succor the kind of stupidity that breeds suicide bombers and snipers is made to see the error of their ways. That can only be done by inflicting massive casualties and unspeakable suffering upon the populations that raise, indoctrinate, support and hide these scumbags.
When the Islamic World that gave birth to these degenerates is reduced to picking the undigested thistles out of camel dung for sustenance, drinking out of mud puddles, and otherwise too busy trying to avoid cholera and bubonic plague will they begin to see that, perhaps, antagonizing and attacking a country and a culture which can destroy their own and ensure that it never recovers for centuries, if ever, is a very bad idea. When the Majority of Muslims are made to suffer horribly for the sins of the Few, the Majority will do it's level-best to keep the Few from building explosive jock straps, blowing up public transport, shooting up shopping malls and hijacking airliners.
Stop with the crazy and impractical ideas about diplomacy being the way to Peace; it only lends credence to the idea that the "Muslim World" does, indeed, have legitimate goals that can be negotiated for. To these people, "diplomacy" only means an opportunity to change the terms of the argument and a "time out" in which to rearm and then renew hostilities.
P.S. whichever asshole-career-civil-servant-or-political-operative did such a wonderful job of vetting this guy for the job should be taken out and shot; if you simply MUST have an Envoy to the Followers of an Insane Pedophile (Peace be Upon Him), you could at least choose one who is not associated with convicted terrorists.
Update: Here's an example of just who you're sending an Envoy to. (Hat-tip to FiveFeetofFury).
Saturday, February 06, 2010
It's Crowded Under the Obama Bus...
Word is that Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, is in deep doo-doo.
As if refusing to treat terrorists like prisoners of war, or harboring Justice Department lawyers who once defended terrorists, or even accusing his own country of racism weren't enough, we are now learning that Mr. Holder runs his little judicial fief as if the people of this country, and his boss the President, don't exist. At least, that's the narrative the Obama Administration is starting to put out.
How else to explain his reasons as to why the Underwear Bomber was Mirandized within an hour? Why CIA Agents and Navy SEALS are legally harassed for doing their duty to their country? Why Black Panthers who stand armed vigil outside polling places for the purposes of intimidation aren't prosecuted, and why Congress has to repeatedly ask Holder the same questions that he apparently refuses to answer?
The rumblings are starting; "Eric Holder Must Go."
Just like Reverend Wright had to go. Just like Michelle had to be taken out of the public spotlight. Holder might soon be lifted clean out of the public view in the dark of night like Van Jones. You make Barry look bad, you threaten his approval ratings, you garner criticism from the Right and Bill O'Reilly, and you get run over.
When Bill Clinton had to get rid of inconvenient political liabilities they usually turned up dead, like Vince Foster, leading some people to use the term "Arkancide" for any Friend of Bill who fell out of favor and threatened his public image and political fortunes. By the last count that I'm aware of (and I'll admit, I have no evidence except what's been written on the Internet, so take that for what it's worth!), I think it's something like 56 people personally associated with Bill or Hillary, or their alleged underhanded-dealings who have died. Most under bizarre or questionable circumstances, either during their reign as Redneck King and Queen of Dogpatch (Arkansas), or as Co-Presidents of the United States. I don't mean to imply that Clinton had them killed (that he gave an order, that he assassinated then, nor to imply any overt action by the former President and his Trained Walrus with a Wal-Mart wedding ring), just that these folks died, and usually after they had been associated with some sort of scandal involving the President. Fifty-six people is an awful lot of coincidences, though, isn't it?
I wonder what you call it when you're about to be, symbolically, murdered by a Chicago Community Organizer? Send your suggestions for this new political term to the e-mail address above!
In any case, you wonder what runs through Eric Holder's head, and then you wonder how much of what Holder does (or rather, doesn't do) accurately reflects the orders he gets from his Boss? Does Holder really believe that the law-enforcement model of anti-terrorism works (despite evidence to the contrary that it doesn't), or is he simply "following orders", which, when that course of action becomes politically suspect, he must suffer the penalties for in order that Obama keep his skirts nice and clean? Stalin used to do that too, I hear.
Either way, someone has to go. It appears that Eric Holder is about to get sacrificed so that Barack Obama may maintain the illusion that he, ultimately, isn't responsible (have you ever met a man with so much responsibility who is ultimately so un-responsible, and perhaps, irresponsible?). A rogue Attorney General reigned in by a President who needed to 'pivot'...that'll be Eric Holder's political epithet.
Then he can go back to the lucrative terrorist defense attorney trade. It's what he was doing before he got this job, I think.
As an aside, there is an implication that Lindsey Graham, the annoying Senator from South Carolina, needs Holder's pelt as political cover to help Obama close Guantanamo Bay. If this is so, then Lindsey Graham is an asshole who should be voted out of office as quickly as possible. He obviously doesn't have the country's best interests at heart if he's willing to do something like that.
South Carolina Tea Partiers: you may have to find a candidate to run against Lindsey Graham. Think about it.
As if refusing to treat terrorists like prisoners of war, or harboring Justice Department lawyers who once defended terrorists, or even accusing his own country of racism weren't enough, we are now learning that Mr. Holder runs his little judicial fief as if the people of this country, and his boss the President, don't exist. At least, that's the narrative the Obama Administration is starting to put out.
How else to explain his reasons as to why the Underwear Bomber was Mirandized within an hour? Why CIA Agents and Navy SEALS are legally harassed for doing their duty to their country? Why Black Panthers who stand armed vigil outside polling places for the purposes of intimidation aren't prosecuted, and why Congress has to repeatedly ask Holder the same questions that he apparently refuses to answer?
The rumblings are starting; "Eric Holder Must Go."
Just like Reverend Wright had to go. Just like Michelle had to be taken out of the public spotlight. Holder might soon be lifted clean out of the public view in the dark of night like Van Jones. You make Barry look bad, you threaten his approval ratings, you garner criticism from the Right and Bill O'Reilly, and you get run over.
When Bill Clinton had to get rid of inconvenient political liabilities they usually turned up dead, like Vince Foster, leading some people to use the term "Arkancide" for any Friend of Bill who fell out of favor and threatened his public image and political fortunes. By the last count that I'm aware of (and I'll admit, I have no evidence except what's been written on the Internet, so take that for what it's worth!), I think it's something like 56 people personally associated with Bill or Hillary, or their alleged underhanded-dealings who have died. Most under bizarre or questionable circumstances, either during their reign as Redneck King and Queen of Dogpatch (Arkansas), or as Co-Presidents of the United States. I don't mean to imply that Clinton had them killed (that he gave an order, that he assassinated then, nor to imply any overt action by the former President and his Trained Walrus with a Wal-Mart wedding ring), just that these folks died, and usually after they had been associated with some sort of scandal involving the President. Fifty-six people is an awful lot of coincidences, though, isn't it?
I wonder what you call it when you're about to be, symbolically, murdered by a Chicago Community Organizer? Send your suggestions for this new political term to the e-mail address above!
In any case, you wonder what runs through Eric Holder's head, and then you wonder how much of what Holder does (or rather, doesn't do) accurately reflects the orders he gets from his Boss? Does Holder really believe that the law-enforcement model of anti-terrorism works (despite evidence to the contrary that it doesn't), or is he simply "following orders", which, when that course of action becomes politically suspect, he must suffer the penalties for in order that Obama keep his skirts nice and clean? Stalin used to do that too, I hear.
Either way, someone has to go. It appears that Eric Holder is about to get sacrificed so that Barack Obama may maintain the illusion that he, ultimately, isn't responsible (have you ever met a man with so much responsibility who is ultimately so un-responsible, and perhaps, irresponsible?). A rogue Attorney General reigned in by a President who needed to 'pivot'...that'll be Eric Holder's political epithet.
Then he can go back to the lucrative terrorist defense attorney trade. It's what he was doing before he got this job, I think.
As an aside, there is an implication that Lindsey Graham, the annoying Senator from South Carolina, needs Holder's pelt as political cover to help Obama close Guantanamo Bay. If this is so, then Lindsey Graham is an asshole who should be voted out of office as quickly as possible. He obviously doesn't have the country's best interests at heart if he's willing to do something like that.
South Carolina Tea Partiers: you may have to find a candidate to run against Lindsey Graham. Think about it.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Don't You Know There's a War On?
Apparently, the Obama Administration does not.
Today, another bunch of Congresscritters will hold yet another hearing on the problem of terrorism. I'm wondering when they'll get around to demanding that Attorney General Holder answer the question he left hanging at the last round of Congressional Hearings: How many lawyers at the Justice Department once represented terrorists? And when will they be fired? Oh yeah, and how many more of these ultimately-pointless hearings will we have to endure? These Congresscritters yack and question, the witnesses dodge questions and provide a lot of hot air, and then nothing ever gets done. But I digress...
The purpose of this hearing, we're told, is to question the response and activities of the Obama Administration in the wake of the attempted Underwear Bomber attack on Christmas Day. Some Congressional republicans are worried that the Obamatards are so concerned with providing terrorists with rights and attorneys that they may be missing the bigger picture; terrorism isn't a law-enforcement problem. That attitude, the presumption that terrorists should be brought to public trial under civilian rules of evidence, is what brought us 9/11 in the first place!
It appears that this President and his National Security apparatus intend to continue to fight Terrorism with the Cops-and-Robbers approach which manages to throw ever-more layers of law-enforcement at the issue until they all begin to trip over each other's feet. Eventually, you get enough law-enforcers with different aims, jurisdictions, missions and concerns, and the whole thing gets FUBAR'ed in a mass of legal red tape which ensures that even if you get these terrorists before a judge, it has taken years and cost millions and some (if not much) of the evidence against them is subject to continual legal challenge. It's better to just ship these guys right off to Gitmo and let them have a good-old-fashioned military tribunal, like the sort Congress has already approved...twice.
But that might mean that Mr. Holder's buddies in the legal profession might not get federal funds for defending terrorists, and it would also mean that he'd (probably) have to fire half the lawyers in the Justice Department who once defended terrorists on the federal dime.
I still say a carefully-planned program that kills enough Muslims in the most gruesome and painful ways we can devise until they're either all dead or give up the hope that terrorism will achieve their goals is the way to go, but what the hell do I know? I'm just some dope with a website, not the Attorney General or President of the United States.
UPDATE: Some word on a new terror threat, this time by a lone gunman in New Jersey. The man was armed with a grenade launcher (where the fuck do you get one of those?), some high-powered weapons, a ton of ammo and a map of a military base. I just love the way CNN waited until the very last paragraph to include this gem:
"...Officers searched Woodson's hotel room and found another assault rifle, a grenade launcher, a police scanner, another bulletproof vest, a map of a U.S. military base, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and a Middle Eastern-style headdress, the statement said.."
Middle Eastern-style? You be the judge.
Also, Newzweak is reporting that nine years after 9/11, the government has still done next to nothing to defend this country against terrorists armed with WMD's. Probably because 90% of the democrats that have been in office since 9/11 still believe that WMD's are some figment of Dick Cheney's fevered imagination, dreamed up to give Shrubby McBushHitler an excuse to invade the peaceful country of Iraq, so he could kill brown people. Considering they haven't done much to stop terrorists with bombs in their jock straps, and put another through Medical School and then onto the Army's payroll, I'm not surprised. The mid-terms cannot come soon enough.
Today, another bunch of Congresscritters will hold yet another hearing on the problem of terrorism. I'm wondering when they'll get around to demanding that Attorney General Holder answer the question he left hanging at the last round of Congressional Hearings: How many lawyers at the Justice Department once represented terrorists? And when will they be fired? Oh yeah, and how many more of these ultimately-pointless hearings will we have to endure? These Congresscritters yack and question, the witnesses dodge questions and provide a lot of hot air, and then nothing ever gets done. But I digress...
The purpose of this hearing, we're told, is to question the response and activities of the Obama Administration in the wake of the attempted Underwear Bomber attack on Christmas Day. Some Congressional republicans are worried that the Obamatards are so concerned with providing terrorists with rights and attorneys that they may be missing the bigger picture; terrorism isn't a law-enforcement problem. That attitude, the presumption that terrorists should be brought to public trial under civilian rules of evidence, is what brought us 9/11 in the first place!
It appears that this President and his National Security apparatus intend to continue to fight Terrorism with the Cops-and-Robbers approach which manages to throw ever-more layers of law-enforcement at the issue until they all begin to trip over each other's feet. Eventually, you get enough law-enforcers with different aims, jurisdictions, missions and concerns, and the whole thing gets FUBAR'ed in a mass of legal red tape which ensures that even if you get these terrorists before a judge, it has taken years and cost millions and some (if not much) of the evidence against them is subject to continual legal challenge. It's better to just ship these guys right off to Gitmo and let them have a good-old-fashioned military tribunal, like the sort Congress has already approved...twice.
But that might mean that Mr. Holder's buddies in the legal profession might not get federal funds for defending terrorists, and it would also mean that he'd (probably) have to fire half the lawyers in the Justice Department who once defended terrorists on the federal dime.
I still say a carefully-planned program that kills enough Muslims in the most gruesome and painful ways we can devise until they're either all dead or give up the hope that terrorism will achieve their goals is the way to go, but what the hell do I know? I'm just some dope with a website, not the Attorney General or President of the United States.
UPDATE: Some word on a new terror threat, this time by a lone gunman in New Jersey. The man was armed with a grenade launcher (where the fuck do you get one of those?), some high-powered weapons, a ton of ammo and a map of a military base. I just love the way CNN waited until the very last paragraph to include this gem:
"...Officers searched Woodson's hotel room and found another assault rifle, a grenade launcher, a police scanner, another bulletproof vest, a map of a U.S. military base, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and a Middle Eastern-style headdress, the statement said.."
Middle Eastern-style? You be the judge.
Also, Newzweak is reporting that nine years after 9/11, the government has still done next to nothing to defend this country against terrorists armed with WMD's. Probably because 90% of the democrats that have been in office since 9/11 still believe that WMD's are some figment of Dick Cheney's fevered imagination, dreamed up to give Shrubby McBushHitler an excuse to invade the peaceful country of Iraq, so he could kill brown people. Considering they haven't done much to stop terrorists with bombs in their jock straps, and put another through Medical School and then onto the Army's payroll, I'm not surprised. The mid-terms cannot come soon enough.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The System Worked, Part VI...
Some dipshit tried to open the door of plane --at altitude -- requiring a flight to be diverted. The passengers managed to gather together and eventually subdue the idiot, but this is beginning to become a recurring scenario. There are far too many people in the air these days who seem to have a death wish or no self-control.
Besides terrorists, you now have to worry about drunks. People who have just had a bad day. People with no control over their temper or faculties. The really telling thing is, that usually, there's little or no warning that there's going to be trouble. You can profile a terrorist, and you can predict their behaviors and actions, to a certain extent, but how do you defend an aircraft against the passenger in coach who's pissed because he didn't get his complimentary half-can of Coke, and who decides to express his out-of-proportion anger by opening the cabin door at 35,000 feet?
At first, I thought this might be a terrorist attack or something along those lines, because the first report I read (The Washington Post) carefully took pains not to identify the attacker by name, nationality, race, religion or ethnicity. Knowing, to a certain extent how the media typically covers these things, I thought "must be a Muslim" right away, because experience tells that if he was a Heterosexual- Middle-Class-White-Christian-Male, the Post would have quickly published a photo, his name and address, talked to half his neighbors and employer,identified his wife and kids, and then implied some sort of ties to a bizarre White-Supremacist-Pat Robertson-Branch Davidian-Klan-inspired-Doomsday-Cult terror plot, all within 10 minutes.
Because only white, Bible-Thumpin' rednecks can be terrorists, you know...
But credit to the Post, they did no such thing. You know others would have.
Anyways, it turns out the guy apparently is white, and there's even a photo. You can see it here, along with another report on the incident.
But, this brings us back, once again, to the issue of security in airports and airliners. Once again, it is the passengers who have to risk life and limb to prevent a tragedy. I'm not saying that anyone is supposed to be psychic and somehow "know" when some lone lunatic is going to pull a stunt like this, but sheesh, I wonder if there wasn't some sort of warning sign when this guy was still on the ground that someone just didn't pick up on?
The airline industry is slowly being destroyed, one incident (terror-related or not) at at time.
In the meantime, The Post also begins to ask if the Obama Administration's obsession with civilian criminal trials for terrorists means they're missing the forest for the trees.
But, perhaps that's just the obvious result of having a Justice Department stocked with lawyers who used to defend terrorists for a living...?
Besides terrorists, you now have to worry about drunks. People who have just had a bad day. People with no control over their temper or faculties. The really telling thing is, that usually, there's little or no warning that there's going to be trouble. You can profile a terrorist, and you can predict their behaviors and actions, to a certain extent, but how do you defend an aircraft against the passenger in coach who's pissed because he didn't get his complimentary half-can of Coke, and who decides to express his out-of-proportion anger by opening the cabin door at 35,000 feet?
At first, I thought this might be a terrorist attack or something along those lines, because the first report I read (The Washington Post) carefully took pains not to identify the attacker by name, nationality, race, religion or ethnicity. Knowing, to a certain extent how the media typically covers these things, I thought "must be a Muslim" right away, because experience tells that if he was a Heterosexual- Middle-Class-White-Christian-Male, the Post would have quickly published a photo, his name and address, talked to half his neighbors and employer,identified his wife and kids, and then implied some sort of ties to a bizarre White-Supremacist-Pat Robertson-Branch Davidian-Klan-inspired-Doomsday-Cult terror plot, all within 10 minutes.
Because only white, Bible-Thumpin' rednecks can be terrorists, you know...
But credit to the Post, they did no such thing. You know others would have.
Anyways, it turns out the guy apparently is white, and there's even a photo. You can see it here, along with another report on the incident.
But, this brings us back, once again, to the issue of security in airports and airliners. Once again, it is the passengers who have to risk life and limb to prevent a tragedy. I'm not saying that anyone is supposed to be psychic and somehow "know" when some lone lunatic is going to pull a stunt like this, but sheesh, I wonder if there wasn't some sort of warning sign when this guy was still on the ground that someone just didn't pick up on?
The airline industry is slowly being destroyed, one incident (terror-related or not) at at time.
In the meantime, The Post also begins to ask if the Obama Administration's obsession with civilian criminal trials for terrorists means they're missing the forest for the trees.
But, perhaps that's just the obvious result of having a Justice Department stocked with lawyers who used to defend terrorists for a living...?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The System Worked, Part V...
Unless, you're called before Congress to explain why it didn't.
You know, I'm so glad we have these idiots in control of the TSA, the FBI and CIA. I'm glad that we have things like the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (that doesn't get used), and crappy software designed by those who bid the lowest but had the best political connections. I'm so happy I could drop a log at the fact that after 9 years we're not only forgetting the lessons of 9/11, but we're ignoring the ones we've learned since, while pouring billions of increasingly-scarce taxpayer dollars into a federal sinkhole that doesn't do what it's designed to do: catch terrorists.
But then again, it's representative of what has been done in much of this so-called War on Terror.
The DHS and it's affiliates don't capture terrorists, and the soldiers we sent overseas don't capture them either. No one is actually fighting a war "over there". If they were, millions of Muslims (may of them potential terrorists) would be dead, and those that survived would be sufficiently cowed so as to never even think of taking up arms against the United States ever again. Instead, we're spending billions to rebuild Iraq (a country we largely destroyed in the first place), and billions more to nudge Afghanistan forward... into the Mud Age, probably so that IBM, Mary Kay and Dodge can sell them laptops, lipstick and overpriced pick-ups when the conflict is over. These are people who don't understand the basic concepts of personal hygiene, yet someone has decided they'll make a wonderful consumer class one day. A few Muslims terrorists get a drone-fired missile up the Nether regions, but many more roam the landscape freely planting IED's which kill and cripple our troops...who aren't allowed to fight back except under increasingly stringent and legalistic rules of engagement.
And when it's all said and done, what do we have to show for it?
Democracy in the Middle East? Don't be stupid. An end to terrorism? It only ends when terrorists and the people who support them are dead, and not enough people are dead yet to make terrorism an unattractive option. Right now, terrorism pays -- just ask Hamas. Myriad opportunities for Congress to engage in graft with taxpayer money in the name of 'defending' the American people?
BINGO!
Because if there wasn't graft or politics involved in the process of both war and airport security, a) the war would have been won, with the Middle Eastern nations bowing before America, falling all over themselves to pay us tribute, and keeping their violent retards under wraps, b) you'd be able to take a flight from Birmingham to Albuquerque without having to spend an extra four hours at the airport getting undressed, x-rayed, interrogated, herded like cattle, drinking your own breast milk, while having to pack even less luggage in see-through bags for your little adventure than Bear Grylls or Les Stroud does.
It wouldn't cost twice as much, be such a headache, and you'd even be able to get a meal and use the toilet on the flight. It might actually even be a reasonably-bearable experience without all the extra-normal bullshit demanded by a security system furnished at the expense in time, money and sanity of the law-abiding, but which gives those with ill intent with a distinct advantage: no one wishes to offend the would-be murderers amongst us. The System is full of built-in loopholes, and administrated by mouth-breathing government types with little-to-no motivation to actually succeed at anything, let alone their primary mission.
We could be dead, but they'll still have their jobs in the aftermath.
This kind of thing ought to scare the fertilizer out of you.
You know, I'm so glad we have these idiots in control of the TSA, the FBI and CIA. I'm glad that we have things like the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (that doesn't get used), and crappy software designed by those who bid the lowest but had the best political connections. I'm so happy I could drop a log at the fact that after 9 years we're not only forgetting the lessons of 9/11, but we're ignoring the ones we've learned since, while pouring billions of increasingly-scarce taxpayer dollars into a federal sinkhole that doesn't do what it's designed to do: catch terrorists.
But then again, it's representative of what has been done in much of this so-called War on Terror.
The DHS and it's affiliates don't capture terrorists, and the soldiers we sent overseas don't capture them either. No one is actually fighting a war "over there". If they were, millions of Muslims (may of them potential terrorists) would be dead, and those that survived would be sufficiently cowed so as to never even think of taking up arms against the United States ever again. Instead, we're spending billions to rebuild Iraq (a country we largely destroyed in the first place), and billions more to nudge Afghanistan forward... into the Mud Age, probably so that IBM, Mary Kay and Dodge can sell them laptops, lipstick and overpriced pick-ups when the conflict is over. These are people who don't understand the basic concepts of personal hygiene, yet someone has decided they'll make a wonderful consumer class one day. A few Muslims terrorists get a drone-fired missile up the Nether regions, but many more roam the landscape freely planting IED's which kill and cripple our troops...who aren't allowed to fight back except under increasingly stringent and legalistic rules of engagement.
And when it's all said and done, what do we have to show for it?
Democracy in the Middle East? Don't be stupid. An end to terrorism? It only ends when terrorists and the people who support them are dead, and not enough people are dead yet to make terrorism an unattractive option. Right now, terrorism pays -- just ask Hamas. Myriad opportunities for Congress to engage in graft with taxpayer money in the name of 'defending' the American people?
BINGO!
Because if there wasn't graft or politics involved in the process of both war and airport security, a) the war would have been won, with the Middle Eastern nations bowing before America, falling all over themselves to pay us tribute, and keeping their violent retards under wraps, b) you'd be able to take a flight from Birmingham to Albuquerque without having to spend an extra four hours at the airport getting undressed, x-rayed, interrogated, herded like cattle, drinking your own breast milk, while having to pack even less luggage in see-through bags for your little adventure than Bear Grylls or Les Stroud does.
It wouldn't cost twice as much, be such a headache, and you'd even be able to get a meal and use the toilet on the flight. It might actually even be a reasonably-bearable experience without all the extra-normal bullshit demanded by a security system furnished at the expense in time, money and sanity of the law-abiding, but which gives those with ill intent with a distinct advantage: no one wishes to offend the would-be murderers amongst us. The System is full of built-in loopholes, and administrated by mouth-breathing government types with little-to-no motivation to actually succeed at anything, let alone their primary mission.
We could be dead, but they'll still have their jobs in the aftermath.
This kind of thing ought to scare the fertilizer out of you.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
This Is Why Newsweek is Going Out of Business..
Because it employs dickheads like Fareed Zakaria, and pays him a buttload of money to write absolute shyte, like this:
Don't Panic - How our frenzied response to terrorism only feeds it.
Zakaria's argument runs something like this:
1) Muslim fanatics like to yank our chains; it's why they hide bombs in their underwear, behead folks on the internet, and take intercontinental flights in an attempt to commit murder-suicide over an American city. It's all a big joke to them; they get off on making people believe they're crazy. It gives them a hard-on.
2) Every time we react to one of these attempts in the typical fashion, i.e. we expect the government to do...something...usually some measure so totally asinine, intrusive and expensive -- and which avoids inconveniencing Muslims, the most-likely source of terrorism -- we look foolish. The Muzzies then get bigger boners and giggle ever-more girlishly.
3) As we advance to the extremely foolish stage, like when we search 90-year olds in wheelchairs, take bathroom privileges away from paying customers, make breast-feeding mothers drink their own milk, or put nose-picking, knuckle-dragging union slobs in charge of full-body scanners and chemical sniffers, Al Qaeda sits around in their their guano-filled caves laughing until they wet themselves. Then they stroke each other's massive erections. It's all great fun for them, you see.
Their only aim, according to Zakaria, is to throw the "American system into turmoil". This is their sole aim, he says.
Nah, these guys aren't out to kill us...no,no,no. They don't wish to destroy our civilization and the system of freedoms which we enjoy. Oh, hell no! They're just practical jokers... like a bunch of drunken frat boys, except that they sometimes go a little too far (you know, like when the blew up the USS Cole, or knocked down the World Trade Center). The solution, according to this fucking moron is to relax...don't sweat the psycho bombers so much. Pay no heed to that guy screaming his head off about jihad, enslaving the West, and beheading innocent contractors who came to his country simply to bring him indoor plumbing...they're just fucking with us. It's all a joke!
Sorry, but I can't put Osama Bin Laden on the same level as "Bluto" Blutarski. For one thing, Bluto had better table manners.
I will agree with Mr. Zakaria to this extent: he's absolutely correct in his assessment that the current system of responding to Islamofascist terrorism is not working, and is perhaps, counterproductive.
Which is why we should be killing these goat-fucking cocksuckers by the millions! Unleash the U.S. Military! Drop a few Big Ones, and let these practical jokers know it ain't fucking funny anymore! That'll wipe the smiles off their faces, for sure.
Then we can send Fareed Zakaria back to whatever sandy shithole it was that he crawled out of.
Problem solved.
Don't Panic - How our frenzied response to terrorism only feeds it.
Zakaria's argument runs something like this:
1) Muslim fanatics like to yank our chains; it's why they hide bombs in their underwear, behead folks on the internet, and take intercontinental flights in an attempt to commit murder-suicide over an American city. It's all a big joke to them; they get off on making people believe they're crazy. It gives them a hard-on.
2) Every time we react to one of these attempts in the typical fashion, i.e. we expect the government to do...something...usually some measure so totally asinine, intrusive and expensive -- and which avoids inconveniencing Muslims, the most-likely source of terrorism -- we look foolish. The Muzzies then get bigger boners and giggle ever-more girlishly.
3) As we advance to the extremely foolish stage, like when we search 90-year olds in wheelchairs, take bathroom privileges away from paying customers, make breast-feeding mothers drink their own milk, or put nose-picking, knuckle-dragging union slobs in charge of full-body scanners and chemical sniffers, Al Qaeda sits around in their their guano-filled caves laughing until they wet themselves. Then they stroke each other's massive erections. It's all great fun for them, you see.
Their only aim, according to Zakaria, is to throw the "American system into turmoil". This is their sole aim, he says.
Nah, these guys aren't out to kill us...no,no,no. They don't wish to destroy our civilization and the system of freedoms which we enjoy. Oh, hell no! They're just practical jokers... like a bunch of drunken frat boys, except that they sometimes go a little too far (you know, like when the blew up the USS Cole, or knocked down the World Trade Center). The solution, according to this fucking moron is to relax...don't sweat the psycho bombers so much. Pay no heed to that guy screaming his head off about jihad, enslaving the West, and beheading innocent contractors who came to his country simply to bring him indoor plumbing...they're just fucking with us. It's all a joke!
Sorry, but I can't put Osama Bin Laden on the same level as "Bluto" Blutarski. For one thing, Bluto had better table manners.
I will agree with Mr. Zakaria to this extent: he's absolutely correct in his assessment that the current system of responding to Islamofascist terrorism is not working, and is perhaps, counterproductive.
Which is why we should be killing these goat-fucking cocksuckers by the millions! Unleash the U.S. Military! Drop a few Big Ones, and let these practical jokers know it ain't fucking funny anymore! That'll wipe the smiles off their faces, for sure.
Then we can send Fareed Zakaria back to whatever sandy shithole it was that he crawled out of.
Problem solved.
The System Worked, Part IV...
This bunch at Homeland Security couldn't catch a cold, let alone a terrorist. And no wonder; they're looking for for the wrong people.
Now, I understand that Homeland Security is a huge, multi-departmental mega-behemoth, and that administrative errors are abound to occur in great quantities. You just hope that when they do, your personnel are smart enough to be able to improvise adequately. But this takes the cake.
It points out two glaring failures of the government when it comes to security; the first is the (often) lack of good information. This causes people to make guesses, and worse, these are often guesses which bear no relation to the information the government does have. In this case, having no good information on OBL, the government makes a guess at what he might look like. Being lazy and unaccustomed to actual work, the government employee who created those portraits then does what every 10 year old with a book report due does...and gets his picture off the Internet, probably with a Google search. This smells of "make-work" project, and the result shows.
The only thing that makes this half-way funny is that the dude who's picture finally gets lifted happens to be a dyed-in-the-wool communist. I'll bet he's working on the lucrative lawsuit as we speak -- to strike a blow against the bourgeois, fascist Amerikkka, of course, never for his personal enrichment. Thought never crossed his mind...
The second failure is the reliance upon technology. The government is depending upon the power of the Internet and media to alert people that we're looking for a terrorist who may now be disguised as a Spanish Communist. All well-and-fine; that approach often works in many a criminal case. But is there anyone on the ground actually looking for OBL? Naturally, no one will tell us if there is or isn't (for obvious reasons), but I would hazard to guess that there isn't a solitary soul tasked to scouring the Tribal Regions of Pakistan looking for OBL, because that would violate Pakistani sovereignty.
And if we're about anything in this Public-Relations-Campaign-With-Guns-Against-Terror, it's all about the legal niceties.
Nothing beats a standard-issue pair of Mark I Eyeballs, attached to a properly-calibrated M1 Braincase. You can have all the drones, full-body-scanners, and Google in the world, and it still doesn't stop anyone from boarding an aircraft with TNT Boxer shorts. The technology is merely a tool; the solution is people smart enough not to fight terrorists with Google searches and Photoshop, but with their faculties.
But then there's no opportunity for graft; government contracts can't be given out in return for campaign contributions, there's no federal unions to squeeze for money and votes. Congress would have no say and be made irrelevant to the process. No...it's much better to have the current system, which doesn't work and puts lives at risk, but which provides the opportunity for Congress to put it's grubby fingers into many pies and pinch a few plums for itself and it's friends, right?
Somebody had better be walking the unemployment line today if this is the kind of work billions of taxpayer dollars buys. If he were working in the private sector, he would be; because he belongs to a protected class (civil servant) that's umbillically attached to Congress by a thread of easily-stolen and mismanaged taxpayer funds, he's probably due for a promotion instead.
Get the government out of the "security" business and put it in the hands of private contractors who know what the fuck they're doing...
Now, I understand that Homeland Security is a huge, multi-departmental mega-behemoth, and that administrative errors are abound to occur in great quantities. You just hope that when they do, your personnel are smart enough to be able to improvise adequately. But this takes the cake.
It points out two glaring failures of the government when it comes to security; the first is the (often) lack of good information. This causes people to make guesses, and worse, these are often guesses which bear no relation to the information the government does have. In this case, having no good information on OBL, the government makes a guess at what he might look like. Being lazy and unaccustomed to actual work, the government employee who created those portraits then does what every 10 year old with a book report due does...and gets his picture off the Internet, probably with a Google search. This smells of "make-work" project, and the result shows.
The only thing that makes this half-way funny is that the dude who's picture finally gets lifted happens to be a dyed-in-the-wool communist. I'll bet he's working on the lucrative lawsuit as we speak -- to strike a blow against the bourgeois, fascist Amerikkka, of course, never for his personal enrichment. Thought never crossed his mind...
The second failure is the reliance upon technology. The government is depending upon the power of the Internet and media to alert people that we're looking for a terrorist who may now be disguised as a Spanish Communist. All well-and-fine; that approach often works in many a criminal case. But is there anyone on the ground actually looking for OBL? Naturally, no one will tell us if there is or isn't (for obvious reasons), but I would hazard to guess that there isn't a solitary soul tasked to scouring the Tribal Regions of Pakistan looking for OBL, because that would violate Pakistani sovereignty.
And if we're about anything in this Public-Relations-Campaign-With-Guns-Against-Terror, it's all about the legal niceties.
Nothing beats a standard-issue pair of Mark I Eyeballs, attached to a properly-calibrated M1 Braincase. You can have all the drones, full-body-scanners, and Google in the world, and it still doesn't stop anyone from boarding an aircraft with TNT Boxer shorts. The technology is merely a tool; the solution is people smart enough not to fight terrorists with Google searches and Photoshop, but with their faculties.
But then there's no opportunity for graft; government contracts can't be given out in return for campaign contributions, there's no federal unions to squeeze for money and votes. Congress would have no say and be made irrelevant to the process. No...it's much better to have the current system, which doesn't work and puts lives at risk, but which provides the opportunity for Congress to put it's grubby fingers into many pies and pinch a few plums for itself and it's friends, right?
Somebody had better be walking the unemployment line today if this is the kind of work billions of taxpayer dollars buys. If he were working in the private sector, he would be; because he belongs to a protected class (civil servant) that's umbillically attached to Congress by a thread of easily-stolen and mismanaged taxpayer funds, he's probably due for a promotion instead.
Get the government out of the "security" business and put it in the hands of private contractors who know what the fuck they're doing...
Friday, January 15, 2010
Why Did It Take a Canadian to Write This?
David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen takes a swipe at feminism, terrorism, airport (in-)security, Islamonazis, political correctness and the devaluation of the manly virtues...in one fell swoop.
And it's got hockey, too? I think I just had an orgasm....
This is required reading! Pass it on to everyone you know.
(H/T FiveFeetofFury)
And it's got hockey, too? I think I just had an orgasm....
This is required reading! Pass it on to everyone you know.
(H/T FiveFeetofFury)
Saturday, January 09, 2010
This Just In: Newark Security Breacher is a Horny Bastard...
Courtesy of JammieWearingFool, the jerk off who shut down Newark Liberty Airport for six hours last week by walking the wrong way through the security area turns out to be a Chinese grad student who just couldn't let his girlfriend leave without another kiss goodbye.
Then it turns out that once this genius had figured out that he was responsible for all the mayhem, he doesn't do the decent thing and turn himself in and explain himself -- oh no, that would be too easy -- he decides that eventually the whole thing will blow over, so why say anything at all?
His roommate makes him sound like a complete loser ("He was just glad to have a real woman..."). Well, yeah, I can kinda see why that might make a guy kinda excited, but dude, at some point you DO get sick of them and just want to watch TV and drink beer in your underwear. I know guys that as soon as their girlfriend was on the other side of that security area, they'd be running for the door to find a pizza-scotch-and-poker party, or perhaps run home to watch something on TV that doesn't involve Oprah, Lifetime TV, or a douche commercial every four minutes. I guess he didn't know her long enough....But I digress...
Eventually, Homeland Security tracked the guy down (his picture's been on television about 20 times a day around here, so I'm betting they got a tip; DHS just proved on Christmas Eve they can't find terrorists that they already have an address for, so someone must have called and told them where to find the guy). Now if he thought he had trouble before, just wait until he's in their evil clutches now! He made them search for him for several days. You know what this means, right?
No Oreos during his interrogation, and they'll take his teddy bear away. Then he'll get a free lawyer.
Now if it were up to me, I'd hope they throw him a considerably-painful beating for being an asshole, and then swiftly deport his dumb ass back to China. He's obviously too inconsiderate and stupid to be left to his own devices -- and we have enough people like that wandering around Capitol Hill.
Perhaps the funniest (if there's anything funny at all here) quote from that story is this one, regarding the Security Guard who left his post:
"The stunning breach was missed by TSA guard Ruben Hernandez, who left his post, but was called a "model employee" by a union official. "
Considering unions often have extremely low standards, this does not inspire confidence. Considering this union is still chock-full of the same people who brought you 9/11, can't stop a terrorist they have foreknowledge of, and now this, it inspires a feeling of absolute dread. I have to go throw up...
Then it turns out that once this genius had figured out that he was responsible for all the mayhem, he doesn't do the decent thing and turn himself in and explain himself -- oh no, that would be too easy -- he decides that eventually the whole thing will blow over, so why say anything at all?
His roommate makes him sound like a complete loser ("He was just glad to have a real woman..."). Well, yeah, I can kinda see why that might make a guy kinda excited, but dude, at some point you DO get sick of them and just want to watch TV and drink beer in your underwear. I know guys that as soon as their girlfriend was on the other side of that security area, they'd be running for the door to find a pizza-scotch-and-poker party, or perhaps run home to watch something on TV that doesn't involve Oprah, Lifetime TV, or a douche commercial every four minutes. I guess he didn't know her long enough....But I digress...
Eventually, Homeland Security tracked the guy down (his picture's been on television about 20 times a day around here, so I'm betting they got a tip; DHS just proved on Christmas Eve they can't find terrorists that they already have an address for, so someone must have called and told them where to find the guy). Now if he thought he had trouble before, just wait until he's in their evil clutches now! He made them search for him for several days. You know what this means, right?
No Oreos during his interrogation, and they'll take his teddy bear away. Then he'll get a free lawyer.
Now if it were up to me, I'd hope they throw him a considerably-painful beating for being an asshole, and then swiftly deport his dumb ass back to China. He's obviously too inconsiderate and stupid to be left to his own devices -- and we have enough people like that wandering around Capitol Hill.
Perhaps the funniest (if there's anything funny at all here) quote from that story is this one, regarding the Security Guard who left his post:
"The stunning breach was missed by TSA guard Ruben Hernandez, who left his post, but was called a "model employee" by a union official. "
Considering unions often have extremely low standards, this does not inspire confidence. Considering this union is still chock-full of the same people who brought you 9/11, can't stop a terrorist they have foreknowledge of, and now this, it inspires a feeling of absolute dread. I have to go throw up...
Friday, January 08, 2010
The System Worked, Part II...
Okay, so we've gotten a sorta-kinda-half-assed explanation of what happened, vis-a-vis Undibomber, with yet more (according to some, very shocking revelations) to come. The bad publicity caused by a Homeland Security Secretary who is extraordinarily clueless, a State Department who can't revoke the visa of a terrorist they themselves have identified, a TSA that can't stop people from walking backwards through security checkpoints, and a host of unconnected dots, has finally stripped Barack Obama of his stock excuse -- "It's George Bush's Fault" -- and has him admitting, finally, "It's My Responsibility."
It remains to be seen how much of this is simple political theatre, and how much is actually indicative of a genuine change. Is this President, finally, learning? Is he beginning, after Fort Hood and Pantybmber, to realize the nature of the threat? We can only hope so. His "The Buck Stops Here" speech was the first time I can remember this guy at least looking like he got it. Perhaps he's just stung by the criticism that he wouldn't interrupt his vacation to deal with Pantybomber, perhaps he's come to the realization that there have been two high-profile attacks on his watch, or maybe his Keystone Kops lineup, starting with Napolitano, was so incompetent and so publicly humiliating, that the Big Guy decided to grab the reins and save himself some grief?
We'll see.
In the meantime, we hear that the CIA didn't exactly take the Knickerbomber seriously, either, but then again, Leon Pannettta couldn't be bothered to interrupt his vacation either when seven of his agents were snuffed out in a bombing attack in Afghanistan, so it begins to become clearer almost everyday just where all this lackadaisical attitude comes from. From the top.
Obama treats terrorism as if it were a social issue, instead of an act of war. Eric Holder treats it as a criminal issue, in his mind there being no difference between a terrorist and stick-up man. Hillary Clinton doesn't speak of terrorism at all, unless she can't avoid it, because that re-opens the whole "Bill Clinton didn't get Osama Bin Laden when he had seven chances" box. Leon Pannetta doesn't believe it exists -- even when it strikes close to home and claims the lives of CIA agents in the field. Janet Napolitano, the shockingly-dumbest person I've seen come down the pike since John Edwards, can't wait to get in front of a television camera to paint defeat as victory -- only to have to stumble over a recantation a few hours later that makes even less sense than her previous announcement.
If you want to see how that sort of attitude, and that sort of 'professionalism" brought us a guy with a bomb in his underpants, read this.
Perhaps now, this Administration will keep it's eyes on the ball, and get serious about stopping people like this.
Update: Clueless Janet opens mouth, inserts hoof...again. (with Video!)
It remains to be seen how much of this is simple political theatre, and how much is actually indicative of a genuine change. Is this President, finally, learning? Is he beginning, after Fort Hood and Pantybmber, to realize the nature of the threat? We can only hope so. His "The Buck Stops Here" speech was the first time I can remember this guy at least looking like he got it. Perhaps he's just stung by the criticism that he wouldn't interrupt his vacation to deal with Pantybomber, perhaps he's come to the realization that there have been two high-profile attacks on his watch, or maybe his Keystone Kops lineup, starting with Napolitano, was so incompetent and so publicly humiliating, that the Big Guy decided to grab the reins and save himself some grief?
We'll see.
In the meantime, we hear that the CIA didn't exactly take the Knickerbomber seriously, either, but then again, Leon Pannettta couldn't be bothered to interrupt his vacation either when seven of his agents were snuffed out in a bombing attack in Afghanistan, so it begins to become clearer almost everyday just where all this lackadaisical attitude comes from. From the top.
Obama treats terrorism as if it were a social issue, instead of an act of war. Eric Holder treats it as a criminal issue, in his mind there being no difference between a terrorist and stick-up man. Hillary Clinton doesn't speak of terrorism at all, unless she can't avoid it, because that re-opens the whole "Bill Clinton didn't get Osama Bin Laden when he had seven chances" box. Leon Pannetta doesn't believe it exists -- even when it strikes close to home and claims the lives of CIA agents in the field. Janet Napolitano, the shockingly-dumbest person I've seen come down the pike since John Edwards, can't wait to get in front of a television camera to paint defeat as victory -- only to have to stumble over a recantation a few hours later that makes even less sense than her previous announcement.
If you want to see how that sort of attitude, and that sort of 'professionalism" brought us a guy with a bomb in his underpants, read this.
Perhaps now, this Administration will keep it's eyes on the ball, and get serious about stopping people like this.
Update: Clueless Janet opens mouth, inserts hoof...again. (with Video!)
Thursday, January 07, 2010
How's That Transparency Thing Working Out?
A report on the security lapses that brought us the Peni-bomber. According to one source, "you'd be absolutely shocked..."
If Undibomber accomplished anything, it was to force the President to keep one of his campaign promises, the one about Transparency. We now 'know' what happened, and what didn't happen, in terms of the security of Northwest flight 253...or at least the sanitized version of events the White House chooses to explain and which it can still blame on George Bush. That they had to do so as a result of a self-inflicted public-relations wound is beside the point -- government is supposed to explain shit to the people -- and this is at least sufficient.
Whether the Security Apparatus (and the Administration) actually learn anything from this failure, is another matter altogether.
But, contrast that level of (grudging) White House transparency about the mistakes being made at Homeland Security to what is occurring on the other side of Washington on Capitol Hill. C-Span may not be allowed into the hallowed Halls of Congress to discuss another issue that concerns us all.
I guess there's transparency and the there's TRANSPARENCY...
Update: Whoops! Forgot the links to to the articles. Fixed now.
If Undibomber accomplished anything, it was to force the President to keep one of his campaign promises, the one about Transparency. We now 'know' what happened, and what didn't happen, in terms of the security of Northwest flight 253...or at least the sanitized version of events the White House chooses to explain and which it can still blame on George Bush. That they had to do so as a result of a self-inflicted public-relations wound is beside the point -- government is supposed to explain shit to the people -- and this is at least sufficient.
Whether the Security Apparatus (and the Administration) actually learn anything from this failure, is another matter altogether.
But, contrast that level of (grudging) White House transparency about the mistakes being made at Homeland Security to what is occurring on the other side of Washington on Capitol Hill. C-Span may not be allowed into the hallowed Halls of Congress to discuss another issue that concerns us all.
I guess there's transparency and the there's TRANSPARENCY...
Update: Whoops! Forgot the links to to the articles. Fixed now.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Terrorist Whack-A-Mole...
You know that carnival game, Whack-A-Mole, where mechanical furry creatures poke their heads out of a few cutouts in a tabletop and you try to whack them with a plush mallet? Listening to all the talk about terrorism nowadays, I get the impression that our so-called leaders are playing that game right now...and they don't realize it.
First, Bill Clinton bombed some aspirin factories in Sudan, in an attempt to get Osama Bin Hidin'. All he accomplished was to chase Osama to Afghanistan, where Al'Qeada hit us again with the September 11th attacks. G.W.B sent troops to Afghanistan to get OBL, and chased him into Pakistan, and now Obambi is using drones to pop terrorist scum in Pakistan and chasing them to Yemen.
And now all the talk in terrorism is about Yemen being the new front in the Overseas-Contingency-Operations-on-Man-Caused-Disasters. But it shouldn't be; if you chase Al'Qeada into Yemen, it'll fight for a while, then melt away to reform someplace else with a weak government and enough head-cases to adopt Islam, like Somalia or Algeria or something. We'll spend forever chasing them from country to country, and we won't be getting any closer to the source of the problem.
The problem is Radical Islam. It's an ideology that has grafted the political to the religious. The problem began in Iran with Khomeini, it has spread across the world -- thanks to the Saudis and their link with Wahabbism -- and it is firmly established in Europe... and American Prisons.
The Undibomber and Richard Reid were not radicalized in Yemen; they were recruited in London. Most of the 9/11 bombers were not radicalized in the Middle East, but in the capitols of Europe. Jose Padilla was not converted in Mecca, he was converted in an American prison. They learned the ideology of jihad outside of their native lands, for the most part. This is what we're fighting; an idea, and when you are fighting ideas, you have to fight twice as hard so as to make that idea mighty unattractive to future generations.
Fuck Yemen. It's an insignificant shitstain on the world map. The only good things to come from Yemen are syphilis and flies. Hardly worth the time or energy to 'save', let alone conquer. "Defeating" Al'Qaeda in Yemen will not bring us one step closer to destroying Islamofacism, it will not bring 'stability' to the Middle East, and it won't shut down a 'recruiting ground' for Al'Qaeda; it'll just waste a lot of bullets.
Concentrate on where the real problem is; there are millions of disaffected, young Muslim men walking the streets of the U.S. and Europe. They become disaffected (and angry) because they are encouraged a not to assimilate, and b) because they don't assimilate they never feel a part of their host society....and begin to resent it. They begin to become easy targets for the Imams. In Europe, outright racism is often to blame -- the French don't mind Algerians when they're out of sight, paying the taxes that let a Frenchie retire at 40 with free medical insurance, driving taxis and cleaning sewers, but they don't want to rub elbows with them in the local cafe. In the U.S. the association of Islam with the Civil Rights movement (a battle that is already won, but is continually re-fought nonetheless by the Poverty Pimps, because they get rich in the process) continues to foster an "Us vs. Them" mentality that is attractive to those who believe they haven't gotten a fair shake from America.
They find Islam an attractive ideology because it appeals to their sense of deprivation. They believe it offers the answer to their feelings of isolation and persecution. That it very often fosters those feelings in order to recruit disciples in the first place is another argument altogether.
Fix those problems (either by encouraging assimilation, or a program of massive deportation)before you decide invading another worthless country is the answer. Don't just hunt-and-annoy terrorists -- fucking kill them and make sure the world sees what it means to screw with Uncle Sam. Don't negotiate with Iran -- fucking flatten it, and do it in Prime Time so the world sees that we're serious about the security of Israel and our Allies. Don't let the Saudi's off scott-free because we want to buy their oil -- make them clean up their own mess, and then let's drill for our own oil right here and put them out of business. Don't let the same conditions that allowed the rise of radical Islam in Europe to establish themselves here; we should be out in the streets protesting Islam, we should be making life very uncomfortable for Muslims, we should be encouraging a program of "Assimilation or Deportation", and telling the truth about what Islamofascism really stands for.
Islam has never solved any one's problems, it has merely made them worse. If the West is not determined to fight for it's very survival by the same tactics that it used to defeat the Nazis, then we will be doomed to a continuous future that resembles the present: there will be more Undibombers, or future-Colonbombers, or Minature Toy Chihuahua Bombers, we'll still be sending soldiers around the world to be shot at and maimed in gun battles with no tangible results, and we'll spend enormous amounts of treasure while we're at at it. Islamofascism will still stand, and it'll still be drawing people to it's banner.
Make the effort to destroy the ideology by showing that it is, ultimately, a hopeless path; it must be shown to be bankrupt -- morally, spiritually, materially, politically, militarily -- before people begin to loose faith in it. Once they've lost that faith, they will no longer support it. The only way to encourage that loss of faith is to do some very mean and disgusting things that send a message that cannot be misread -- this is what we are willing to do in our defense, and to bring about your your defeat. You dare not screw with us.
Stop playing games. Start whacking people. In very large numbers.
More: The BBC agrees. Also, Islam one step closer to classification as Mental Disorder.
(H/T JammieWearingFool)
First, Bill Clinton bombed some aspirin factories in Sudan, in an attempt to get Osama Bin Hidin'. All he accomplished was to chase Osama to Afghanistan, where Al'Qeada hit us again with the September 11th attacks. G.W.B sent troops to Afghanistan to get OBL, and chased him into Pakistan, and now Obambi is using drones to pop terrorist scum in Pakistan and chasing them to Yemen.
And now all the talk in terrorism is about Yemen being the new front in the Overseas-Contingency-Operations-on-Man-Caused-Disasters. But it shouldn't be; if you chase Al'Qeada into Yemen, it'll fight for a while, then melt away to reform someplace else with a weak government and enough head-cases to adopt Islam, like Somalia or Algeria or something. We'll spend forever chasing them from country to country, and we won't be getting any closer to the source of the problem.
The problem is Radical Islam. It's an ideology that has grafted the political to the religious. The problem began in Iran with Khomeini, it has spread across the world -- thanks to the Saudis and their link with Wahabbism -- and it is firmly established in Europe... and American Prisons.
The Undibomber and Richard Reid were not radicalized in Yemen; they were recruited in London. Most of the 9/11 bombers were not radicalized in the Middle East, but in the capitols of Europe. Jose Padilla was not converted in Mecca, he was converted in an American prison. They learned the ideology of jihad outside of their native lands, for the most part. This is what we're fighting; an idea, and when you are fighting ideas, you have to fight twice as hard so as to make that idea mighty unattractive to future generations.
Fuck Yemen. It's an insignificant shitstain on the world map. The only good things to come from Yemen are syphilis and flies. Hardly worth the time or energy to 'save', let alone conquer. "Defeating" Al'Qaeda in Yemen will not bring us one step closer to destroying Islamofacism, it will not bring 'stability' to the Middle East, and it won't shut down a 'recruiting ground' for Al'Qaeda; it'll just waste a lot of bullets.
Concentrate on where the real problem is; there are millions of disaffected, young Muslim men walking the streets of the U.S. and Europe. They become disaffected (and angry) because they are encouraged a not to assimilate, and b) because they don't assimilate they never feel a part of their host society....and begin to resent it. They begin to become easy targets for the Imams. In Europe, outright racism is often to blame -- the French don't mind Algerians when they're out of sight, paying the taxes that let a Frenchie retire at 40 with free medical insurance, driving taxis and cleaning sewers, but they don't want to rub elbows with them in the local cafe. In the U.S. the association of Islam with the Civil Rights movement (a battle that is already won, but is continually re-fought nonetheless by the Poverty Pimps, because they get rich in the process) continues to foster an "Us vs. Them" mentality that is attractive to those who believe they haven't gotten a fair shake from America.
They find Islam an attractive ideology because it appeals to their sense of deprivation. They believe it offers the answer to their feelings of isolation and persecution. That it very often fosters those feelings in order to recruit disciples in the first place is another argument altogether.
Fix those problems (either by encouraging assimilation, or a program of massive deportation)before you decide invading another worthless country is the answer. Don't just hunt-and-annoy terrorists -- fucking kill them and make sure the world sees what it means to screw with Uncle Sam. Don't negotiate with Iran -- fucking flatten it, and do it in Prime Time so the world sees that we're serious about the security of Israel and our Allies. Don't let the Saudi's off scott-free because we want to buy their oil -- make them clean up their own mess, and then let's drill for our own oil right here and put them out of business. Don't let the same conditions that allowed the rise of radical Islam in Europe to establish themselves here; we should be out in the streets protesting Islam, we should be making life very uncomfortable for Muslims, we should be encouraging a program of "Assimilation or Deportation", and telling the truth about what Islamofascism really stands for.
Islam has never solved any one's problems, it has merely made them worse. If the West is not determined to fight for it's very survival by the same tactics that it used to defeat the Nazis, then we will be doomed to a continuous future that resembles the present: there will be more Undibombers, or future-Colonbombers, or Minature Toy Chihuahua Bombers, we'll still be sending soldiers around the world to be shot at and maimed in gun battles with no tangible results, and we'll spend enormous amounts of treasure while we're at at it. Islamofascism will still stand, and it'll still be drawing people to it's banner.
Make the effort to destroy the ideology by showing that it is, ultimately, a hopeless path; it must be shown to be bankrupt -- morally, spiritually, materially, politically, militarily -- before people begin to loose faith in it. Once they've lost that faith, they will no longer support it. The only way to encourage that loss of faith is to do some very mean and disgusting things that send a message that cannot be misread -- this is what we are willing to do in our defense, and to bring about your your defeat. You dare not screw with us.
Stop playing games. Start whacking people. In very large numbers.
More: The BBC agrees. Also, Islam one step closer to classification as Mental Disorder.
(H/T JammieWearingFool)
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
This is Why You Should NEVER Give Crappy Gifts...
The Brits just shoved one up Obama's pooper.
Of course, the President's defenders will take a look at that 2008 date and claim that the Undi-bomber was still George Bush's fault.
Obama has gone out of his way to poison the once-special relationship between Great Britain and the United States, to the point of humiliating Gordon Brown on several occasions, and even bowing to Saudi Princes -- but not to Queen Elizabeth. It's almost as if he doesn't want the British around, and if it wasn't for the fact that Britain is carrying the majority of the "European" load in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think Obama would like very much to cut them loose.
Why is a mystery.
He's done the same, to a lesser extent to Sarkozy and Merkel. He does so at his own peril because it will lead to some unhappy consequences:
Europe (despite everyone's recent emphasis on Yemen), and especially Britain, is really Ground-Zero for terrorism these days. Not only should the President be paying more attention to the Trans-Atlantic alliances, he should be mending fences with Brown, Merkel and Sarkozy, even if it means holding his nose. It will be Europeans who will help us win the War on Terror, not a bunch of illiterate, unwashed camel-fuckers in San'a or Kandahar.
Of course, the President's defenders will take a look at that 2008 date and claim that the Undi-bomber was still George Bush's fault.
Obama has gone out of his way to poison the once-special relationship between Great Britain and the United States, to the point of humiliating Gordon Brown on several occasions, and even bowing to Saudi Princes -- but not to Queen Elizabeth. It's almost as if he doesn't want the British around, and if it wasn't for the fact that Britain is carrying the majority of the "European" load in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think Obama would like very much to cut them loose.
Why is a mystery.
He's done the same, to a lesser extent to Sarkozy and Merkel. He does so at his own peril because it will lead to some unhappy consequences:
Europe (despite everyone's recent emphasis on Yemen), and especially Britain, is really Ground-Zero for terrorism these days. Not only should the President be paying more attention to the Trans-Atlantic alliances, he should be mending fences with Brown, Merkel and Sarkozy, even if it means holding his nose. It will be Europeans who will help us win the War on Terror, not a bunch of illiterate, unwashed camel-fuckers in San'a or Kandahar.
Monday, January 04, 2010
No Smoking Gun...
That's what John Brennan, Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler of Something Having to do With the CIA and Homeland Security had to say about the inability to identify and stop the Pantybomber.
According to Brennan, speaking on Fox News Sunday, the Homeland Security folks had "snippets"of information about the Briefbomber, but not enough to put together into a coherent picture that would have allowed security employees to prevent him from getting on that flight to Detroit. According to Brennan, "there was no smoking gun..."
Except that, well, that there was a clear picture...for those of us who aren't government employees. And usually, when you have a smoking gun -- it's already too late.
I guess for someone to be considered a danger to the security of an aircraft, he has to walk through the airport with a flashing neon sign stapled to his forehead that says "I'm a TERRORIST!".
Let's give Mr. Brennan the benefit of the doubt for a moment, and let's say that the Security Apparatus did, in fact, have all the information that it's been reported to have had. According to those reports, Abdulmutallab was denied a visa by the British government, information they pass on to the U.S. Government, he was known to have been in Yemen, a hotbed of international jihad ---and information they got from Abdulmuttalab's own father -- who also told the CIA officer at the American Embassy in Lagos, "Hey, I think my kid might a jihadi."
That information was in the system, and someone took enough notice of it to put Abdulmuttalab on some sort of watch list.
Did they not know about this in Nigeria or Amsterdam? Because the kid got on planes despite being on a watch list. He has a Muslim name. He's travelling internationally without a passport or visa. He's buying a one-way ticket...with $3000 in cash. He has no luggage. None of these actions raised any eyebrows in either Amsterdam or Nigeria, and in addition, conventional airport security screenings missed his bomb entirely. What are the problems there, and why are such things still happening nine years after 9/11?
And then, finally, we have an aircraft damaged by fire, several hundred passengers saved by one of their fellows, and Janet Napolitano proclaiming a false victory.
No, no smoking guns here at all.
You begin to see a pattern emerge when it comes to the problem of catching terrorists before they get on aircraft.
These guys all follow the same modus operandi (I'll say it: the same profile), and yet, no one seems able to stop them. They all engage in the same kinds of behavior which are supposed to be red flags, but which get ignored or overlooked. There is a distinct and identifiable procedure that can be observed which often identifies them; shrewd (or merely just conscious) security people will be able to recognize them in a heartbeat, and thus, we hope, stop a would-be Peni-bomber. The same people who brought you 9/11; the high-school dropout, the obsessive cell-phone-user, the compulsive texter, the brain dead, the lazy, the unobservant, are still on the job. If you need proof of this, a man shut down Newark International last night because he went through 'security' ...backwards....and then promptly disappeared.
The next pattern: they happen to be Muslim. They have Muslim names. They often look Middle Eastern (and yes, I know Jose Padilla and Richard Reid don't look Muslim, we'll get to that in a minute). And somehow, less attention is paid to them and more to the grandmother in the wheelchair. Why? Because no one wants to insult Muslims. Fuck 'em; we wouldn't have to go through all this bullshit if it wasn't for them. If they don't want to be hassled and insulted, tell them to turn in their crazy uncles, brothers and fathers before they kill again. They know who these people are. I'm not concerned about inconveniencing Muslims and making them feel bad about themselves. When they stand up against their own for my right not to get blown up in coach, I'll start giving a shit about their self-esteem. The point is to discourage the Would-Be Muslim Bomber from even attempting to get near the airport by letting him know "We're waiting for you..."
As for Reid and Padilla, they probably (I don't say definitely) would have been caught with the application of some common criminal profiling techniques. Trained police officers are often able to spot the criminals and troublemakers before they do anything, because experience has given them a keen eye for certain details, and allows them to interpret subtle behaviors the rest of us would miss. But here's the thing: if we were profiling Arabs and obvious Muslims, we'd discourage them from flying almost entirely --- and we'd have the resources to better catch the Reids and Padillas with good ol' fashioned police work instead of a multi-billion dollar government boondoggle who's response to a bomb is to restrict rest room use..
Okay, so getting back to Mr. Brennan's assertion that there was No Smoking Gun, given what we know now, it seems that:
a) Homeland Security would never have been on the lookout for Pantybomber in the first place. The information on hand did not point to an "imminent" threat -- just a possible one. TSA and Homeland Security don't work int he realm of the possible, only that which is actually happening, and even then, it's bureaucratic process probably prevents any meaningful action from taking place. I guess to Homeland Security a threat of jihad is simply that. Political Correctness prevents this bureaucracy from paying close attention to the people it probably should be paying attention to (i.e. Muslims and criminals), and even when it is on the ball, the 'system;' is inflexible and reactive, rather than dynamic and proactive.
b) The system which is supposed to share and disseminate this security information and intelligence absolutely creaks and is grossly inefficient. The great clue here is that even when the security regime is in full possession of an awful lot of dots, there is no one to connect them. And certainly not on a Holiday weekend. It's apparent that when the security apparatus is in possession of information that could save lives, that information often falls into a bureaucratic black hole which ensures it's rarely acted upon, or even reacted upon smartly, but which always figures large in the inevitable over-reaction in the aftermath of a (near-)tragedy.
c) Airport security is too-obviously focused on finding conventional weapons (knives, guns, and so forth) and not in catching terrorists. That is a focus that needs to be shifted if we're to actually start catching some of these guys before they do harm. We're about to spend billions on full-body scanners in major airports, and I wonder if the money wouldn't be better spent teaching the slugs at TSA how to spot and stop criminals. The focus is put almost entirely upon technology which, unfortunately, tends to take the responsibility away from a human being. Human beings who begin to realize they aren't responsible for anything soon rely too much on the technology, and failures proliferate. Put the human beings back in charge, train 'em up, and then hold them responsible.
It appears from the tale of the Underwear Bomber that, yeah, there was a smoking gun. Many of them. The line goes all the way back to the American Embassy in Lagos, it runs through the State Department, the CIA, Homeland Security and the TSA. None of these mega-agencies seem capable of putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 4, not without bureaucratic lag, and certainly not in a timely fashion which might save someone's life, and certainly not with the would-be killer's father ratting him out.
Mr. Brennan should be ashamed of himself for having the gall to appear on television yesterday to defend the indefensible (see here). Nine years after the World Trade Center became a smoking crater, this country is still unprepared to defend itself against terrorists, and it's because of incompetence at the highest level, political correctness run amok, and a failure to apply common sense.
No Smoking Gun, indeed...
Update: More on your government's stupidity here and here.
And Still More: Terrorism is a Low Priority for Obamabi Administration, says GOP. Also, Brennan should have resisted the urge to open his big, pie hole and not spill the beans.
New and Improved More: Ralph Peters says the Terrorists are outsmarting us.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
They Just Don't Get IT...
According to Barack Obama, Dick Cheney loves terrorists. This is the response of an Administration stung by Cheney's repeated attempts to get Obama more active, involved and truthful about the War on Terror. That Cheney criticizes the President and his Administration in the wake of another attempted bombing of an airliner somehow equates to Cheney giving aid and comfort to the enemy in Obama's eyes.
That's the same Obama that wants to close Gitmo, read terrorists their rights, give them the full panoply of rights afforded an American citizen, a government-provided lawyer, try them in civilian courts rather than by military tribunals, who holds out an "open hand" to Iran, and dithers for months over a "surge" in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.
An idiot who can't get laid (the Pantybomber) decides the answer to his dilemma is to strap a bomb to his John Thomas and take 300 people with him, and when his plot is foiled, he's not a terrorist at all according to the Obama Administration, he's an "alleged" terrorist and an "isolated extremist". He is treated not as a war criminal, but as a criminal defendant, no different than your common car thief or shoplifter by the Obama National Security apparatus.
First off: the people on that plane saw him ignite his underwear, subdued him, and put the flames out. I'm not a lawyer, but if 50 people spot someone do something, then "alleged" is not the adjective I would apply to the wrong-doer, neither is the guy a "suspect" under those conditions. Fifty people can identify him as a) a bomber, and b) the asshole who tried to set it off.
Good luck to any defense attorney who can magically call the eyewitness testimony of 50 people into question. This guy isn't entitled to a trial by jury; he's entitled to a trial by waterboarding.
He's a goddamned terrorist, not a jaywalker.
Secondly: Dick Cheney is one of the guys who Obama says "tortured" the very guys he wants to give Miranda warnings to with waterboarding, rendition, sleep-deprivation, cold cells and loud noises (and Lord knows what else). Cheney has defended his support for such policies on a near-daily basis for nearly a decade. In fact, he's quite unashamed to admit that his only regret was that more of the same wasn't done, all to keep the country safer. He makes no bones about what was done, why it was done, and how it was done. The only thing he won't talk about is what the interrogators actually discovered and what was done with the information (except that one time about KSM, and the time he defended himself by daring Obama to release the files) .
Obama and his cohorts have attacked Cheney and former-President GW Bush for their actions in the War on Terrorism, vehemently, and in some of the most disgusting language you can think of, accusing them of being this-close to the Gestapo. Suddenly the men who Barack Hussein Obama claimed are the worst examples of human degeneracy, so totally out-of-touch with "our values", are now clasping terrorists to their bosom and babying them?
Get real. You can't have it both ways, Mr. President.
President Obama and his crowd of morons, like Napolitano, are going to get people killed. And no amount of spin is going to change or prevent that, and no attack on a prescient-Dick Cheney is going to save them from the legitimate criticism they deserve in the wake of this disaster.
I can only wonder how they'll blame Bush and Cheney when the body bags start filling up?
For a guy who is supposed to be so sharp, one wonders how Barack Hussein Obama misses the obvious. And then you remember that he's a politician and his whole world revolves around ignoring the obvious for that which is politically expedient.
Barack Obama doesn't get it because his politics don't account for a world full of evil men who want to kill Americans in large numbers. He compounds this error by surrounding himself with like-minded people who simply parrot whatever he wants to hear. Unfortunately, this self-constructed bubble won't get popped until there's a mushroom cloud over an American city. It usually takes something that difficult to miss to get a liberal's attention.
Dumbass.
Mark Steyn in National Review talks on this very subject.
This New York Post Editorial sums it up nicely.
According to Rassmussen, a majority of Americans now believes we are losing the War on Terror....for the first time ever... Nice going, Mr. President.
That's the same Obama that wants to close Gitmo, read terrorists their rights, give them the full panoply of rights afforded an American citizen, a government-provided lawyer, try them in civilian courts rather than by military tribunals, who holds out an "open hand" to Iran, and dithers for months over a "surge" in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.
An idiot who can't get laid (the Pantybomber) decides the answer to his dilemma is to strap a bomb to his John Thomas and take 300 people with him, and when his plot is foiled, he's not a terrorist at all according to the Obama Administration, he's an "alleged" terrorist and an "isolated extremist". He is treated not as a war criminal, but as a criminal defendant, no different than your common car thief or shoplifter by the Obama National Security apparatus.
First off: the people on that plane saw him ignite his underwear, subdued him, and put the flames out. I'm not a lawyer, but if 50 people spot someone do something, then "alleged" is not the adjective I would apply to the wrong-doer, neither is the guy a "suspect" under those conditions. Fifty people can identify him as a) a bomber, and b) the asshole who tried to set it off.
Good luck to any defense attorney who can magically call the eyewitness testimony of 50 people into question. This guy isn't entitled to a trial by jury; he's entitled to a trial by waterboarding.
He's a goddamned terrorist, not a jaywalker.
Secondly: Dick Cheney is one of the guys who Obama says "tortured" the very guys he wants to give Miranda warnings to with waterboarding, rendition, sleep-deprivation, cold cells and loud noises (and Lord knows what else). Cheney has defended his support for such policies on a near-daily basis for nearly a decade. In fact, he's quite unashamed to admit that his only regret was that more of the same wasn't done, all to keep the country safer. He makes no bones about what was done, why it was done, and how it was done. The only thing he won't talk about is what the interrogators actually discovered and what was done with the information (except that one time about KSM, and the time he defended himself by daring Obama to release the files) .
Obama and his cohorts have attacked Cheney and former-President GW Bush for their actions in the War on Terrorism, vehemently, and in some of the most disgusting language you can think of, accusing them of being this-close to the Gestapo. Suddenly the men who Barack Hussein Obama claimed are the worst examples of human degeneracy, so totally out-of-touch with "our values", are now clasping terrorists to their bosom and babying them?
Get real. You can't have it both ways, Mr. President.
President Obama and his crowd of morons, like Napolitano, are going to get people killed. And no amount of spin is going to change or prevent that, and no attack on a prescient-Dick Cheney is going to save them from the legitimate criticism they deserve in the wake of this disaster.
I can only wonder how they'll blame Bush and Cheney when the body bags start filling up?
For a guy who is supposed to be so sharp, one wonders how Barack Hussein Obama misses the obvious. And then you remember that he's a politician and his whole world revolves around ignoring the obvious for that which is politically expedient.
Barack Obama doesn't get it because his politics don't account for a world full of evil men who want to kill Americans in large numbers. He compounds this error by surrounding himself with like-minded people who simply parrot whatever he wants to hear. Unfortunately, this self-constructed bubble won't get popped until there's a mushroom cloud over an American city. It usually takes something that difficult to miss to get a liberal's attention.
Dumbass.
Mark Steyn in National Review talks on this very subject.
This New York Post Editorial sums it up nicely.
According to Rassmussen, a majority of Americans now believes we are losing the War on Terror....for the first time ever... Nice going, Mr. President.
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?)
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)