Everything Obama has touched during his presidency has turned to dross. I’d like you to look at this video, not as a Ted Cruz campaign video (which it is) but as a really short, savage indictment of Obama’s awfulness, from his boasting, to his anti-Americanism, to his vicious personal attacks on fellow Americans. What an awful man and a worse leader Obama is:
With France now following in Russia’s lead and going after ISIS in Syria, people are asking why Obama is not being more aggressive in his approach to taking out ISIS. The French air attack on ISIS’s Raqqa headquarters, munitions depot, and recruiting station revealed that America has excellent intelligence on ISIS because it provided necessary satellite data. America had compiled this data for a drone attack on a target of one: Jihadi John.
Our military could have dealt a fairly devastating blow to ISIS by dropping an extra bomb or two just a block away from Jihadi John’s location — but it didn’t. What exactly is going on here?
Only conservatives are paying attention
In an attempt to deflect attention of Muslim depredations in Paris, the Left and its foot soldiers (all of whom seem to be my Facebook friends) immediately attacked Americans and other Westerners for failing to pay attention to a bombing the day before in Lebanon (an ISIS v. Hezbollah bombing, so it was Horrible People v. Horrible People). I eventually got tired of commenting on their posts to the effect that I have been paying attention to all of these attacks, primarily because they are all different manifestations of a single radical Islamic entity, and I’ve been trying to get everyone to pay as much attention as I do.
Emma Kelly says what I was too polite to say explicitly to these Leftists: The reason you didn’t know about these other attacks isn’t because the newspapers didn’t report them, it’s because you weren’t paying attention.
I’ll add something that Kelly didn’t, though: You weren’t paying attention because American and European media outlets don’t want you to see that Islam is a problem, so they report on these incidents, but downplay them. Meanwhile you get loud noise about Ben Carson’s alleged lies, Hillary’s brilliance, Republicans’ meanness, Donald Trump’s hair, and Kim Kardashian’s pregnancy.
The Obama administration and the current crop of Democrat presidential candidates have backbones of steel when it comes to their refusal to finger “radical Islam” as the perpetrator of violent terrorism around the world. If England and America had practiced that same policy back in 1939 and 1942, we would all be speaking German right now, and the Muslims (staunch Hitler allies) would be enjoying the wonders of a Jew-free world.
What the Democrats will not acknowledge is that when evil comes calling, only three things can happen: You oppose it, you join it, or you die from it. Their silence means that Democrats are not opposing it, forcing America to be complicit with it or die from it. Sensible Americans are appalled by this policy approach. Progressives, however, know their candidates are doing what needs to be done.
Thus, Progressives are convinced that, if we just throw enough “love bombs” at Islam, the radical Islamists will be charmed by what deeply spiritual and kind people we are, throw down their guns, and return their home-made explosives to their original purpose as fertilizer. One wonders how in the world the Progressives got it into their collective heads that people who auction off prepubescent girls and boys as sex slaves, crucify children, toss gays off of off the tops of buildings so as to stone them at the bottom, and glory in decapitating, drowning, burning, and blowing up Christians and prisoners of war are likely to be beguiled into harmlessness because an old hippie croons “I still love you.”
In a must-read article, Caroline Glick nails everything that’s wrong with the Leftist approach to radical Islam, all of which starts with its insistence that there is no such thing as radical Islam:
I’ve still got a few more things I want to share with you tonight, so consider this Part 2 for the day (with Part 1 here).
The coming (and inevitable) Leftist implosion
Every time I read a Kevin Williamson article, I like his writing and thinking just a little bit more. In one of his latest outings, about the inevitable fissures on the Left (as exemplified by (1) the way Black Lives Matters activists are attacking old, white Bernie and Hillary, and (2) the way the black/Hispanic majority in very Leftist Houston nevertheless voted down men in women’s restrooms), Williams has the following wonderful lines:
The challenge for the Left is that while the Republican party is mainly a coalition of ideologies, the Democratic party is mainly a coalition of interest groups, and the current model of Democratic politics — poor and largely non-white people providing the muscle and rich white liberals calling the shots — is unsustainable. The social attitudes of non-white voters are pretty plainly not those of white liberals, and, at the same time — and probably more significant — the economic interests of white liberals are pulling away from those of the people in whose interest they purport to act. Hispanic immigrants and urban blacks make below-average wages; public-school administrators and other government employees make wages that are well above average. There aren’t a lot of people in Cleveland’s Glenville who give a fat furry rat’s patootie how much interest Caitlyn from Bryn Mawr is paying on the student loans that financed her women’s-studies degree. If you’re wondering why Democrats lean so deeply into the racial rhetoric — Joe Biden’s shameful “They want to put y’all back in chains!” etc. — that’s a big part of your answer.
Rich Lowry’s article nails why I don’t trust Rubio
Marco Rubio is bright, articulate, focused, conservative, and telegenic. I ought to like him . . . but I just don’t. I’ve been pfumphering around for a while trying to put my finger on my problem with him and I think it really does boil down to his support for amnesty:
My challenge to myself is to give you as many links as possible in the ten minutes I have left before I have to go to the veterinarian with my dog. This will be my fourth doctor’s visit this week, which is quite impressive considering that I am in the pink of health.
The mullahs send Obama a signal
You know the old joke about the man who goes up to a beautiful woman at a swank party and asks, “Would you sleep with me for $1,000,000?”
The woman blushes and coyly whispers back, “I’m so flattered. Why, yes, I think I would.”
The man asks a follow-up question: “Would you sleep with me for $10?”
The woman turns red, slaps the man in the face, and asks angrily, “What do you take me for? A whore?”
Answers the man, “We’ve already established what you are. Now we’re just haggling about the price.”
Keep that joke in mind as you read about Iran, having taken Obama’s measure and gotten all the benefits of the bargain, is making sure to show Obama just what the mullahs think of him and his country.
Antisemitism goes mainstream
If you’re an antisemite, this link showing people all over the world flashing antisemitic signals in the places most likely to disrespect Jews and their memory will delight you. All moral, decent, honorable, kind, and good people will be disgusted.
I’ve been going through my emails, with 200 down, 300 or so yet to go. Even though I’m only less than halfway through, I’ve discovered marvelous articles hiding in my email box thanks to friends from all over.
Did Merkel unilaterally doom Europe?
We no longer subscribe to the great man or great woman school of history. We’ve also abandoned the notion of high tragedy arising from the hubris of said great men or women. Perhaps, though, it’s time for us to revive that genre.
Daniel Greenfield convincingly argues that Germany’s Angela Merkel, with her mad plan to replace her country’s shrinking, aging population with Muslim refugees, will have single-handedly done to Europe what generations of Muslim conquerors have tried to do, which is to turn it into a part of the global Caliphate:
Last year on 9/11, my remembrance post looked at how our political class, led by Barack Obama, seemed to have forgotten every lesson learned from 9/11. Under his aegis, I pointed out, our borders were meaningless, the always dangerous Middle East was a swirling mass of chaos, and ISIS was cutting a bloody swath through that benighted land. This year, things are worse.
Obama’s Middle Eastern policies — policies that systematically destabilized Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Egypt, and that enabled anarchy in Syria and ISIS’s rise — have led to the largest migrant crisis since Rome’s downfall. Note that I don’t say “refugee” crisis. The people moving on Europe contain a small percentage of refugees, but most are Muslims seeking a better life in the West.
Some of these migrants are people who genuinely want that better life. Too many, however, seem to be people who, parasite-like, want to take advantage of Western welfare and generosity, without caring that they’ll soon kill their host. And, with a 72% male cohort amongst these migrants, we can be guaranteed of two things: (1) many of them definitely come in as ISIS, al Qaeda, or other Islamist inspired warriors and (2) those who don’t yet subscribe to radical Islamic creeds, will quickly be infected by an ideology that sanctions mass rape, mass violence, and mass killing against the kafir in whose midsts they find themselves.
The worst irony of today’s 9/11 anniversary, though, is that yesterday, the fourteenth anniversary of the day before the world changed forever, the Obama-led Democrat party took steps to ensure that 9/11, rather than seeing the peak of Islamic terrorism, will begin to look like a dry run, just as the 1993 World Trade Center attack was a dry run. I’ll quote liberally from Charles Krauthammer on what precisely Obama and his Democrats (all of whom should be run out of office) have done:
The script is already written: The International Atomic Energy Agency, relying on Iran’s self-inspection (!) of its most sensitive nuclear facility, will declare Iran in compliance. The agreement then goes into effect and Iran’s nuclear program is officially deemed peaceful.
Sanctions are lifted. The mullahs receive $100 billion of frozen assets as a signing bonus. Iran begins reaping the economic bonanza, tripling its oil exports and welcoming a stampede of foreign companies back into the country.
Obama did not submit it as a treaty because he knew he could never get the constitutionally required votes for ratification. He’s not close to getting two-thirds of the Senate. He’s not close to getting a simple majority. No wonder: In the latest Pew Research Center poll, the American people oppose the deal by a staggering 28-point margin.
To get around the Constitution, Obama negotiated a swindle that requires him to garner a mere one-third of one house of Congress. Indeed, on Thursday, with just 42 Senate supporters — remember, a treaty requires 67 — the Democrats filibustered and prevented, at least for now, the Senate from voting on the deal at all.
But Obama two months ago enshrined the deal as international law at the U.N. Why should we care about the congressional vote? In order to highlight the illegitimacy of Obama’s constitutional runaround and thus make it easier for a future president to overturn the deal, especially if Iran is found to be cheating.
This is a revolution in Iran’s international standing, yet its consequences have been largely overlooked. The deal goes beyond merely leaving Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact. Because the deal legitimizes that nuclear program as peaceful (unless proven otherwise — don’t hold your breath), it is entitled to international assistance. Hence the astonishing provision buried in Annex III, Section 10, committing Western experts to offering the Iranian program our nuclear expertise.
Imagine: We are now to protect Iran against, say, the very Stuxnet virus, developed by the NSA and Israel’s Unit 8200, that for years disrupted and delayed an Iranian bomb.
Secretary of State John Kerry has darkly warned Israel to not even think about a military strike on the nuclear facilities of a regime whose leader said just Wednesday that Israel will be wiped out within 25 years. The Israelis are now being told additionally — Annex III, Section 10 — that if they attempt just a defensive, nonmilitary cyberattack (a Stuxnet II), the West will help Iran foil it.
Ask those 42 senators if they even know about this provision. And how they can sign on to such a deal without shame and revulsion.
By the way, before you pillory Republicans for having let this happen, do remember that, without a veto-proof majority, they’re left with little more than symbolic weapons in their arsenal:
But step back a moment and take note of a few political facts. First, a Republican majority in Congress does not mean there is a conservative majority in Congress. And many House GOP conservatives are actually quite weak, worried more about their own re-election than taking a tough vote. The votes in the Senate simply aren’t there to sustain a defunding of Planned Parenthood through the route of a government shutdown, for example. The lesson of this and other frustrations is that we need to elect a new president.
The above is not meant to defend either Boehner or McConnell, both of whom seem happy in their role as Obama’s lap dogs. It simply acknowledges the practical realities of American politics.
But back to today’s issue, which is the importance of remembrance. With every passing year, 9/11’s emotional resonance lessens, with September 11 becoming nothing more than a sad story rather than both a national tragedy and a wake-up call. Even worse, too many of the younger generation don’t even have a textbook acquaintance with 9/11. Our continued survival as a free nation demands that we remember 9/11 in a way that enables us to understand the lessons it teaches about the nature of evil and about the evil nature of radical Islam, whether it emanates from Sunni or Shia Islamists.
Here are two posts with pictures that need to be seared into every free person’s corneas as a way to remember what happened on 9/11 and what a modern war on American soil looks like:
As for me, I refuse to forget. Below the fold, you will find the names of all of the men, women, and children who died on September 11, 2001 at the hands of Islamic terrorists — terrorists who are still revered wherever radical Islam has a hold.
I’ve written lengthier memorials about three of the honored dead. (I prefer “honored dead,” a nicely Victorian phrase, to the word “victim,” which negates Americans’ fighting spirit):
This is a portmanteau post, with several ideas that seemed to flow together. It begins with today’s news that the Democ-RATS today gave Obama the veto power he needs to override the Senate’s overwhelming disapproval of his Iran Deal. This news meant that a poster that Caped Crusader sent me yesterday resonates more strongly than ever:
I agree with everything in the poster except the last line. Although you know I get disheartened at times, if I agreed with the last line I would stop blogging, sell my house, and, with the proceeds, buy a remote island somewhere in the Pacific on which would construct a very deep bomb shelter that I would then stock with ten years worth of survivalist supplies. I still have some hope that a strong conservative in the White House can turn things around.
Sadly, I don’t believe Trump is the strong conservative we need. Trump is a man without fixed principles. Dig down on any subject, and you’ll discover that positions reflect whatever thoughts happen to be passing through his mind at a given moment. Some of those thoughts have merit, as with his objection to an unprincipled administration that is blatantly violating our nation’s immigration laws or with his refusal to play the media and political correctness games. I strongly applaud him for both those stands. On other matters, though, it’s apparent (a) that he hasn’t thought about them, which someone aiming for the executive office would do well to do and (b) that he doesn’t have a strong principle driving his governing philosophy.
It’s that last — the absence of an ideological basis — that has me worried. I want a doctrinaire conservative, one whose guiding belief is that the government’s role should be limited at home, while maintaining a strong national security focus abroad (and, within constitutional limits, at home too). Trump is an unguided and uninformed missile who is capable of doing anything and of too easily losing his way when situations become complicated. He may have refreshing insights, but to the extent that his principles are defined by his navel and not by any fixed points, he is very likely to become a loose cannon demagogue.
Indeed, even on his key issue of illegal immigration, one has to wonder if his position even rises to this level of thought:
By the way, one of the most disturbing aspects of President Obama’s willingness to disregard American law is the fact that people working in Immigration enforcement seem to have gone along so willingly with his order to them to stand down from their statutorily defined responsibilities. With this thought in mind, I jokingly said to a friend that, if they don’t agree with Obama’s open borders policy (a policy that directly contradicts standing laws in the federal code), they ought to strike. My friend reminded me that federal workers cannot go on strike — something made very clear when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers.
Thinking about it, though, I wondered if there’s not an exploitable wrinkle here for concerted action by federal workers. It’s commonly understand that a strike occurs when a worker refuses to do his job in the hope of improving his position through better work conditions or more moneys. Thus, Black’s Law Dictionary ties a “strike” to a work stoppage as a means of coercing concessions from an employer:
The act of a body of workmen employed by the same master, in stopping work all together at a prearranged time, and refusing to continue until higher wages, or shorter time, or some other concession is granted to them by the employer. See Farmers’ L. & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (C. C.) 00 Fed. 819; Arthur v. Oakes, 63 Fed. 327, 11 C. C. A. 209, 25 L. R. A. 414; Railroad Co. v. Bowns, 58 N. Y. 582; Longshore Printing Co. v. Howell, 26 Or. 527, 38 Pac. 547, 28 L. It A. 401, 40 Am. St. Rep. 640.
The question is whether federal employee action is still a “strike” when the workers insist on doing their statutorily defined job in the face of an order from the executive branch insisting that the worker violating federal law by refraining from working. Wouldn’t that be the opposite of a strike? And if it’s the opposite of a strike, does 5 USC § 7311, the federal no-strike statute, apply?
An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;
I’m just playing around with an idea here, and have not researched it in any way. What do you think (or actually know as a fact) on this subject? Is it a “strike” if the employees, rather than stopping work, continuing to work in the face of an illegal executive order requiring them to stand down in violation of existing federal law?
I generally find The Times of Israel to be a very good media outlet. Indeed, I’m routinely impressed by the caliber of the articles that its founding editor, David Horovitz, writes. With that background, you’d think I’d take very seriously an opinion/news piece questioning whether Bibi Netanyahu is making a major mistake challenging Obama, since it appears that Obama will get the votes he needs to pursue his executive action vis-a-vis Iran.
In fact, I had quite the opposition reaction. Based upon the creative premise underlying the article, I decided after just a few paragraphs that the writer was an intellectual and pretension buffoon and ignoramus and, according, that his opinion is not worthy of consideration. Perhaps this is blind bias on my part. But still….
Let me explain. Here’s the premise underlying Raphael Ahren’s article:
After a series of briefings with senior American and Israeli officials in the course of the last few weeks, this reporter was left in no doubt that even if bilateral ties aren’t taking a direct hit as a consequence of Netanyahu’s approach, they will suffer damage, possibly irreparable, in the long run. It’s a bit like global warming: The effects of Israel’s actions aren’t immediately visible, but their long-term devastating effects are undeniable… or are only denied by people with a particular political agenda.
Put another way, Ahren is arguing that Netanyahu is as stupid as all those flat-earth global warming deniers out there who keep insisting that it actually matters that the global warming data was fraudulently altered; that all of the predictions warming scientists made have failed to come true; that the only way to ignore the giant pause in global warming is to falsify the data; and that even the claim of a 97% agreement is false — and that number would be irrelevant even if true, because science should be driven by data, not popularity. (For an endless supply of hard data revealing the giant wealth redistribution fraud that is climate change — with much of that wealth being redistributed into the pockets of people such as Al Gore and George Soros, just check out Watts Up With That.)
If only Netanyahu would get with the program, says Ahren, and make nice to a president who, since assuming office in 2008, has consistently insulted and assaulted both Netanyahu and the nation of Israel, and who is now handing Israel’s mortal enemy hundreds of millions of dollars and the keys to the nuclear kingdom.
Faced with the most antisemitic, pro-Muslim, pro-Iranian, anti-American president in history, and one moreover who is inexorably forcing America to aid the nuclear ambitions of a nation with which America has been at war for 36 years (at that nation’s insistence) and which is the major sponsor of terrorism around the world, Netanyahu has only two choices: He can lie supine, pretending it doesn’t matter that Obama is creating the conditions for the next Holocaust, or he can fight back by exposing the Deal’s rotten underpinnings and doing anything and everything he can to rally sane, moral people to Israel’s side.
As it happens, Israel has vowed since its inception that it will never again be passive in the face of moral danger. It will always fight, and that is what Netanyahu is doing.
I suggest that David Horovitz take a second look at Raphael Ahren, the diplomatic correspondent at The Times of Israel, and the man who tried to work his little climate change magical beliefs into what purports to be a serious article about Israel’s response to the existential threat that a consistently hostile American president is fomenting. As far as I can tell, the man is a moron and shouldn’t have such a bully pulpit, especially in a reputable and intelligent online newspaper.
My friend Scott, the same one who wrote this excellent time line and analysis about Hillary’s criminal malfeasance, continues to follow the Hillary saga closely. In a recent email to me, he wrote:
I can pretty much assure you, I and everyone else who ever held a security clearance and dealt extensively with classified documents did a spit take when we heard Hillary conducted all of her email as Sec. of State on a private address and server. That she would be involved with not just classified information, but the most classified secrets of our nation was inevitable.
Go here, watch former CIA Agent turned CNN analyst Bob Baer just rip into Hildabeast as unfit to be President. He’s right.
I agree with Scott, and have only this to add: I think that the more that is revealed, the more it’s clear that she’s unfit to be president. It’s not just that she’s paranoid, arrogant, dishonest, spent too much time sending personal emails on the job, and didn’t give a hang about America’s national security. The underlying problem, one that should be apparent even to her fans, is that she’s dumb as a post. Can we really have someone this staggeringly stupid in the White House?
The recent revelation about Hillary’s offsite server only adds to the impression of someone with a low two-digit IQ.
Oh, and Scott adds that Eugene Robinson unintentionally sums it all up for the left. “He bemoans her decisions, dispenses with her excuses as ridiculous, then says that she’ll be our next President, but we won’t love her quite as much as could have. And I love how he mentions having classified data on her server as a ‘technical violation of the law’ while still crediting the charge of ‘partisan witch hunt.'” Says Scott, “I so detest people who are not intellectually honest.”
One of my Facebook friends is an uber-Leftist, although he does staunchly support Israel. He never puts up personal posts. Instead, his Facebook feed is filled with posters, some inspirational, some funny, some pro-Israel, and most pro-Left and anti-Republican.
I thought that for this illustrated edition, instead of the usual conservative-oriented posters, I’d take a peak at, and run some comments by, the stuff coming from the Left. In each case, my commentary about a poster will be below the poster.