Frankly, whether Scotland goes or Scotland stays, once-Great Britain is dead. It’s death was a slow-mo, stupidity-driven suicide:
When Chris Christie burst upon the scene, I admired him for being willing to do what no other American politician would: tackle the teacher’s union head on. He was articulate and unafraid. I still admire him for that. But as time went by, we learned a bit more about Christie. It began to seem that his willingness to stand up to the teacher’s union wasn’t necessarily a principled stand, but was a bully’s attack on an entity with which he didn’t wish to share power. Conservatives were also put off by his open embrace of Barack Obama in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, a piece of over-the-top theatrics that exceeded even what a Democrat governor might be expected to do.
And worst of all, from my viewpoint, we learned — over and over and over — that, when push comes to shove, Chris Christie will always side with Islamic and Saudi interests against American interests. At first, those stories sounded like nasty rumors. They then piled up enough to present a picture of a man who’s made a decision about which side he prefers in the America v. Islam debate, and it’s not the side I choose. Should you have any further doubt about that, Daniel Pipes details how Christie has bought the Palestinian “occupation” narrative hook, line, and sinker.
In other words, it looks as if any Christie presidency would be an Obama redux: bullying, corruption, and antisemitism. I can do without that, so Chris Christie, the man who once seemed to have so much promise, is hereby knocked off my list of potential presidential candidates.
The Left loves to talk about McCarthyism. The Left also loves to practice McCarthyism. John O’Sullivan reminds us that GLAAD’s approach to the Robertson clan is a perfect example of the old-fashioned blacklist: destroying the livelihood of those who hold that wrong belief system. Whether you’re a baker, or a photographer, or a TV figure, if you don’t support gay marriage, plan to be driven to the poor house. It was a bad idea in the 1950s, and it’s a bad idea now.
Not only did Glenn Reynolds write his usual great USA Today column (this one about Obama’s bad 2013 and the probability that 2014 will be worse), but he opened with a Soviet-era joke. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most Soviet-era jokes need few or no changes to work in Obama’s America.
I’ve spoken before at this blog about the execrable Peter Singer, who holds an endowed chair at Princeton, who is the intellectual father of PETA, and who believes parents should have a 30 day window within which to euthanize handicapped newborns. (Never mind that those handicaps may hide brilliant minds and powerful souls.) I thought of Singer when I read Matt Walsh’s powerful post about the chasm between those who understand that we must support life and those who embrace death (the deaths of others, of course; never of themselves).
Rand Paul gets an A+++ for his wonderful embrace of Festivus. If you haven’t read the stream of tweets he sent out, you must. They’re clever, charming, and very on point. As a political move, Paul couldn’t have done better.
Yes, Obamacare drives up the cost of health insurance for the middle class. But if you’re a member of the middle class who’s upset about the costly lies Obama told you (less money! same doctors!), apparently you should quit your whining. You are merely a sacrifice to the greater good.
Beware that, if the Muslim nations have their way, it will henceforth be illegal to mention Muslims’ propensity for violence or any of the other less savory aspects of their faith. Of course, such a law will simply put a legal gloss on what’s already happening. After all, hasn’t the administration told us repeatedly that the Fort Hood massacre was “workplace violence,” while the Benghazi massacre was a film review run amok? No Muslims here. Just move along.
The headlines proclaim that Obama signed up for Obamacare. Except that he didn’t — as with everything else about Obamacare, Obama and his team are lying to us again.
The lede says it all: “90% of Top Newspaper Headlines Censor Islam in Nairobi, Pakistan Attacks : Generic ‘terrorists’ and ‘militants’ appear in nine of 10 headlines.” Doesn’t anybody read their Harry Potter anymore? I’m quite sure it was the sensible, intelligent, brave Hermione who said that the refusal to name your enemy leaves you incapable of defending against him (or words to that effect).
Obama promised that, under Obamacare, health insurance premiums would drop by $2,500 for a family of four. He was off by about $10,000. In fact, premiums for a middle class family of four will increase by almost $7,500. I do believe that all of us here saw that coming. Insurance is no longer a question of statistical risk (i.e., the insurance company assesses the likelihood at any given time that it will have to pay out on a specific policy, and adjusts to price accordingly) but is simply wealth redistribution. The moment the law mandated that people can wait to get insurance until they’re actually sick, it was all over. The insurance companies are just conduits now, that funnel money from the middle class to the poor.
Obamacare wasn’t a principled (albeit stupid, communist) committed to improving America’s medical care. Instead, it was a campaign slogan:
The most important red line of Barack Obama’s presidency was scrawled hastily in January 2007, a few weeks before he even announced he was running for president.
Soon-to-be-candidate Obama, then an Illinois senator, was thinking about turning down an invitation to speak at a big health care conference sponsored by the progressive group Families USA, when two aides, Robert Gibbs and Jon Favreau, hit on an idea that would make him appear more prepared and committed than he actually was at the moment.
Why not just announce his intention to pass universal health care by the end of his first term?
“We needed something to say,” recalled one of the advisers involved in the discussion. “I can’t tell you how little thought was given to that thought other than it sounded good. So they just kind of hatched it on their own. It just happened. It wasn’t like a deep strategic conversation.”
And that, my children, is how Obamacare was born.
Glenn Reynolds takes a look at why Obama is pushing something that Americans have hated from the beginning and, now that they’re learning what’s in it, are hating even more.
Please consider this an Open Thread.
1. One of my conservative friends posted this on Facebook:
2. And one other great find on Facebook, apropros Bradley Manning’s announcement that, henceforth, he is to be known as a girl named “Chelsea”: “Breaking news! Due to an administrative error today, Bradley Manning was martyred and Maj Hassan was given gender reassignment surgery.”
As for me, I’m wondering whether the Left might not think it the slightest bit embarrassing that one of their treasured “gender confused” people committed treason against America. Oh, never mind! I keep forgetting that, on the Left, treason against America is a good thing.
As for me, I’m not the first and won’t be the last to say that Monty Python got it when it came to gender transformations:
It seems that the absolute savagery in Syria is causing a few Arabs to revisit whether Israel and the Jews are really their enemies. I doubt a tipping point will happen any time soon, but maybe what’s going on in Syria is, for Arabs and Muslims, the equivalent of being mugged by reality.
According to the much sneered at, and much feared, Mayan Apocalypse, tomorrow marks the end of the world. I’m inclined to believe this is true. I don’t, however, expect the earth to explode into a giant ball of cosmic dust or some plague rivaling the Black Death. What I do see, however, is change on a massive scale, greater even than that which occurred when the Soviet Union collapsed.
The changes we’ll see began four years ago and will now accelerate. They relate directly to Barack Obama and the three defining characteristics of his presidency: fiscal irresponsibility, weak world leadership, and a realignment of American interests in Europe and the Middle East.
On the economic front, what we can expect in the future is continued American decline, with Americans expecting and accepting a constantly lower standard of living. The Progressives have us on the road to regression: little houses; little, unsafe cars; empty store fronts; increased homelessness; product shortages; and, of course, the social unrest the inevitably follows upon economic instability or decline. In other words, the end of the American world as we know it.
Around the world, Russia, although declining in population and plagued internally by corruption and want, will do what it always does when things are bad: attack. It will continue to flex its muscles by making mischief. It doesn’t care if it goes down, provided that America’s might precedes it.
China, for all its woes (unbalanced population growth, corruption, killer pollution, etc.) will continue its quest to be the world military power. The world should fear this. America used its dominant military power to spread individual freedom as much as possible; China’s power will be more imperialist in nature.
The EU, which was touted just a decade ago as the wave of the future, will collapse. European states will begin feuding with each other over resources. While that might feel like “same old, same old,” since Europeans have feuded for thousands of years, this go round will be different: each state will have within it a Fifth Column that unites to bring all of Europe down and re-shape it into a new model.
And now, a brief, but important digression:
One of the things Marx believed was that the great worker’s revolution he foresaw would transcend national borders. Remember the slogan “Workers of the world, unite”? Marx was certain that, within the industrialized nations, the workers would abandon national fealty and join with each other against their capitalist overlords.
Had Marx been correct, World War I would have been the worker’s moment. Even as the great powers declared war against each other, the workers ought to have laid down their arms and embraced each other across the battle field. This didn’t happen. German, English, and French workers put nationalism ahead of everything.
The workers’ revolution Marx expected to sweep the industrial world happened instead in backwards, agrarian Russia. Stalin then had to retrofit the supposedly “inevitable” industrial revolution by starving his independent peasant class to death, but that’s another story….
And now, back to the point of this post:
While Marx was wrong about the 19th and early-20th century workers’ allegiance to their nation versus their allegiance, he was correct to envision a group that has loyalty to its unique identity separate from the nations in which its members reside. This group, of course, is Muslims.
Over the past few decades, all of the European nations have invited tens of thousands of Muslims into their borders. These Muslims have refused to integrate, living, instead, in segregated enclaves that have often become laws unto themselves. Within these enclosed communities, the Imam’s preach jihad: the violent overthrow of all world governments, followed by a Sharia world.
When the European pact disintegrates, the powers that be will discover that, even as Germany feuds with France over resources, the Muslims within both those nations form an allegiance that sees them turn against their host countries. The result will be ugly and there won’t be a strong America to stop it.
And then there are Barack Obama’s profound alignment shifts. Both by inclination and calculation, Obama has decided that the old world order, the one that’s been in place pretty much since the end of WWII, isn’t correct. America shouldn’t be palling around with Western nations, which he believes are responsible for Third World oppression. Instead, Obama looks to the Muslim world as the wave of the future. He cultivates increasingly Islamist Turkey; encourages the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise in Egypt; is assiduously neutral towards Iran, to the point of cooperation with its nuclear aspirations; and has cold-shouldered and isolated westernized, democratic Israel.
This is a volte face of staggering proportions and implications. America has now become a prop for the worst kind of dictatorships. Moreover, these are the dictatorships that will fund the Muslim Fifth Column in Europe. Now that Obama has more flexibility, he will accelerate this trend.
Obama’s desire to nominate Chuck Hagel as the Secretary of Defense, although that seems to have stalled for now, perfectly reflects Obama’s New World Order, one that sees a weak America mistreating Israel and cozying up to Muslim dictatorships.
All of which leads me to say that the Mayan Apocalypse is on our doorstep. We just didn’t have the wit or foresight to imagine what it would look like.
I wish I’d said it this well:
It’s really quite amazing. In Pakistan, Egypt, and the Palestinian territories, Christians are being harassed, brutalized, and even murdered, often with state support, or at least state indulgence. And let’s not even talk about the warm reception Jews receive in much of the Muslim world.
And yet, it seems you can’t turn on National Public Radio or open a newspaper or a highbrow magazine without finding some oh-so-thoughtful meditation on how anti-Islamic speech should be considered the equivalent of shouting “fire” in a movie theater.
It’s an interesting comparison. First, the prohibition on yelling “fire” in a theater only applies to instances where there is no fire. A person who yells “fire” when there is, in fact, a fire is quite likely a hero. I’m not saying that the people ridiculing Mohammed — be they the makers of the Innocence of Muslims trailer or the editors of a French magazine — have truth on their side. But blasphemy is not a question of scientific fact, merely of opinion. And in America we give a very wide legal berth to the airing of such opinions. Loudly declaring “it is my opinion there is a fire in here” is not analogous to declaring “it is my opinion that Mohammed was a blankety-blank.”
You know why? Because Muslims aren’t fire, they’re people. And fire isn’t a sentient entity, it is a force of nature bereft of choice or cognition of any kind. Just as water seeks its own level, fire burns what it can burn. Muslims have free will. If they choose to riot, that’s not the same thing as igniting a fire.
The caste system to which I refer in my post title is not the shrieks and threats arising from the media’s trial, judgment, and conviction of George Zimmerman. Instead, I’m talking about the way in which the media and establishment have different expectations depending whether Muslims are accused of killing non-Muslims, or non-Muslims are accused of killing Muslims. I didn’t come to this realization myself. Instead, it was part of an email that has been forwarded several times, to the point at which the original author’s identity has vanished:
After reading the headlines about SSgt Bales, the US soldier who shot up Afghanistan civilians, I couldn’t help noticing an irony. There is all this clamor to try this guy quickly and execute him, never mind his having suffered a traumatic brain injury.
Yet this Major Hasan, who shot up Fort Hood while screaming Allah akbar, still hasn’t stood trial and they are still debating whether he was insane even with the clear evidence regarding his motive: slay as many infidels as possible.
So we have a guy in a war zone who cracks, and he must be executed immediately. But this Muslim psychiatrist who was stateside in a nice safe office all day murders 13 and wounds 29 of our own guys and they try to argue the poor man suffered post-traumatic stress syndrome from listening to real soldiers who had actual battle experience.
Two and a half years later, they still haven’t tried the murderous bastard.
The British are starting to wake up to a problem in the Midlands and in Yorkshire. Pakistani men are cultivating and pimping non-Pakistani British girls. This video explains more:
Hat tip: FrontPage Magazine
This problem has been obvious to many of us who have followed blogs that Chronicle the way in which Muslim men view the European around them. Because the women go about unveiled and unescorted, the Muslim men automatically view them as prostitutes, and then treat them accordingly. Wait, that’s not true. One can treat prostitutes “accordingly” simply by paying them for sex. These Muslim men treat them abusively (raping, acid attacks, murder, pimping, etc.), and then justifying it by claiming that, owing to their attire, the women deserve what happened to them. It’s classic abuser conduct, carried out on a vast and brutal culture scale.
That’s the problem with the Muslim side of the equation.
The video above, though, hints at a reality few what to acknowledge — bullies don’t exist in a vacuum. I remember reading aeons ago that someone, observing schoolyard activity, noticed that it wasn’t always the bullies who sought out the victims. Sometimes, the victims gravitated to the bullies. It doesn’t mean anyone deserves to be or is asking to be a victim. It does mean, however, that sometimes there can be a complex dynamic between bully and victim that goes beyond the garden-variety situation in which a predator randomly seeks out prey.
Beginning at 2:55, Former Labour Home Secretary and current Blackburn MP Jack Straw starts a very laborious analysis of the problem. Both as a matter of decency and a matter of fact, he tries not to implicate the entire Pakistani community, even though he admits that there is a significant segment of men within the Pakistani community that views non-Pakistan British girls as legitimate prey for their sexual desires and appropriate fodder for their prostitution business. But the key language shows up at 3:50. There, Straw says the following:
These young men are in a Western society. In any event, they are like any other young men; they are fizzing and popping with testosterone. They want some outlet for that, but Pakistani-heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan typically, so they then seek other avenues, and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care, who for sure and [sic] are not being subject to normal parental support, who they think are easy meat. (Emphasis added.)
“Some of them in care” and “are not being subject to normal parental support” are both polite ways of stating that, while Pakistani girls may be over-protected by Western standards, white British girls are being under-protected by any standards. I’m too lazy to find links now, but if you’re not as lazy as I am, you’ll be able to confirm that, in England, women are drinking more, drugging more, having children out-of-wedlock more, sleeping around more, etc. More than what? More than before and more than in most other Western countries. They “are not being subject to normal parental support,” and they are raising second and third generations of girls who also “are not being subject to normal parental support.” The Pakistani men in England may be plucking this fruit, but the politically correct, morality free, socialist English society is growing it.
I didn’t bother to read the entirety of an endless article about a bad thing happening in Mexico. No, I’m not talking about drug cartels or about Mexican citizens being slaughtered by guns sent over courtesy of a Democrat Department of Justice attempting to prove that guns hurt people. I’m talking about plants that process old batteries, releasing dangerous toxins into the surrounding country side. Bad thing, right? But the big irony is that this bad thing happened because of environmental zealots here in the US:
The rising flow of batteries is a result of strict new Environmental Protection Agency standards on lead pollution, which make domestic recycling more difficult and expensive, but do not prohibit companies from exporting the work and the danger to countries where standards are low and enforcement is lax.
Even when we’re trying to be good, we’re evil.
Americans may be evil, but Nicholas Kristof wants us to know that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t deserve its bad press, because, over dinner, a really nice 22-year-old girl assured him that it’s a peace-loving organization. More than that, when he asked her about Israel, amongst other issues, she didn’t answer! That proves that the Muslim Brotherhood is a force for good:
I asked skeptically about alcohol, peace with Israel, and the veil. Sondos, who wears a hijab, insisted that the Brotherhood wasn’t considering any changes in these areas and that its priority is simply jobs.
“Egyptians are now concerned about economic conditions,” she said. “They want to reform their economic system and to have jobs. They want to eliminate corruption.” Noting that alcohol supports the tourism industry, she added: “I don’t think any upcoming government will focus on banning anything.”
Apparently the charming young Sondos is a more reliable authority than the MB itself. After all, who can forget the MB greatest hits, a list that includes this:
A senior cleric in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has declared that ordinary Egyptians are obligated to kill ‘Zionists’ whom they encounter.
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, which expects to win at least a plurality in Monday’s legislative elections, held a “kill the Jews” rally in Cairo Friday.
Thousands of supporters attended the pre-election rally at a mosque on the Muslim Sabbath, promising to “one day kill all the Jews” and wage war against Jerusalem’s “Judaization.”
And this, from a Muslim Brotherhood handbook:
“The Islamic Ummah [nation]… [is] the most exalted nation among men;…you are the masters of the world, even if your enemies desire your degradation…”
“Jihad and preparation towards Jihad are not only for the purpose of fending off assaults and attacks of Allah’s enemies against Muslims, but are also for the purpose of realizing the great task of establishing an Islamic state and strengthening the religion and spreading it around the world…
“…Jihad for Allah is not limited to the specific region of the Islamic countries, …and it shall continue to be raised, with the help of Allah, until every inch of the land of Islam will be liberated, the State of Islam will be established…
“Then comes the power of arms and weapons,… and this is the role of Jihad…, a religious public duty… incumbent upon the Islamic nation, and is a personal duty to fend off the infidels’ attack on the nation… (…)
The competition at the New York Times is always stiff, but I think that, today at least, Nicholas Kristof walks away with The Walter Duranty Award for most dishonest reporting to advance a political agenda antithetical to America, her values, and her allies.
For years at this blog (and others) when we’ve written about Europe’s problems, we’ve focused primarily, not on the economy, but on those Muslim immigrants. One of the things that we talked about a lot was the fact that these same Muslim immigrants subsisted largely on public benefits.
This little tidbit emerged with force during the riots in France, when we first learned that the banlieues that housed the rioters were welfare cities. The European paradigm was for Muslims to show up, from Pakistan, from Turkey, from North Africa, and to be showered with the European’s post-colonial guilt payments.
So I have a question for you: What’s going to happen with all those Muslim immigrants now that Europe is broke? Riots? Civil War? Quiet retreats back to their home countries?