Mosab Hassan Yousef, a Palestinian, takes the floor at the UN to tell tyrants that their support for Palestinian “leadership” betrays the people.
I don’t have anything to add. Just watch this amazing video:
Mosab Hassan Yousef, a Palestinian, takes the floor at the UN to tell tyrants that their support for Palestinian “leadership” betrays the people.
I don’t have anything to add. Just watch this amazing video:
The California travel ban against US states for claimed anti-LGBTQ laws follows its attack on the travel stay for Islamic countries that routinely kill gays.
In January and then again in March 2017, President Trump issued a temporary travel ban aimed at six countries that the Obama administration identified as terror sponsors. These countries are Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
In each of these six countries members of the LGBTQ etc. (hereafter “LGBTQer”) community are officially and/or unofficially physically abused, imprisoned, and murdered. Specifically:
The reason behind the universally violent, murderous hostility to LGBTQ identification or conduct in the above countries is sharia law, which is hardwired into Islam. After all, the Pulse nightclub terrorist attack did not happen in an ideological vacuum.
Also in January and, again, in March 2017, California officially and vociferously protested against the Trump administration’s temporary travel ban, a ban that affected terror-exporting Muslim countries that make LGBTQer conduct a capital crime, on the ground that the temporary ban was unconscionable, discriminatory, and ineffective: [Read more…]
Nicholas Kristoff calls Trump scary and reckless. Somehow he missed eight years of Obama’s incredibly scary and reckless behavior.
The only time I ever take Nicholas Kristoff seriously is when he writes about the horrors of obstretric fistula. It’s a dreadful affliction and there are charities that are trying to help. Outside of that laudable crusade, though, Kristoff’s columns usually run the gamut from silly to hysterical to just plain wrong.
Yesterday, Kristoff hit the trifecta, when he wrote an article that manages simultaneously to be silly, hysterical, and wrong. In it, he makes the ludicrous claim that Donald Trump is such an irrational gambler that he’s more to be feared than Kim Jong-un, the man who’s had his perceived political enemies fed to starved dogs.
John Hinderaker does an admirable job of fisking Kristoff. You should read his entire fisk, but here’s a taste:
Kim, who is widely considered to be crazy, has several times threatened a nuclear attack against the United States. There is no question about his ruthlessness: among others, he has ordered his uncle and his half-brother murdered.
Currently the Trump administration is putting pressure on North Korea, and is trying to work with China to find a way to defuse the North Korean threat. In this scenario, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof finds one of the adversaries “scary.” Kim Jong Un? Don’t be silly! Donald Trump.
So Donald Trump is a “deeply frustrated rogue president,” and therefore likely to launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korea.
What is remarkable about Kristof’s column (apart from the vituperative attitude toward our president, which is standard at the Times) is his frank admission that the Obama administration’s policies toward North Korea have failed:
It gets worse: while Obama pursued an impotent policy, Kim’s regime has been working on ICBMs. The time is not far off when North Korea will be able to devastate America’s West Coast:
So what is Kristof’s solution? He doesn’t have one. . . .
What Kristoff doesn’t understand and Hinderaker didn’t address, is the fact that Trump is anything but a risk-taker. As Scott Adams pointed out a long time ago in a post I can’t find, Trump is actually very risk averse. Ever since his first big bankruptcy, from which he learned a hard lesson, Trump invariably insulated himself from risk, including taking in partners who carry the risk for him. He’ll willingly walk away from deals that might leave him exposed. The “gambles” he does take are carefully calculated and, as his unexpected political rise shows, have a habit of going his way — which means he wasn’t really gambling at all.
As president, Trump’s used the military twice, both in ways that were spectacular yet carefully limited. They sent loud messages without obligating America to further action or risking American lives or interests. Trump believes that carrying a big stick that one uses swiftly and decisively to send a strong message is less risky than closing your eyes to trouble and wishing that it would go away. I tend to think he’s right.
For 100 years, the Wilson Doctrine defined American foreign policy, whether applied affirmatively or, under Obama, negatively. Trump is changing all that.
When the Great War (now known as World War I) erupted in 1914, dragging Europe from the pinnacle of civilization into an abyss of mindless killing, President Woodrow Wilson was resolute: America would not enter into this foreign war.
Americans themselves had no desire to be drawn into the war, although the country quickly divided into camps supporting the two sides in the battle. Those supporting England, France, Belgium, and Russia (the Allies) only slightly outnumbered the huge German-American population that put its moral weight behind Germany, Austro-Hungary, and a few other central European nations (the Central Powers).
The socialists, led by Eugene Victor Debs and Jane Addams (of Hull House fame), were deeply committed to peace. They felt it was an obscene inversion of the arc of history for workers of the world to fight along nationalistic lines, rather than to band together against the worldwide evil of capitalism. Many who were not socialists, but saw no good in the European war, joined their peace movement.
Although the population was divided and Wilson clung to neutrality, as the years passed that neutrality had a remarkably Anglophile feel to it. The moment the war started, the British had cut the transatlantic cable tying America to the continent. This meant that Americans got the British view of the war and not the German. Of course, considering the carnage the Germans inflicted on both civilians and ancient buildings in Belgium and France on their thwarted march to Paris when the war began, it’s fair to say that, from the start, transatlantic cable or not, Americans who were not of German or Austrian origin were going to be hostile to the Central Powers.
Something else that made neutrality more honored in the breach than in practice was the fact that American ships could reach Britain, but not the continent. This created an economic boom for the Americans selling weapons and food to England — and, of course, it was a lifeline for Britain, which could never have lasted as long as it did without American supplies.
As the war progressed, and the money the British owed American manufacturers increased, Americans increasingly had a vested financial interest in a European victory. There would have been a serious depression in America had Britain lost the war.
The Germans were understandably concerned about the vast influx of weapons and supplies heading from America to England. In 1915, a German submarine torpedoed the HMS Lusitania, killing over a thousand passengers, including 128 Americans. Americans were outraged that the Germans had attacked a passenger ship and were disinterested in the fact that the ship was almost certainly carrying weapons to the British. As far as they were concerned, it was bad enough that the German’s were attacking American merchant marines with their newfangled submarines, without having them attack civilian vessels. The Germans, worried that the ship’s sinking would bring America into the war, promised to stop attacking American ships.
By 1916, though, the Germans concluded that the Americans, because they were arming England, were a de facto combatant in WWI. The Germans therefore announced that they were reversing course on their submarine moratorium and, henceforth, that all American ships approaching Britain were fair game.
Worse, in 1917, to Americans’ horror, the British, with the panache of a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, produced the infamous Zimmermann Telegram, an internal German communication. Through it, the Americans learned that the Germans were proposing a military alliance with Mexico if the Americans entered the war. Even Wilson could no longer turn a blind eye to these provocations. He therefore went to Congress in April 1917 to make the case for war. This speech was to set the tone for American foreign policy for almost 100 years.
What Wilson realized as he wrote his speech was that, despite German attacks on American ships, America did not actually have any good reason to enter the war. Germany was an ocean away and, provided that the U.S. stayed out of the war, keeping Mexico neutral, Germany did not threaten America’s security or sovereignty. Moreover, if American retreated to true neutrality — that is, if she stopped trading with Britain — Germany would instantly leave her alone.
The one thing that Wilson could not admit was that, thanks to his turning a blind eye for three years to America’s ongoing trade with Britain, the reality was that America had every reason to go into war: As noted above, the U.S. needed a British victory to recoup all the credit it extended to Britain. But again, there was no way that Wilson would ever say that he was sending American boys to a charnel house for crass commercial reasons.
Faced with an unspeakable reason for entering the war, Wilson instead came up with a high-flown moral doctrine justifying America’s entry into the war. And so the Wilson doctrine was born (emphasis mine):
Thanks to my Facebook feed, I have a front row seat for the Leftist world view, which is occasionally amusing and invariably somewhat frightening.
One of the useful things about my Facebook feed is the plethora of posts educating me about the Leftist world view. My feed means that, unlike Lefties, my news comes from all sorts of ideologies, with all sorts of factual underpinnings (as well as non-factual underpinnings). Read this requires that I think about and defend my position, if only to myself. I thought I’d share with you a few of the Progressive posts, replete with their Leftist world view, that have crawled across my feed in the last two days, along with my comments.
How the Left views Trump’s approach to North Korea. My view about North Korea is that, beginning with Clinton, and then continuing through Bush and Obama, the standard approach to North Korea has been to settle its periodic temper tantrums with bribes. However, after a few decades of appeasement, you suddenly find yourself facing off with a madman who is clutching nuclear weapons to his chubby chest while he makes apocalyptic threats.
Worse, given Kim Jong-un’s erratic behavior with his own people, it’s clear that his hold on power is tenuous. From his point of view, there may be nothing like a little war to unite his fractious underlings and help the people forget their misery. He’s pretty certain that a few huffings, and puffings, and the downing of a few houses in South Korea or Japan will unlock the West’s treasure chest for him.
With Trump, though, there’s a new sheriff in town, and he’s thrown the old game board off the table. Instead of rolling over and playing dead or begging China for help, Trump has a new approach: Let Kim Jong-un know that Trump will have no compunction about bringing the might of the American military to bear against him. Moreover, through his instantaneous and overwhelming show of force against a single Syrian airport, he’s put China on notice that he’s not making empty threats. (I think that, for China, it was the balance of the great chocolate cake and a massive strike that was so impressive.) As a result, I see China playing nice — and using its influence against the Norks:
China issued a blunt warning to North Korea on Wednesday — telling its belligerent ally to not conduct nuclear weapons or missile tests, or it was likely to face military action by the US.
“Not only [is] Washington brimming with confidence and arrogance following the missile attacks on Syria, but Trump is also willing to be regarded as a man who honors his promises,” said the People’s Daily, the ruling Communist Party’s official paper.
North Korea should halt any plans for nuclear and missile tests “for its own security,” the newspaper said, making it clear that the US would not “co-exist” with a nuclear-armed Pyongyang.
Add to that the 150,000 troops the Chinese have massed along the North Korean border and one would hope that Kim Jong-un gets the message that the big powers are allied against him and they’re serious.
All of these facts lead me to believe that Kim Jong-un is less likely, not more likely, to go nuclear (literally). I believe and hope that Trump’s show of force has convinced a would-be, very dangerous, regional bully that inaction is the better course.
Those locked in a Leftist world view see something different:
I’m not feeling particularly inspired today, but this Bookworm Beat has some links I’d like to share with you, covering everything from politics to humor.
Obergefell is worse than you imagined. Obergefell is the case in which Justice Kennedy, writing the romance novel of his life, found buried in the Constitution a long hidden right to gay marriage. Legally, it was a disaster of an opinion and, as romantic fiction, it was too overwrought to be believable.
What those of us who read it once with an eye for the specific issue missed is the fact that Kennedy included language that encourages each federal judge in America to take a legislative role for himself, never mind that these judges are appointed, not elected, so voters cannot touch them:
In Obergefell, Justice Kennedy did far more than merely discover a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. He wrote that judges have an ongoing “duty” to identify and protect new “fundamental rights.” He maintained that judges should institute new rights whenever their “reasoned judgment” suggests that it is appropriate to do so.
Previously, a Supreme Court precedent titled Washington v. Glucksberg held that judges could recognize constitutional rights only if they were “deeply rooted in” American “history and tradition.” Justice Kennedy dismissed this standard as unduly constraining judges’ power.
The article from which the above quotation comes explains that, across the United States, activist judges have been taking full advantage of this unconstitutional mandate:
A case titled Juliana v. United States presents an ominous warning as to what lies ahead. A district-court judge in Oregon used Obergefell’s license to fashion a new individual right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.” The judge adopted Justice Kennedy’s “reasoned judgment” standard and wrote, “Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ . . . I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life” is a fundamental constitutional right.
The plaintiffs argued that various government officials violated the Constitution by “causing atmospheric CO2 levels to rise” and “knowingly endangering Plaintiffs’ health and welfare by approving and prompting fossil fuel development, including exploration, extraction, production, transportation, importation, exportation, and combustion.” They urged the court to order the government to stop violating their constitutional right to a healthy environment and to require it to “develop a plan to reduce CO2 emissions.”
This sounds like a plainly political rather than constitutional question, but under Obergefell’s amorphous “reasoned judgment” standard, anything is possible. The judge explained that under Obergefell, the creation of “new fundamental rights” is not “out of bounds.” The case is ongoing, but the district-court judge has already recognized the existence of the “constitutional right” in question.
Justice Kennedy cannot retire from the Court soon enough. Nor can Justice Ginsburg. This aggregation of raw power in the only branch of our government that is not answerable to anyone is a fearful tyranny that needs to be quashed instantly, if not sooner.
Tonight marks the beginning of Passover 5778. Donald Trump’s targeted attack on Syria indicates that he understands the import of this timeless story.
In mid-2009, a few months into Barack Obama’s presidency, Iran had its Green Revolution, when tens of thousands of brave Iranians took to the streets in Tehran seeking to undermine the Mullahs. Their enemy was our enemy. Not only were the Mullahs repressing their own people, they were sowing terrorism throughout the world.
Had Obama thrown America’s moral weight behind the revolution, that alone might have been sufficient to destroy the Mullahs’ power base and create room for a somewhat more moderate and conciliatory Iranian government. Obama, however, chose to align himself, not with the Iranian slaves in the street yearning for freedom, but with the Mullahs, who were playing the role of Pharaoh.
Because those historic events coincided with Passover 2009, I was moved to write a post about the Passover message, a post I’ve reproduced every year at Passover since then. As you will read at greater length below, my post argues that a primary message to take away from the Passover story is that the only way to topple a tyrant and free the slaves crushed under his heel is to bring the revolution, not just to the tyrant’s door, but over the threshold and into his house.
Despite his ostentatious Passover celebrations in the White House, Obama has been blind to the meaning behind the story of the Jews’ exodus from Egypt. Throughout his eight years in the White House, whenever a tyranny arose anywhere, Obama chose to placate tyrants, rather than fight them. He placated the Mullahs, the Muslim Brotherhood, Kim Jong-un, ISIS (aka the JV team), Assad, Putin, and a rotating cast of Islamic fundamentalists who went by different names but hewed to the identical genocidal ideology. It was inevitable that, when Obama finally left office, he bequeathed to us a world remarkably close to the world in 1938/1939: trembling on the verge of a dangerous explosion, with tyrants of the ugliest cast having the momentum and initiative.
It’s this scary world that Donald Trump inherited when he stepped into the Oval Office. However, last week, I came away with the hope that, when Trump sat down to celebrate Passover with Ivanka and her family (assuming he did) or when he discussed Passover with his Jewish friends and family, he understood Passover’s message.
How else can we explain his intuitive understanding that, when dangerous men release weapons of mass destruction, the only possible action is immediate, powerful, targeted retribution. Both Daniel Greenfield and Andrew Malcolm understand this, so I urge you to read their articles. (You might also want to read my post about the Trump doctrine.)
With this introduction, it’s time for my annual Passover post. As I do every year, I’ve edited it slightly to reflect current concerns.
While Trump’s Syria strike left friends and foes believing he has no foreign policy doctrine, I think there is a Trump doctrine and it’s a good one too.
In the wake of Trump’s narrowly tailored strike against Assad’s air force base (a strike preceded by a warning to the Russians to get their personnel out), Trump has experienced something of a ratings bounce according to the always-dubiously reliable polls. I suspect that a lot of that bounce is because the sarin gas attack affected people emotionally.
To get a sense of the emotions involved, I recommend a surprising source: Piers Morgan, an unexpected hawk, wrote a moving article about sarin’s unusual cruelty and the way in which that inhumanity is somehow magnified by the children who were many of its victims:
Sarin is a man-made nerve agent 26 times more deadly than cyanide.
It was developed in 1938 by German scientists as they attempted to create stronger pesticides.
The formula was swiftly passed to the military, who discovered it had such a horrendous impact on the human body it could become a weapon of mass destruction.
Yet the effects were so appalling that even the Nazis reportedly held off using it on the battlefields during World War II, fearing massive retaliation.
Imagine that for a moment? This was considered too heinous an instrument of death even for Hitler to deploy against allied forces.
Sarin is a liquid that evaporates quickly into colourless gas with no smell or taste, so there is no prior warning when it attacks.
It just absorbs into the skin of its victims, permeating the membranes and lungs.
Once inside, it goes to hideous work, breaking down the nervous system so vital organs all start to lose control.
Your eyes water uncontrollably, you spew saliva and vomit, your bowels evacuate, your vision fails, your breathing collapses, your chest explodes with pain.
Then your whole body violently convulses and you become completely paralysed.
If you’re lucky, you die within 10 minutes. If you’re not, it can take a lot longer. Or, perhaps even worse, you survive but with dreadful brain damage.
This is what those Syrian children went through before they died.
The photograph made me cry.
As regular readers know, I’m not someone to be moved by the argument that a specific course of conduct is “for the children.” Eight years of Obama rule show that everything can be sold “for the children.” The reality is that around the world children’s inherent vulnerability means that they will always be affected first and worst by something bad. This means that their utility as a moral guide is limited because everything can be for the children.
Nevertheless, I think it’s plain that many people, both in and out of the media, saw those pictures as Morgan did and felt that Assad’s tactic exceeded the bounds of ordinary warfare and decency (yes, even warfare can be “ordinary” and “decent” within the context of killing). It therefore required some sort of payback. As no one in Syria was capable of inflicting that payback against Assad, these same people are happy that Trump took upon himself America’s familiar mantle: The avenger of the innocents.
I wouldn’t mention Morgan if he’d merely stopped with pathos and bathos. In the second half of his article, however, he articulates why I believe Trump made a reasonable decision when he launched the surgical strike against Assad’s military capabilities:
For 8 years, my open threads have been depressing. This one, though, had me feeling remarkably cheerful as there’s a lot of good news under President Trump.
I am very pleased with the airstrike President Trump ordered in Syria. Chemical weapons are a national security threat to every nation in the world, no matter where they are deployed. Every nation has an obligation to act against them.
All poison gasses are nasty, but sarin is particularly horrible. There’s are whole Generations of Xs, Ys, and Zs, not to mention the millennials and post-millenials, who have no memory of the 1995 sarin attack in the Tokyo subway. I remember, though, how dreadful it was — and how easy it was to loose that chemical on a civilian population.
For Obama to have crawled away from his red line, and then handed the matter over to Russia, which manifestly failed to remove chemical weapons from inside Syria, was a terrifying failure of leadership. Trump did what presidents have always done and should always need room to do: he didn’t declare war; he simply sent a sharp warning shot over an enemy’s bow, with the implicit threat that there’s much more where that came from.
I’m also willing to bet that Trump, having decided upon an objective, told the military to do it and then turned his attention to other things. In this, he would be unlike Obama, who was never even a Boy Scout, but who nevertheless felt competent to micromanage military strategy. Trump has a good eye for talent and, once that talent is on board, he delegates. That’s how leadership is supposed to work.
I was out and about earlier today, and heard two women talking about the airstrike. Actually, one woman was telling the other, who was not current on the news.
What surprised me, given that this conversation took place in Marin between two women who were quite obviously Hillary voters, is that the narrator was quite supportive of Trump. You could tell she thought he did the right thing, considering the sheer horror of the attack. However, thanks to a media that has turned on a dime from hating Putin to trusting him implicitly, she was under the impression that Trump ought to have gotten Congress’s permission first. It did not seem to occur to her that these type of warning strikes are well within the Chief Executive’s power. To drag them before Congress would make it impossible to act quickly about provocations that require immediate, but limited, attention.
In the age of Trump, we no longer have politics as usual, and thank the good Lord for that. The usual politics for the past eight years have been too damn toxic.
A handful of excellent points about wiretapping. I haven’t had much to say about the wiretapping because I’ve been too busy eating popcorn as I’ve watched the fact-free “Trump is a Putin stooge” narrative collapse, only to be replaced by a fact-filled “Obama spied on Trump, on probably on the other Republican candidates” narrative.
The only thing more fun than watching the truth come out is watching the media contortions to avoid accepting that Obama just eclipsed Watergate as the worst political scandal ever. Moreover, many of them must be grappling with the fact that they may face criminal charges for knowingly releasing to the public improperly unmasked names.
Here are a few of my favorite posts on the subject:
As Passover nears, it’s time to take stock of the wonderful things President Trump has done, each of which, on its own, should please conservatives. Dayenu!
Passover is around the corner and I have an ear worm: The Passover song Dayenu. The Hebrew word “Dayenu” (דַּיֵּנוּ) means “it would have been enough,” or “it would have sufficed.” The pattern of the song is to list the miracles God performed for the Jewish people, with the chorus being “Dayenu” — it would have been enough.
Here’s a short sampling of the lyrics:
If He had brought us out from Egypt,
and had not carried out judgments against them
— Dayenu, it would have sufficed!
If He had carried out judgments against them,
and not against their idols
— Dayenu, it would have sufficed!
If He had destroyed their idols,
and had not smitten their first-born
— Dayenu, it would have sufficed!
And here’s the Maccabeats’ delightful version of Dayenu, which will give you a nice sense of the song:
You can read more here about the song, including the miracles it recites, with each miracle being sufficient unto itself, without the necessity of anything more.
If you were to see my calendar, you’d see that I have a notation on it for Sunday: “Write Dayenu post about Trump.” As written, my words can be taken as blasphemous (am I calling Trump a God or even the God?) or tremendously insulting (will I say he’s the new Pharaoh?).
To disguise that they’re opening our country to people who should not be here, Progressives conflate distinct doctrines and hide behind the confusion.
The problem with Progressives is that they tend to combine entirely different things in a single argument and then, having intentionally muddled distinct issues, thereby perverting the data, they reach an erroneous conclusion that has a logical gloss but is, in fact, quite wrong. The two big arguments as to which they use this deceitful practice are illegal border crossers from Latin America and Middle Eastern Muslim refugees.
With regard to the Southern border wall, they conflate a fence meant to keep people out with a fence meant to keep people in. The former is a legitimate way to protect people in their rightful place from dangers lurking outside.
Hollywood stars, former Progressive politicians, and Silicon Valley bazillionaires are all really big on using fences to keep “the wrong kind” of people away from them. It’s okay when they do it because they’re rich and famous. It’s not okay when you do it, because you’re a racist pig.
The other kind of fence, the fence that keeps people locked in, is the one we associate with toddlers (got to keep them safe); prisoners (got to keep us safe from them); and nations that are so horrible that, if people are not trapped within them, they will leave (e.g., the Berlin Wall and both the DMZ separating North Korea from South Korea and the border between North Korea and China). For the last mentioned reason, border fences can get a bad rap if someone is dumb enough or deceitful enough to claim that a fence manifestly meant to keep people out is, instead, a fence meant to trap people inside a bad place.
Progressives treat Trump’s proposed Southern border fence (the fence that a bipartisan vote in Congress already passed into law back in 2006) as if it’s the second type of fence, the evil prison fence, meant to imprison people, rather than protect them. If you ask a Progress which people are being imprisoned where, you will not get a straight answer. Instead, you will be told that you’re a racist.
Whenever a Leftist tells you that you’re a racist, you know you’ve won the argument. Of course, winning the argument is scant consolation if they keep winning the larger wars.
The really big conflation scam, though, is pretending that what’s happening in Syria is the same as what happened in Germany in the 1930s. That’s the argument used to try to shame conservatives and Trump supporters into opening America’s gates to Muslim “refugees.” I put the word “refugees” in quotations because another dishonest conflating thing the Progressives do is jumbling those who’ve left Syria, who have a legitimate claim to being war refugees, with those who are leaving the Middle East and North Africa because, thanks in large part to Islam, outside of Israel those are really sh*tty places in which to live.
Progressives essentially contend that every Syrian refugee is a Anne Frank. That’s false on so many levels.
Islam is an aggressive religion. Wahhabi Islam is an even more aggressive culture, wiping out all the color and light of the native cultures it destroys.
I got an email with reminding me of how Borg-like Wahhabi Islam is. Wherever it goes, it destroys the native culture and leaves blackness and despair in its wake. I’ve taken the liberty of organizing the photos a bit, but the text is original to the email:
Where have all where have all the flowers gone?
It is not rude but just another reflection of why Australians are growing tired of political correctness and racial tolerance. Have you heard of reverse racial discrimination?
That title is correct: I’ll give you a brief rundown of Dinesh D’Souza’s Hillary’s America, an abortion panel, and a military panel. Things happen quickly on a National Review cruise and if I miss a bit of blogging, I’m seriously behind the eight ball.
Hillary’s America. Because Hillary’s America showed only briefly in Marin, I missed it. Fortunately for me, the movie’s two writers and producers were on the cruise and hosted a special showing yesterday.
If you haven’t seen it, it’s quite a good movie, as it is well-researched, well-written, and very professional produced. The movie begins with Dinesh’s sentencing for a campaign donation crime that, when it is a small, first-time infraction, as was the case with Dinesh, is invariably treated with fines and other minimal punishments.
Dinesh was special, however, for at the time the Justice Department got him in its sights, he was the writer and producer of the scathing (and prescient) Obama’s America, a documentary that ranks immediately behind Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine when it comes to popularity and revenue. Not only was Dinesh prosecuted with the full force of federal law, he had the misfortune to appear before a Democrat-appointed judge who sentenced him to time-served, plus two years of sleeping in a supervised facility, five years probation, mandatory public service, and court supervised therapy.
The first four items were the normal punitive stuff one would expect from a corrupt government. The last punishment was purely Orwellian punishment for “wrong thinking.”
I’m still in my self-imposed news blackout. That does not mean that I do not care what’s going on. For those who have not yet cast their vote, here are a few things you might want to think about as you decide upon your chosen presidential candidate:
Which candidate is more likely to protect your free speech?
Which candidate is more likely to protect your free exercise of your religion?
Which candidate is more likely to protect your right to peaceable assembly?
Which candidate is more likely to protect your right to petition the government for redress?
Which candidate is more likely to support your right to keep and bear arms?
Which candidate is more likely to place upon the Supreme Court justices who respect the Constitution?
Which candidate is more likely to respect your right to live in a safe society, one in which those police officers who respect the rules are in turn respected and allowed to do their job?
Which candidate is more likely to limit immigration to legal immigrants (who are part of America’s life blood) and not illegal immigrants (who breach America’s sovereignty and destroy the rule of law)?
Which candidate is more likely to respect scientific fact, rather than repeatedly disproven scientific theories, ranging from anthropogenic climate change to gender theory?
Which candidate is more likely to be a friend to Israel?
Which candidate is less likely to Balkanize America by subdividing it into victim classes fighting for government spoils?
Which candidate is more likely to act aggressively to protect Americans and, indeed, Western civilization from the depredations of radical Islamists?
Which candidate cheats less than the other?
What candidate has so completely coopted the media that it has become impossible to trust the American media for truthful, balanced reporting?
There are few things more dangerous than a collection of bureaucrats willing to stop at nothing to keep the bureaucracy alive for their own benefit. We’ve seen that here in America. Obama’s bureaucrats, knowing that the good times roll better for bureaucrats under Democratic presidents than under Republican ones, have abandoned their obligation to be impartial civil servants and, instead, weaponized themselves against conservatives.
The diligent Tax Professor reminds us that, five years after being caught actively discriminating against conservative groups, something grossly illegal that ought to have seen many heads roll, the IRS is still at it. We’re also learning, thanks to Wikileaks and a subterranean chorus of voices ,that a corrupt DOJ is working hard to get Hillary Clinton into the White House, despite her manifest violations of America’s national security laws. The list of corrupt Obama bureaucracies that are functioning as legislator, judge, jury, and executioner is a scary alphabet soup: IRS, DOJ, EPA, DOE, DOD, etc.
Here’s some new information for you to consider when it comes to bureaucrats run amok: Did you know that it was British bureaucrats, determined to keep their jobs at all costs, who sparked Arab nationalism in Palestine, creating the dangerous Middle East that consumes the world today?
This story comes from Pierre van Paassen’s The Forgotten Ally, published in 1943. The book’s primary purpose is to describe the role Jewish Palestinians played in defeating Rommel – a task Britain could never have accomplished but for these Jewish troops. Before he gets to World War II, though, van Paassen tells how the British Mandate in Palestine came into being and how the Arabs, who had once welcomed the thought of Jews making that wasteland a more inhabitable place, came to be the fanatic Islamic nationalists the world now faces. Because van Paassen was a foreign correspondent in the 20s and 30s, the book has the virtue of being the recollections of a contemporaneous witness, who traveled widely in the Middle East, met many of the power players, and was privy to original documents. (He even interviewed both Hitler and the Mufti of Jerusalem!)
Because of the myriad details van Paassen provides about the creation of the modern Middle East in the years during and immediately after WWI, it’s quite easy for someone like me to get lost in the weeds. (My first draft of this post hit 5,000 words before I was even a quarter of the way through.) I’ll just touch upon a few highlights here.
Between the Roman conquest in 70 AD and Israel’s re-birth in 1948, the territory known as Palestine (or Syria-Palestine) was never a nation. It was not even an independent substate in the vast Ottoman Empire that eventually controlled it. Instead, it was simply the southern most end of Ottoman controlled Syria. During all those centuries, nobody cared about Palestine because it was a desolate, swampy, disease-filled wasteland. Here’s van Paassen’s description of Syria-Palestine in the years before, during, and immediately after WWI: