Category Archives: Liberals
Posted on | May 19, 2013 |
“It looks like they’ve lost Bob Schieffer,” says John Hoge, which might be a slight exaggeration. Schieffer is a liberal, but he’s also a veteran Washington journalist who has seen enough scandals to know what a scandal looks like, and he was having none of the Jedi mind trick — “These are not the scandals you were looking for. Move along.” — from Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer today. Right off the bat, Pfeiffer tried to cast the argument in partisan terms, which every scandal-plagued politician does, claiming that any suggestion of wrongdoing is a manufactured artifice, the creation of one’s political opponents:
“[T]he Republican playbook here . . . they don’t have a positive agenda, try to drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped up hearings and false allegations.”
Schieffer was highly dubious of this excuse, and reminded Pfeiffer of how familiar his excuse-making sounded:
I don’t want to compare this in anyway to Watergate. I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch. But you weren’t born then, I would guess, but I have to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took. They said these are all second-rate things. We don’t have time for this. We have to devote our time to the people’s business. You are taking exactly the same line that they did.
Exactly right. Bob Schieffer was born in 1937, he was working for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram the day JFK was shot, and he’s not likely to be impressed by a 37-year-old “senior advisor.” And when it came to Benghazi, Schieffer didn’t let Pfeiffer bulldoze him:
The bottom line is what [Susan Rice] told the American people [Sept. 16] bore no resemblance to what had happened on the ground in an incident where four Americans were killed. . . . [T]hat was just PR, that was just a PR plan to send out somebody who didn’t know anything about what had happened. Why did you do that? Why didn’t the Secretary of State come and tell us what they knew and if you knew nothing say we don’t know yet? Why didn’t White House Chief of Staff come out? I mean I would, and I mean this is no disrespect to you, why are you here today? Why isn’t the White House Chief of Staff here to tell us what happened?
Pfieffer didn’t have a good answer for that. In fact, Pfeiffer had no answers for any real questions at all Sunday. Pfieffer tried to use the “doctored e-mails” distraction that Jazz Shaw discusses at some length, and which doesn’t have any bearing on the real issues about the Benghazi attack, which can be summarized simply: If the administration had nothing to hide, why were they lying?
One can agree with Schieffer that this isn’t Watergate “by any stretch” and still be curious about why, if everything was on the up and up, the administration was acting so shady. And why did Pfeiffer refuse to say where Obama was during the Benghazi attack?
Schieffer gave a little lecture later on Face the Nation about the IRS scandal that’s worth quoting in its entirety:
You heard Dan Pfeiffer earlier in the broadcast say that he wasn’t born when Watergate happened. Well, it will come as no news to anyone that I was. And when the burglars broke into Democratic headquarters at the Watergate, a lot of us back then found it hard to believe. Why would anyone break in to a political headquarters? What did they hope to find–bumper stickers? Yard signs? Nobody is dumb enough to pull a stunt like that. But they were. I admit I had about the same reaction when I first heard the IRS had gone after the Tea Party last year, the Tea Party? Surely no one could be dumb enough to think you could get away with something like that in an election year. But they were. So welcome to dumb and dumber. It did take a while for the news to get to some quarters. We heard that the President say that he didn’t find out about it until last week, last week, which qualified him for Washington’s fastest growing club, the longer and longer list of officials who suddenly don’t know much about a lot of unpleasant things from Benghazi to the Associated Press investigation. At this point, just spare me the talking points and the excuses. No matter whether Republicans or Democrats are doing this kind of thing, this stuff is not just wrong it’s really stupid. And it will take more than firing a few temps and low-level bureaucrats to fix it. The President won reelection with a smart political team, but the election is over. Maybe he should look now for people of substance who know about other things who could help him govern.
As they say in Texas: Hell to the yes, Bob.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Posted on | May 20, 2013 |
By Robert Stacy McCain
Jonathan Karl of ABC News is evidently a Republican, and liberals think it’s a horrible scandal that a Republican could be employed as a reporter: “Didn’t he see the ‘No Republicans Allowed’ sign?”
Meanwhile, Jason Richwine’s recent resignation from the Heritage Foundation, a subject I haven’t previously discussed, yields a secondary story that is either amusing or frightening, depending on whether you take Harvard students seriously:
Harvard students, outraged over a doctoral dissertation arguing that Hispanic immigrants lack “raw cognitive ability or intelligence,” this week urged the university to investigate how the thesis came to be approved and to ban future research on racial superiority. students presented 1,200 signatures to president Drew Faust and the dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, David Ellwood. “Academic freedom and a reasoned debate are essential to our academic community,’’ the petition said. “However, the Harvard Kennedy School cannot ethically stand behind academic work advocating a national policy of exclusion and advancing an agenda of discrimination.” The thesis – “IQ and Immigration Policy,’’ by Jason Richwine, a former doctoral candidate at the Kennedy School — compared IQ scores of US residents, including immigrants from a variety of countries, and concluded that the scores of Hispanic immigrants were substantially lower than those of native whites. The paper argued that the United States should allow only immigrants with high IQs.
This controversy essentially re-hashes the controversy over Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve back in the 1990s. And the problem is that the facts are the facts. You can explain the facts or interpret the facts however you wish. You can use the facts as arguments for one policy or another, or you can even argue that the facts have no relevance in terms of policy. What you cannot do — at least if you have any regard for intellectual integrity — is to attempt to suppress the facts as politically incorrect.
This is the same basic problem that Harvard feminists had with Larry Summers, who merely referred to available data in suggesting that innate differences between men and women explained the relative paucity of women in elite science positions.
In all of these cases, we are talking about measurements of average group differences. I repeat: average group differences.
Men — as a group, on average — are taller and stronger than women. This does not mean there aren’t tall women who could kick my ass. Also, men — again, as a group, on average — have better mathematical aptitude than do women. (It so happens that I’m crappy at math.) Such average group differences don’t really matter in terms of assessing any individual’s aptitude, but do matter when attempting to explain large-scale socio-economic phenomena.
Liberals have spent the past several decades insisting that all socio-economic differences between groups — male and female, white and black, native and immigrant — can be explained in terms of unfair discrimination which must be remedied by policies (including quotas) to equalize outcomes between these groups.
So when Larry Summers tried to say that maybe the reason there aren’t more women doing advanced scientific research at elite institutions is because women aren’t as good at science or, alternately, aren’t as interested as men in pursuing such careers, the feminist outrage was to be expected. Summers had denied the radical-egalitarian thesis that all differences between groups are the result of systematic unfairness — ”social injustice” — that must be rectified at all costs.
To quote Orwell, “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that; no ordinary man could be such a fool.”
Radical egalitarianism so pervades the thinking of our 21st-century intelligentsia that they can’t seem to think outside of its dogma. The witch-hunt against Jason Richwine is typical: Exactly what did he do wrong? He was not, as the article says, doing “research on racial superiority,” nor did he argue that all Hispanics lack “raw cognitive ability or intelligence.” Richwine examined the data and found that — as a group, on average — immigrants score lower on IQ tests than native-born Americans, so that our current policy (or lack thereof) has the effect of lowering the nation’s average intelligence, with consequences that are both unfortunate and predictable.
One can disagree with Richwine’s policy recommendations without shutting down an entire field of academic inquiry, which is what the Harvard petitioners seem to have in mind. But any institution that would make Soledad O’Brien a “distinguished visiting fellow” obviously doesn’t have much intellectual integrity left to lose.
Harvard students are assholes. As a group. On average.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Obama puppet goes on five national news shows, parrots “Shut Up Republicans” and “Irrelevant Facts” over and over
Dan Pfeiffer is a “senior adviser” for Team Obama. Senior adviser meaning he advises Obama on how to lie, as if the president needed help knowing how to lie. While appearing on five Sunday shows might seem daunting, Pfeiffer could have saved everyone some time by just sending his copied talking points. As Stacy McCain points out, Pfeiffer is not looking to engage in facts, because all the facts are bad for Obama, and thus, must be called “irrelevant”
When the White House sent Obama’s senior adviser out to do five Sunday shows, his orders were obviously to claim that (a) only Republicans care whether the administration is lying about Benghazi, and (b) the answer to any question about Benghazi is “largely irrelevant”:
Wallace repeatedly asked Pfeiffer where the president was and what he was doing while terrorists were attacking the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Pfeiffer refused to answer Wallace’s question of whether Obama entered the White House Situation Room during the Sept. 11 attack, saying, “I don’t remember what room the president was in on that night, and that’s a largely irrelevant fact.” . . . On CBS Sunday, Pfeiffer said that the question of who edited the administration’s “talking points” about the Benghazi was “largely irrelevant.”
Facts are irrelevant when they prove inconvenient for Liberals. And, as I have noted, Liberalism is an ideology of convenience, so, facts become icky and irrelevant pretty quickly. What I would want every American to think about is this. If a tool like Pfeffer is sent out to say that facts do not matter, then that is only because the President told him to say that. What, you think Pfeiffer has a thought his Dear leader does not tell him to have? Come on folks. This is the thing you need to focus on. If the facts of where Obama was, and who wanted the talking points edited are so irrelevant, then why not let those facts out? Face it, facts are only irrelevant when you do not want people to know what those facts are.
Calling it “offensive” and refusing to answer direct, simple questions, make Dan Pfeiffer look like a lying weasel, which of course, is what he is.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
For a job well done.
WASHINGTON — The White House is standing behind the woman who led the Internal Revenue Service’s tax-exempt division while it targeted conservative groups — the same official who now runs the part of the agency charged with implementing “Obamacare.”
“No one has suggested that she did anything wrong yet,” said White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, speaking on “Fox News Sunday.”Mr. Pfeiffer added that no one should jump to conclusions about whether Sarah Hall Ingram, given a promotion at the IRS as the agency’s singling out of tea party and conservative groups began to come to light, was directly involved in any wrongdoing.
“Before everyone in this town convicts this person in the court of public opinion with no evidence, let’s actually get the facts and make decisions after that,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “There’s nothing that suggests she did anything wrong.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Found at 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
Scandalous Hat Trick
Mr. President, when it rains it pours, but most Americans hold their own umbrellas. Today in the Rose Garden you dismissed the idea of a Special Counsel to investigate the IRS scandal. With that, your galling political hubris shined bright in the midst of today’s dark clouds.
Surely you are aware that the Hatch Act prevents certain federal employees from engaging in political activity. Specifically, it’s illegal for these federal employees to engage in action in support of or in opposition to a political party, a candidate for partisan political office, or a partisan political group.
Yet that is exactly what’s happened within the IRS, the Justice Department, and in the Benghazi cover-up. This scandalous hat trick is on your watch. It is not believable that you knew nothing about Obama administration actions in dealing with these scandals. And in regards to Benghazi, when you should have taken appropriate action to save American lives – for instance by calling in the Marines – you were AWOL. Just weeks before the election your team scrubbed the Benghazi talking points in 12 different versions, lied to the American people about some YouTube video being to blame for the deaths of brave Americans who put our country first, and you prove Michael Barone right when he writes, “What actually happened in Benghazi was out of sync with the Obama campaign line.” That’s why you all did what you did. Pure raw politics were at play during a horrific time of loss.
For more evidence of Hatch Act violations right under your nose, simply consider DOJ’s “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into the free press. Do you think they picked up some political talk when tapping the phones in the House press gallery?
Your team is out of control. Those who cannot remember the past and learn from it are doomed to repeat it, and that is exactly what is happening. Look back exactly 40 years ago this week and apply that disheartening chapter of American history to the team you’ve chosen and lead today.
Some of us warned America; we cautioned voters in 2008 that a community organizer with no executive experience and no sense of accountability would be a very poor choice for the nation’s top management position.
Mr. President, you said today that you have “complete confidence” in the Attorney General. America doesn’t. Eric Holder needs to appoint an unbiased Special Counsel to investigate the illegal political action of this administration. And then Eric Holder needs to resign.
Most Americans see ominous dark clouds looming beyond the White House Rose Garden, Mr. President. They’ll roll away only when light is shined on the Obama administration’s antics, and America will only recover when you cease avoiding responsibility in this mission of yours to fundamentally transform America. For that to happen, the press had better learn from their experiences of being duped and provide a deserving public fairer, more intelligent coverage.
Speaking of coverage, glad you finally called in the Marines… shame it was just to hold your umbrella.
It’s a shame they weren’t there to escort this disgrace from The White House grounds.
From Camp of the Saints: http://thecampofthesaints.org/
Homeschoolers will not escape the Common Core – at least those who take GED tests.
Once Common Core is nationally implemented and federally enforced, public education will become just another word for a forcible indoctrination of our children to induce them to give up their parents’ political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas. This is the dictionary definition of brainwashing.
“I don’t have a factual basis to answer the questions that you have asked, because I was recused,” the attorney general said.
On and on Holder went: “I don’t know. I don’t know. . . . I would not want to reveal what I know. . . . I don’t know why that didn’t happen. . . . I know nothing, so I’m not in a position really to answer.”…
But when the Justice Department undermines the Constitution, recusal is no excuse.
Gates: Some Benghazi critics have “cartoonish” view of military capability
Oh R-E-A-L-L-Y-?-?-? How very I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-I-N-G for you to say that. Well I don’t have a “cartoonish” view of the military – having spent a quarter of a century wearing the war suit in Special Forces and maintaining a close professional association with Special Operations units to this day . . .
. . . let’s go through this by the numbers:
“We don’t have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible.”
Not exactly true – we had the Commander’s In Extemis Force (CIF) eight hundred miles away on a training mission in Croatia; less than six hours out by C-130. Perhaps not close enough to respond to the initial assault on the Consulate but they certainly could have made a difference during the follow-on fight at the CIA Annex compound. Closer to the fight, at least four Special Forces operators in Tripoli who were ordered – by somebody – to stand down.
I know about the CIF because that is my old outfit – everywhere we went we were required to bring our go-to-war pallets with full basic load of ammunition. In the event of a terrorist attack on one of the diplomatic missions in our theater, our job was to march to the sound of the guns. To turn off the standing orders requires a direct order from the National Command Authority – i.e the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense or the Assistant Secretary of Defense. One of those four gave the order to stand down, in other words.
Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to “scare them with the noise or something,” Gates said, ignored the “number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi’s arsenals.”
I’m going to throw out the 15-yard Bullshit Flag here; we know that over 6 hours elapsed from the beginning of the attack to when the CIA operators were killed by mortar fire – from a heavy mortar emplacement they had laser target designators on, and had requested air support hours earlier in neutralizing. They had also given higher HQ 8-digit coordinates on the mortars, as close as it gets in combat targeting. Former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods (who died during the second phase of the attack, on the CIA Annex) were “lazing” enemy mortar position. They weren’t doing that for the good of their health – they were doing it because they had reason to believe there were air assets overhead; and they were on the phone speaking to somebody, directing them to laze those targets.
Furthermore, Libya does not have Syria’s Anti-Aircraft-Artillery (AAA) defense-in-depth. Sure, there are shoulder-fired man-portable anti-aircraft defense systems (MANPADS) available – but these are inneffective against a couple of fast-movers flying less than 200′ off the deck with their afterburners on. By the time the zoomies scream on by causing a couple of sonic booms over the bad guys, Hajii would be saying, “Holy Hookah Pipes, what was THAT???” I have personally seen this tactic defuse an attack on a political target in the Philippines.
“To send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous. It’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces,” he said. “The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way, and there just wasn’t time to do that.”
Again, bullshit. We had actionable intelligence live from the battlefield. Our guys on the ground – to include former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – were tooling around town between the Consulate and the Annex, and were reporting what they saw. On top of that, we had at least one drone, and various reports mention the presence of an AC-130 gunship – which would explain what Doherty and Woods were doing with the lasers.
The Ultimate Rebuttal:
Gates can say what he wants – one aspect of this entire disgraceful affair that nobody is addressing is the relief-for-cause of General Ham, commander of US Africa Command at Kelly Kaserne in Stuttgart, Germany, the evening of the attack, 11-12 September 2012:
Upon notification the attack in Benghazi was taking place, AFRICOM Commander General Ham immediately notified the CIF unit and communicated to the Pentagon that his forces were ready to deploy.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His alleged response was screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second-in-command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
On October 18 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced: ”President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps.”
It is very intriguing that Ham is immediately reassigned less than eighteen months into a three year tour. Maybe Ham attempted to send a reaction force against orders, or maybe he simply gave his chain-of-command a piece of his mind about hanging Americans to dry. At the very least the CIF and whatever other forces were available could have made those who killed our people pay while they were still on the scene.
What I’m seeing here is somebody trotted out former CIA Director Robert Gates, to assist with the mitigation and spin doctoring of BenghaziGate. Team Obama either has something they’re holding over his head, or – get this – they’re promising him a nice juicy plum. Say, an ambassadorship in London or Rome or Paris, or maybe even a spot on the ticket with the HildeBeest in 2016. Think about it; nothing could give Hillary more legitimacy in the area of foreign affairs and national security than to have a Republican former Secretary of Defense, former Director of Central Intelligence as her running partner?
The kind of people who rise to the top of organizations such as the Department of Defense and the CIA are raging egomaniacs – if not during their rise to the top, then certainly after breathing the rarified air at the top. Dangle a carrot like that in front of them, and a guy like Gates will sell his mother. Selling out his country is small potatoes, in comparison.
Wnat I’m waiting for is to hear what Petraeus has to say about all this – he testified on Benghazi and spouted the party line, and for his troubles the Obamatrons threw him under the bus. It will be very interesting to hear what he has to say if they bring him out, the second time around.
- STORMBRINGER SENDS at http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/
The Tea Party invested its energy into electing the right people, but as Rick Scott and Marco Rubio showed us, there may be no such thing as the right people. Politicians are in the business of selling out. The difference between Marco Rubio and Charlie Crist was that Rubio hadn’t really been tested.
But that doesn’t mean politics is hopeless. It means politicians are hopeless. People however can still force politicians to do the right thing.
The NRA won its fight against gun control even though all the odds, political, financial and emotional, were stacked against it. Politicians had every reason to defect and evolve into a new understanding. And some did. But the ground held because enough of them knew that the NRA was in it for the long term and they would have to deal with it long after Bloomberg had moved on.
In 2012, amnesty and gun control both appeared to be equally unacceptable and were shunned by Republican politicians. If anything they shunned amnesty even harder than gun control. But one election loss later and most of the stalwarts, including Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Paul Ryan have jumped on the amnesty train.
Victor Davis Hanson observes that, “in these divided times ideology and politics can easily trump considerations about character.” But accepting that character doesn’t matter may just be practical politics.
There may be leaders of good character out there who firmly resolve to do the right thing and never waver from their course, but they are the exception and the political system is designed to weed them out.
The self-motivated politician who never wavers is a lot to ask of any man. Even Churchill eventually buckled to Stalin. What can one expect of the senator from Idaho or Virginia?
Politics is not about politicians. It’s about people. Politicians are just the brokers in the political process. The real lesson of the Tea Party is not that you can intervene in a primary for the most conservative candidate and then sit back while he does the right thing, it’s that the only way to get the right thing done is to have an organization that is constantly involved in the political process.
Prohibition, an insane policy, was largely rammed through by a clever and relentless organization that built alliances and forced the issue down the throats of politicians who didn’t agree with it. The same tactics have been used for a variety of causes, including, most recently, gay marriage. In each case, most politicians who did not agree with a cause, came around on it because it was smart politics.
The politician who evolves concedes that he is up for grabs. Evolutionary announcements should be met with contempt, but they also signal that a politician who flips can be made to flop back again. Treating him as if he were an intelligent thinking individual with principles may be a mistake. It may be easier to assume that he has neither principles nor character and that he will go whichever way seems easiest. And the trick then is to reshape his environment so that he evolves into another shape.
For all the complaints that we need leaders, leaders may be the one thing that we do not need. The sort of people that we associate with leaders tend to be self-willed men with their own agendas. Christie and Bloomberg are both leaders, but their version of leadership is to pursue their private agendas without any accountability or regard for anyone else. What we need are not leaders, but organizations that are better at holding politicians accountable.
Hunting for principled politicians is like searching for buried treasure. It’s nice if we find some, but we can’t assume that we will.
The professional politician excels at pretending to have principles and then selling them out. Finding an honest one is like trying to buy a Rolex watch at a folding card table near Times Square. You may get the real deal, but the odds are that you will be ripped off because the people you are dealing with are trained con artists. They have pulled the same scam a thousand times. They are better at reading you than you are at reading them.
What politicians really do is move money around. They push pork for their friends and supporters who then reward them by making sure that they get reelected. It’s a simple financial transaction and any principles can only get in the way of it. They are salesmen for government spending and like all salesmen, they need a pitch strategy because “I’m going to give 10 million dollars of your money to the people who contribute to my campaign and organize groups that support me” is not a winner.
We may have reached the point where it’s smarter to ignore the pitch strategy, the stories, the speaking style, the declaration of principles, the Heritage approved reading list, and reduce everything back to a simple business transaction free of any hero worship or commitments.
It’s not smart for small government conservatives to believe in politicians anyway. If politicians were worth believing in, then one of the main arguments against small government trickles away. If there were a breed of politicians that weren’t hungry for power and able to find the balance between rights and regulations, why shouldn’t we trust them to run things? Such a breed of philosopher-kings doesn’t exist. And will never exist.
Most people, of all factions, rightly hold politicians in contempt and are suspicious of governments. The Tea Party would have done better to keep its distance from politicians, instead of allowing too many of them to wrap themselves in the Tea Party brand. Too much energy was wasted in getting behind politicians, instead of getting on top of them.
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”was the old Roman question. Who watches the watchmen? Politicians are a poor accountability method. They aren’t going to hold themselves accountable. Trying to play Diogenes hunting for an honest politician in Washington D.C. is an even bigger waste of time. There are hardly any and they may not be the ones you think are.
Politicians are tools. They were meant to be wielded by the people. A good politician understands that he is being held accountable. A bad politician doesn’t. Politicians don’t pay attention to people. They pay attention to organizations. The only way to lock in good behavior by a politician is to lock them into an organization that is capable of rewarding or punishing him.
The organization can’t just be money. There is an entire political class built around activism that consumes money and does nothing. The 2012 campaign should have been an education in that.
The left isn’t just successful because it has billionaires, but because it successfully organizes people. The successful organization of people is the difference between 2010 and 2012. If 2014 and 2016 are going to be any different, it will come down to building organizations that can transform the process.
Single-issue organizations like the NRA can be very effective. So can larger scale organizations. Many of them exist, but what they really require is ground level organizing. Money is cheap. People are hard to come by.
If conservative policies are going to win out, the decentralized conservative presence of the internet is going to have to be more directly leveraged in the real world. The people already exist. Bringing them into play in a structured way is what is missing.
The 2010 elections showed what is possible when the people get involved. And the 2012 elections showed what happens when the political class leaves the people behind. Sometimes the people class can win on its own, but even when it does, its victory, like all political class agendas, is a prelude to another sellout.
Principles can’t come from politicians because politics is now largely an economic transaction. They can only come from people who do not benefit from those government class transactions. The left has built a shadow government of organizations, but it has done so while linking those organizations to small, but sizable numbers of organizers and activists, who can rally the base. The right will have to duplicate its accomplishments if it doesn’t want to see the politicians that it wastes money and energy electing constantly “evolve” to the left.
Some readers have complained that this blog is too hostile or negative toward Republican politicians. If anything it’s not nearly negative enough. Cheerleading for favorite politicians is a waste of time. The solutions will not come from messiahs in suits. It will come when the number of conservative issues that politicians come to see as the third rail expands beyond gun control. It will come when the professional political infrastructure is contained by a conservative activist infrastructure that is as least as effective and powerful as its counterpart on the left.
It will come when we stop believing in electing the right man and accept that the honest politician is the one who stays bought. It may not be romantic or idealistic, but it is far more practical than waiting for the next Marco Rubio to come around.
Barack Obama’s “Tower of Fabrications,” as Peter Wehner describes the Benghazi scandal, is beginning to crack. And that crack will soon reveal a central figure behind the cover-up, a man close to Barack Obama for years but generally unknown to the public: Ben Rhodes.
Rhodes has risen from being an obscure and failed fiction writer to formulating foreign and national security policy for Obama precisely because he is willing to his superiors’ bidding regardless of facts. He has a history of using whatever talents he has with the pen to do so.
A few years ago he had drafted the Iraq Study Group report on the causes and mishaps of the Iraq War to focus on Israel – despite the fact that Israel was not part of the scope of the mission the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group was given. Witnesses and experts called by the Committee were appalled. Why did Rhodes distort the record? He seemingly was doing the bidding of his masters who have a history of animus towards Israel. Rhodes had attended Rice University, where the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy is housed; it was headed by Edward Djerejian. Both Baker and his friend Djerejian (a former Ambassador to Syria) have pro-Arab records; criticism of and pressure towards Israel have been hallmarks of their careers. Both Baker and Djerejian played key roles in choosing whom to hire for the Iraq Study Group and how the work was done.
Rhodes may also just be indulging his own pro-Muslim sympathies. He wrote Obama’s infamous Cairo Speech. That paean to the Muslim world was filled with fulsome praise of Islam that were factually incorrect (Rhodes’ post-graduate education, after all, was in fiction-writing and under Obama he seems to have finally found someone who will pay him for writing fiction). The speech avoided references to radical Islam and was filled with platitudes about Islam. The speech highlighted a tougher line towards Israel and “credited” that nation’s founding as due to European guilt over the Holocaust (ignoring 5000 years of history).
Rhodes has gone from writing reports and drafting speeches to playing a key role in formulating foreign and national security policy, according to the New York Times. His closeness to Obama – a man known for his aloofness (“he doesn’t like people” says a former aide) has become well-known.
There is a reason Rhodes is close to Obama.
Everyone in power needs a fixer and, according to the latest revelations, Ben Rhodes is Obama’s fixer.
Read the entire article at The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Found at 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
by SPARTA on MAY 9, 2013
Uploaded on Sep 3, 2010 by CBNnewsonline
The French have become increasingly fed up with what they see as the growing Islamization of France… The Christian Broadcasting Network CBN http://www.cbn.com
PARIS – Friday in Paris. A hidden camera shows streets blocked by huge crowds of Muslim worshippers and enforced by a private security force.
This is all illegal in France: the public worship, the blocked streets, and the private security. But the police have been ordered not to intervene.
It shows that even though some in the French government want to get tough with Muslims and ban the burqa, other parts of the French government continue to give Islam a privileged status.
An ordinary French citizen who has been watching the Islamization of Paris decided that the world needed to see what was happening to his city. He used a hidden camera to start posting videos on YouTube. His life has been threatened and so he uses the alias of “Maxime Lepante.”
His camera shows that Muslims “are blocking the streets with barriers. They are praying on the ground. And the inhabitants of this district cannot leave their homes, nor go into their homes during those prayers.”
“The Muslims taking over those streets do not have any authorization. They do not go to the police headquarters, so it’s completely illegal,” he says.
The Muslims in the street have been granted unofficial rights that no Christian group is likely to get under France’s Laicite’, or secularism law.
“It says people have the right to share any belief they want, any religion,” Lepante explained. “But they have to practice at home or in the mosque, synagogues, churches and so on.”
Some say Muslims must pray in the street because they need a larger mosque. But Lepante has observed cars coming from other parts of Paris, and he believes it is a weekly display of growing Muslim power.
“They are coming there to show that they can take over some French streets to show that they can conquer a part of the French territory,” he said.
France’s Islamic Future?
If France faces an Islamic future, a Russian author has already written about it. The novel is called “The Mosque of Notre Dame, 2048,” a bestseller in Russia, not in France.
French publisher Jean Robin said the French media ignored the book because it was politically incorrect.
“Islam is seen as the religion of the poor people, so you can’t say to the poor people, ‘You’re wrong,’ otherwise, you’re a fascist,” Robin explained.
The book lays out a dark future when France has become a Muslim nation, and the famous cathedral has been turned into a mosque.
Whether that plot is farfetched depends on whom you ask. Muslims are said to be no more than 10 percent of the French population, although no one knows for sure because French law prohibits population counts by religion.
But the Muslim birthrate is significantly higher than for the native French. Some Muslim men practice polygamy, with each extra wife having children and collecting a welfare check.
“The problem of Islam is more than a problem of numbers,” said French philosopher Radu Stoenescu, an Islamic expert who debates Muslim leaders on French TV. “The problem is one of principles. It’s an open question. Is Islam an ideology or just a creed?”
“It doesn’t matter how many there are,” he aded. “The problem is the people who follow Islam; they’re somehow in a political party, which has a political agenda, which means basically implementing Sharia and building an Islamic state.”
In Denial or Fed Up
From the 1980s until recently, criticizing or opposing Islam was considered a social taboo, and so the government and media effectively helped Islam spread throughout France.
“We were expecting Islam to adapt to France and it is France adapting to Islam,” Robin said.
About the burqa controversy, one French Muslim man told a reporter that Europeans should respect Muslim dress. One Parisian woman wearing a headscarf said “the veil is in the Koran” and “we only submit to God and nobody else.”
But even if many government elites are in France are in denial over Islam, the people in the streets increasingly are not. Some have become fed up with what they see as the growing Islamization of France.
They’ve started staging pork and wine “aperitifs,” or cocktail parties in the street. They’re patriotic demonstrations meant to strike back against Islam. Another national demonstration is planned for Saturday, Sept. 4.
A Warning to the West
The French parliament debated the burqa law in this year. Jean-Francois Cope, president of the Union for a Popular Movement political party, has a warning for the West and for America.
“We cannot accept the development of such practice because it’s not compatible with the life in a modern society, you see,” he said. “And this question is not only a French question. You will all have to face this challenge. ”
For more insight on the slide toward a post-Christian Western society, check out Dale Hurd’s blog Hurd on the Web.
For more insight on ‘Islamization’ around the world, check out Stakelbeck on Terror
**Originally published September 1, 2010.
1. What made you get involved in countering radical Islam in France?
For me, as for many people, 9/11 was a turning point. It was the proof that Muslim terrorists will stop at nothing to kill as many people as possible. I began to read more and more about Islam and its threat, in the books and in the news. Then, in July 2009, I witnessed, in the heart of Paris, my beloved town, thousands of Muslims taking over 4 streets, and praying on the pavement.
2. What have you done as part of these efforts?
In August 2009, I joined Riposte Laïque, a French secular organization dedicated to fight islamization. I bought a hidden camera, and went in the 18th district of Paris, to videotape those illegal Muslim prayers, which take place there each Friday, only 500 meters away from Sacré-Coeur, a big and famous church. In one year, I have produced 40 videos showing this scandal, and I have uploaded them on our French YouTube channel. I also wrote more than 80 articles denouncing this scandal. Finally, one week ago, I opened a new channel on YouTube, totally in English, on which I have already uploaded 5 of my videos translated in English. I’m planning to translate and upload on this channel 30 other videos showing the illegal Muslim prayers in Paris, in the coming months, with the help of a professional translator.
3. How do you define radical Islam? How is it different than Islam?
Radical Islam equals Mohammed plus the Koran, and Mohammed plus the Koran equals Islam, so radical Islam and Islam essentially are the same thing. The only difference is that radical Muslims don’t hesitate to kill, while standard Muslims don’t usually kill. But both share the same goal: to impose Islam on the world by establishing a worldwide caliphate under shariah, Islamic law.
4. What was the most shocking thing you discovered in your fight against radical Islam?
Everything in radical Islam is shocking, and therefore everything in Islam is shocking, since Islam is the doctrine of radical Islam. I watched some horrendous videos of Muslims slaughtering and beheading men and women, and many photos of Afghan women disfigured by sulfuric acid, I read about all those good Muslim fathers who suddenly butcher their daughters because they haven’t made their prayer or because they have put some lipstick on… The list could go forever.
5. What do you think the government could and should do to help stop radical Islam?
Shariah law has to be denounced as fascism and banned from all the Free World. Governments have to arrest and expel all Muslims who refuse to denounce shariah law. Immigration from Muslim countries shall be completely stopped. Islamic finance has to be banned, and all money transfers from Muslim countries forbidden.
6. Is radical Islam something that should concern everyone? Why or why not?
Radical Islam’s aim, the same as Islam’s aim, is to submit or kill every human being. So everyone is at risk and should be concerned.
7. You may not be a prophet, but do you think radical Islam will ever be stopped?
Yes, radical Islam, and its doctrine, Islam, will be stopped. There are 5 times more non-Muslims than Muslims in the world, and the fastest growing religion is Christianity, not Islam. So the Muslims don’t have demography on their side, contrary to what the mainstream media say. But this will not be an easy task. Many people are killed by Muslims around the world and many more people may die before Islam is stopped.
8. What’s the danger of radical Islam to the typical person?
The first danger is simply to be killed. Then, to be maimed or hurt in a bombing. Then, to be threatened to be killed if the person refuses to convert to Islam. Then, to be raped, if the person is a woman wearing a skirt. And so on.
9. How could the average person help fight radical Islam?
There are many way to fight radical Islam, and its doctrine, Islam. First is to inform people of the danger, like what Radicalislam.org does. You can make personal inquiries about illegal actions committed by Muslims, like I do with my hidden camera. Contact the MSM and ask them to report the truth about Islam, and to stop to ban the words “Muslims” and “Islam” when Muslims commit a crime or a bombing, as they often do. Tell your elected official to fight shariah. Demonstrate against political leaders who are siding with Muslims, and are therefore traitors. Vote for political leaders who are aware of the threat that the Free World is facing.
10. You have an opportunity to tell something to our 45,000+ subscribers. What do you wish you to say?
I want to say that we, people of the Free World, are facing a threat even bigger than what Nazism was. The more we wait to fight back, the more innocent people will die, killed by Muslims. This is an existential battle. No less. I want to survive, do you?
From 1389 Blog: http://1389blog.com/
“A man’s got to have a code, a creed to live by, no matter his job.” – John Wayne
Once upon a time, there was “The Code of the West.” [Original here] That was long ago, far away and in another country. Now there is only, “The Code of the Left.” I’ve compared the two here. The Code of the West is in plain text. The Code of the Left is in italics because, well, it is just so damned important!
It’s time for our biannual check in on how these two dueling codes are faring in America. When last we looked the Obama Banditos were riding roughshod over the people. Now, the Banditos seem to be in retreat and at our feet pleading a new birth of populism. But since the leftist Banditio is always either at your feet or at your throat it can’t last. What’s next? We’re open for updates, additions, and deletions.
* Don’t inquire into a person’s past. Take the measure of a man for what he is today.
* There are no “people,” only “social policies.” Don’t inquire into a social policy’s past or that policy’s likely consequences for the future. Take the measure of a policy by how closely it maps to the Socialist Utopia that has already killed and crippled hundreds of millions of people. Dream big nightmares.
* Never steal another man’s horse. A horse thief pays with his life.
* Always look to steal another man’s money with a “tax.” Always ask your fellow citizen to reach for his wallet. All tax thieves are rewarded with a fat government pension and fatter health plan.
* Defend yourself whenever necessary.
* Do not defend yourself or the country under any circumstances. Killers are just grown-up kids who were abused. Terrorists are just people who haven’t had their issues listened to with compassion. Make sure nobody else can defend themselves. Use only diplomacy to defend your country. Armies are raised only to place sandbags around towns about to be flooded for the fifth time. When that happens use government money to enable the fools who built them to rebuild them.
* Look out for your own.
* Look out, first, last and always, for any other people numerous enough to declare themselves an oppressed group (The minimum number is 3) – except if the group is an actual family, in which case seek to disband it by any means necessary.
* Remove your guns before sitting at the dining table.
* Ban guns. Anytime, anywhere. The Second Amendment is a misprint. Erase it in the original. Burn all copies.
* Never order anything weaker than whiskey.
* Never order anything stronger than a decaf double latte made with soy milk. Yes, that drink will shrink your testicles and/or ovaries to the size of peas, but you weren’t using them anyway. Make it a double.
* Don’t make a threat without expecting dire consequences.
* Threaten everyone and every behavior you think does not square with an organic, green, globally-warmed new-age life-style. They will fold. There will be no consequences. There never are.
* Never pass anyone on the trail without saying “Howdy”.
* Never pass anyone on the street without muttering “Bush lied.”
* When approaching someone from behind, give a loud greeting before you get within shooting range.
* When approaching someone from behind, try to determine if they are a Republican-Christianist before picking their pocket and denigrating their beliefs with impunity.
* Don’t wave at a man on a horse, as it might spook the horse. A nod is the proper greeting.
* Don’t wave at a blind man with a seeing-eye dog as it might confuse/abuse the dog. Lead them both into a disabled parking space and leave them there with a pocket full of kibble and food stamps.
* After you pass someone on the trail, don’t look back at him. It implies you don’t trust him.
* After you pass anti-Christian laws, don’t look back. God will turn you into a pillar of salt and there is no salt tax…. Yet.
* Riding another man’s horse without his permission is nearly as bad as making love to his wife. Never even bother another man’s horse.
* Riding another man’s wife or significant other is not only okay, but a qualification for high office. Gay or straight, you are allowed to have anyone you want without consequences to the family since soon there won’t be any. Medicines for STDs will be free and will soon consume 92% of federal research funds (7% goes to embryonic stem cell research), dedicated to finding a sex vaccine so you can get back to the level of random sex with random strangers you enjoyed in the early 1970s.
* Always fill your whiskey glass to the brim.
* Always buy and carry the really big bottle of Fuji mineral water everywhere so people can know that while you object to Big Oil making windfall profits on $3.00 a gallon gasoline, you have no problem with windfall profits on $10 a gallon bottled water.
* A Cowboy is pleasant even when out of sorts. Complaining is what quitters do, and Cowboys hate quitters.
* A Leftist is mean and bitter even when in office. Complaining and turning small complaints into laws is what Leftists at all levels do. Leftists love making new laws from old whines.
* Always be courageous. Cowards aren’t tolerated in any outfit worth its salt.
* Never exhibit courage when it comes to defending your country. Cowardice is a Leftist pre-requisite for running for office on any level. Your constituents are cowards to the core and don’t expect any less from you.
* A Cowboy always helps someone in need, even a stranger or an enemy.
* A Leftist only helps those in need when helping them will condemn them to being in need for all eternity. Enemies are to be helped only if they will promise to first vote for and then behead Leftists. In that way both the need to rule and the need to expunge guilt can be satisfied.
* Never try on another man’s hat.
* Never try on another man’s condom or use his needle – without asking permmisson which will naturally be forthcoming. Free condoms and free needles are a basic right and will replace the present Second Amendment as soon as possible. Draft text: “An unregulated and unrestrained sex and drugs and rock and roll lifestyle, being the necessary opiate of the masses, the right of the people to free condoms and free needles, shall not be infringed.”
* Be hospitable to strangers. Anyone who wanders in, including an enemy, is welcome at the dinner table. The same was true for riders who joined Cowboys on the range.
* Be hospitable to those who “wander” into your country illegally. Anyone who “wanders” into the United States, including an enemy, is welcome at the welfare table. This is especially true for those who will do the voting sane Americans won’t – voting for you.
* Give your enemy a fighting chance.
* Give all enemies a really good fighting chance always. Make the Armed Forces fight with both hands behind their back. Roll back all arms programs to the environmentally sensitive bow and arrow era. Marines are to be especially despised for their general Gung Ho militaristic attitude. Make up rules of engagement that ensure all wars will be fought on the cheap and without weapons that are more lethal than megaphones. In war, Love is all you need.
* Never wake another man by shaking or touching him, as he might wake suddenly and shoot you.
* But if he does, pass more laws restricting guns and apologize to him before dying.
* Real Cowboys are modest. A braggart who is “all gurgle and no guts” is not tolerated.
* Real Leftists are the first to tell you what wonderful human beings they are. A Leftist who is “all gurgle and no guts” can be easily nominated for high office. See “Edwards, John.”
* A Cowboy doesn’t talk much; he saves his breath for breathing.
* A Leftist does nothing but talk. Talk is mother’s milk without the annoying lactation. Leftist talk is a three-foot length of numbing rebar pounded down the center of your spine. A Leftist will save his breath for Yoga class.
* No matter how weary and hungry you are after a long day in the saddle, always tend to your horse’s needs before your own, and get your horse some feed before you eat.
* No matter how weary and frustrated you are after a long day of lying and pandering on the campaign trail, always tend to your political machine’s needs before your own. Get your machine some more money (cash if possible) for moveon.org or Media Matters. Don’t skim more than 55% of the cash for yourself. Remember that if you are elected you can feed at the public trough for life, and earn millions for blathering after you retire.
* Cuss all you want, but only around men, horses and cows.
* Cuss all you want, constantly and without restraint, especially when you hear the obscenity-triggering words, “President Bush.” Be sure to teach the F-word to your children early and reward them for using it.
* Complain about the cooking and you become the cook.
* Complain about earmarks unless they are your earmarks and remember to vote for all earmarks so that others will vote for yours.
* Always drink your whiskey with your gun hand, to show your friendly intentions.
* Always sip your chai with the pinky finger crooked, to show your rainbow intentions.
* Be there for a friend when he needs you.
* Be there with a handout for a voter when you think that you can pander enough and promise enough free stuff to buy that vote. Pander early and pander often. Offer $5,000 just for being born. Be sure you put that idea forward before a group of people with a history of getting (and an undying thirst for more) handouts. Always infantalize.
* Drinking on duty is grounds for instant dismissal and blacklisting.
* Drinking and smoking dope in office is grounds for instant lionizing, a safe seat, and a free pass should you drive off a bridge on the way home and leave someone who was giving you sex at the wheel behind to drown.
* A Cowboy is loyal to his “brand,” to his friends, and those he rides with.
* A Leftist is loyal to the nightmares of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Fidel Castro – all of whom knew how to run billions of lives for the better. They may be gone but their song remains the same. Dance to it and make sure everyone else does too. Or else.
* Never shoot an unarmed or unwarned enemy. This was also known as “the rattlesnake code”: always warn before you strike. However, if a man was being stalked, this could be ignored.
* Always smear a blameless or dangerous political enemy. Lying and innuendo is okay. Be the rattlesnake. Unless the man is stalking the same office you are. In that case smear early and smear often. Lie big and lie long.
* Never shoot a woman no matter what.
* Never seek to make love to a woman unless there are no other alternatives – including shrubs – or unless you are a woman.
* Consideration for others is central to the code, such as: Don’t stir up dust around the chuck-wagon, don’t wake up the wrong man for herd duty, etc.
* Being inconsiderate of personal God-given liberty is central to the code of the Left. There is no God, there is only the Party and the dream of a socialist utopia. Always stir up dust and regulations around the free market — it can and does donate money to your opponents. Don’t wake up those who depend on government hand-outs for everything. Promise more and keep them comatose.
* Respect the land and the environment by not smoking in hazardous fire areas, disfiguring rocks, trees, or other natural areas.
* Respect the small, endless fears of everyone in the environment by not smoking anywhere at anytime unless it is copious amounts of really righteous dope. Remember the first commandment of the Leftist: “Tobacco and Fox News bad. Dope and the New York Times good.” Seek to have laws passed enabling everyone to smoke as much dope as they want. Then they will be too stoned to see through your insane plans. They will even think that more taxes on the rich means higher government revenues. Praise those who are disfiguring rocks, walls, and buildings with graffiti as “artistes.” Return forests and farmland to their natural state — especially if you can get them cheap via takings or public domain. Let the surviving population live like the sheep they are and eat grass.
* Honesty is absolute – your word is your bond, a handshake is more binding than a contract.
* Lies are your friend. Never let facts obfuscate falsehoods. Your word is only good for those your are speaking to at the time you are speaking. After you’ve promised something, forget about it. A handshake and a contract are simply lies waiting for laws to make them inoperative. If caught in a lie and under oath remember to always ask what the meaning of “is” is.
* Live by the Golden Rule.
* Live by the Rule of the Gold: If you run across anyone with gold, make them convert it to paper money and give 98% of that to the state or your re-election campaign. Require the other 2% to be donated to a charity of your choice for a tax deduction. Live the dream by buying your way into the government which will be, when that great getting-up morning arrives, the only thing on earth with any money or privilege.
[Note: I'm also looking to add to this list. The last time it came around we got this prescient statement in the comments:
West: "Never shoot a woman no matter what."
Left: "Unless she is the Republican Governor of Alaska. In which case, blast away. Be sure to remove her orange hunting vest afterwards so you can claim it was 'just an accident' and you mistook her for a caribou."]
From 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
Flies in the face of the mass hysteria created by the left.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A pair of reports show that gun homicides have dropped steeply since their 1993 peak, adding fuel to Congress’ battle over restricting firearms.
A study released Tuesday by the government’s Bureau of Justice Statistics found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. That’s a 39 percent reduction.
Another report by the private Pew Research Center found a similar decline by looking at the rate of gun homicides, which compares the number of killings to the size of the country’s population. It found that the number of gun homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 percent in 1993 to 3.6 percent in 2010, a drop of nearly half.
Both reports also found the rate of non-fatal crimes involving guns was also down significantly over that period.
The trend in firearm-related homicides is part of a broad nationwide decline in violent crime over past two decades, including incidents not involving firearms.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
While the New York Times dispatched its best and brightest lackeys to Boston to write sensitive pieces on how hard it was for the two Tsarnaevs to fit in leaving them no choice but to bomb the Boston Marathon and then send LOL texts to their friends, it fell to a UK tabloid like The Sun to conduct an interview with the ex-girlfriend of the lead terrorist and learn that he wanted her to hate America and beat her because she wouldn’t wear a Hijab.
There are all sorts of jobs that Americans won’t do. Like pick lettuce, bomb the Boston Marathon and report honestly on the motives of the bombers. The only news network that operates outside the media consensus is owned by an Australian mogul who also owns The Sun.
Americans like to think of their press as freer, but it’s only free in the sense that it voluntarily puts on its own muzzle. European tabloids get into bloody brawls with regulators. American newspapers have nothing to brawl about. They will gleefully report anything that undermines national security at the drop of a hat, knowing that they won’t be touched, but there is a long list of subjects that they won’t touch with a million mile pole.
In Europe, editors risked their lives to publish the Mohammed cartoons. In America, on the rare occasion that they were depicted, they were usually censored. CNN, which could show Kathy Griffin trying to molest Anderson Cooper, without the benefit of pixelation or a suicide button, blurred out Mohammed’s face; assuming that Muslims would appreciate the sensitivity of treating their prophet’s face like an obscene object.
The American media does not need to be censored. It censors itself.
Did the New York Times really fail to come across Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s ex-girlfriend and domestic abuse victim while they were busily interviewing every single person in Boston who ever ran into the future terrorists? Doubtful. The New York Times may be incompetent, but it isn’t that incompetent. If it could track down Tamerlan’s old coach, it could track down his old girlfriend. It chose not to.
So did every other paper.
Either The Sun is staffed with crack journalists who could do what no American newspaper, news channel and network news program could, or The Sun got the scoop on Nadine Ascencao because no newspaper on this side of the ocean wanted to touch it. And it’s easy to see why.
Nadine talks about being beaten in the name of Islam, forced to memorize Koran verses and being taught to hate America. Most journalists on this side of the ocean want quotes on what nice boys the two Tsarnaevs were and how, in true liberal fashion, no one could have expected them to do something like this.
Every background story on them is filled with the same pabulum, because the endless march of “We couldn’t have known” quotes provides the government-media complex with the plausible deniability it needs to continue doing the same thing all over again. If the people couldn’t have known, then it stands to reason that their government or their media couldn’t have known either.
No Islam please, we’re American was the mainstream media’s unspoken message. We don’t do Islamic terrorism. We only report on terrorists who happen to be Muslim.
The only newspaper besides The Sun to do an interview with Nadine Ascencao was the Wall Street Journal; which just happens to be owned by the same tabloid mogul. But there is an interesting difference between The Sun and the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ piece doesn’t mention Hijabs, Koran verses or hating America. It doesn’t mention Islam at all.
Co-written by a Pakistani journalist, it emphasizes only that Tamerlan was a bully of no particular religion. That reporter’s twitter feed features a retweet from another Muslim WSJ reporter who broadcasts that the plans of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to head to Times Square amounted to nothing. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Nothing to see here is the theme of the media’s coverage. Like a movie, it begins with inspirational tales of courage, and then just when the villains were about to come on the scene, the credits began to roll. It’s only been twenty minutes, but the audience gets hustled out of the theater and told to leave their sodas and popcorn behind.
The “folks who did this”, in Obama’s patently false folksy parlance, were caught. Or at least one of them was. The sacred liberal ceremony of the Miranda warning was recited by a judge at his bedside and the trial will now move through the traditional phases of expensive lawyers paid for by the taxpayer pleading that their client was traumatized by our foreign policy and the entire story being shoved to the back of the media’s coat rack behind the next sports star who comes out of the closet.
This is the surreal world of the American media, which wields its weapons of mass distraction with clinical precision, so that the news hour and the local paper are virtually indistinguishable in content from an old episode of The Jerry Springer Show. But it can’t possibly spare the time for a coherent discussion of the real world motives of two men who carried out a major terrorist attack in Boston.
Soviet citizens listened to the Voice of America to find out what their own government wouldn’t tell them. American citizens have to read The Sun and the Daily Mail, publications whose standards are slightly above that of The Huffington Post and yet, like the National Inquirer, have become one of the few outlets that will chase after the stories that the media has embargoed as effectively as Pravda.
Instead of wasting time on a dead end like Islam, the media has spent its time chasing down every other possible angle.
Did Tamerlan turn terrorist because he took too many blows to the head while boxing? Could the Boston Marathon bombing have been prevented if only we had let him win?
The New York Times assembled a touching story of an aspiring immigrant boxer radicalized by the petty restrictions of a government that wouldn’t let him apply for citizenship because of his history of domestic violence and appearance on a terrorist watch list. But how does that jibe with the Tamerlan from five earlier who beat up a boy that his sister was dating because he wasn’t Muslim?
When the media must deal with Tamerlan’s theology, it keeps him in the category of the troubled man who turned to some wacky extremist version of Islam propounded by a YouTube convert. The man who beat his sister’s boyfriend because he wasn’t a Muslim and beat his ex-girlfriend because she wouldn’t wear a Hijab wasn’t some brainwashed drone who had his mind stolen by YouTube videos. He was a Muslim.
The Tamerlan of 2007 might not have watched as many Jihadist videos, but it would be a mistake to assume that he would have disagreed with their content. That Tamerlan might not have been looking at bombing targets, but neither would he have been upset and angry if some other Muslim had done what he would go on to do. Like Dzhokhar’s two Muslim friends, his first reaction would have been to cover it up.
When it comes to serial killers and mass shooters, the media is conditioned to look for a break that follows some life crisis. But with Muslim terrorists there is no discontinuity, only continuity. A few setbacks might have made terrorism more appealing to Tamerlan, but that would not have happened if it had not already been on his menu of life choices. Or that of his brother.
That angle is the most terrifying one that the media can think of. It’s the one that they can’t touch. It’s the one that they won’t let anyone else touch either. If they have to mention the “I” word, they will sandwich it between “extremist” and “radicalization”. But it’s not Tamerlan who was the radical extremist. Among Muslims, his views were mainstream. The Wahhabis are in ascendance in most parts of the world, including the United States. Islamist parties roundly won the Arab Spring.
What was the difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and any of the Syrian Jihadists held up by the media as the epitome of courage and bravery? What is the difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the Hamas and Fatah terrorists that the media peevishly contends Israel must make peace with? What is the difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and any of the tens of thousands of Muslim terrorists fighting in conflicts around the world?
While the European media, for all its faults, occasionally grapples with the incompatibility of liberal values and Muslim values; on this side of the ocean the topic is all but untouchable. There is no national censorship body that does this. Instead stories are held down by the weight of a consensus that insists the media exists to promote liberal values. All else follows from there.
The stories that promote liberal values are reported. The stories about a future Muslim terrorist beating his girlfriend because she wouldn’t wear a Hijab are not because those stories create a sneaking suspicion that Muslim multiculturalism is incompatible with liberal values. And the incompatible Muslims, like Mohammed’s face, have been pixelated out of existence in reports on the terrorist attacks by disgruntled boxers, doctors and perfume salesmen who just happen to be Muslim.
These are the Muslims that the media doesn’t see. And it is doing everything possible to make sure that we don’t see them either.
From 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
PUSH BACK! Kansas, Missouri respond to Eric Holder Threat
Not backing down. Will Texas join them on Saturday too?
In response to Eric Holder’s threat against Kansas for its new gun control nullification bill, there have already been two official responses from Kansas. Plus the Missouri legislatureprovided some needed backup too.
1. Kansas Secretary of State Kobach responds, draws a line in the sand.
“With respect to his concern that federal officials be allowed to enforce federal laws, Mr. Holder’s statement is a curious one. He was evidently not concerned that ATFE officials be allowed to enforce federal law when his agency oversaw the “fast and furious” operation to walk guns into the hands of Mexican cartels.”
READ IT HERE: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/kobach
2. Kansas Governor Sam Brownback responds, not backing down
Thanks Holder for his opinion, asserts the authority of the people. ”The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will.”
READ IT HERE: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/brownback
3. Missouri legislature backs them up. A day after Holder’s threat, the Missouri Senate passed their version of the 2nd amendment Preservation Act by a veto-proof majority – effectively thumbing their nose at the AG.
READ IT HERE: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/missouriHB436
4. Will Texas join in? On Saturday, the Texas House will vote on HB928, a bill that would make most federal gun control measures “nearly impossible to enforce.”
DETAILS HERE: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/texasHB928
From Mad Medic: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From Mad Medic:
The Crusades Still Are in Progress…At Least on the islamic Side. The Christian Side Has a Case of The Stupid…
By Aaron Goldstein on 5.1.13
Islam is at war with us.
If you want to understand why the Obama Administration uses the phrase “overseas contingency operation” instead of “war on terror”;if you want to know why the Obama Administration deemed the shootings at Fort Hood to be an act of “workplace violence” instead of an act of terrorism, and if you want to know why President Obama wouldn’t use the word terrorism to describe what happened either in Benghazi or Boston, I would like to take this moment to remind you of this passage from his speech to the Turkish Parliament on April 6, 2009:
I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. So let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.
Well, the United States may not be at war with Islam but that doesn’t mean a critical mass of Islam isn’t at war with us.
Read it all at The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/01/the-one-constant
From Mad Medic