Articles

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Hands Up, Don't Loot

The interior of the Ferguson Market and Liquor Store is littered with broken bottles and scattered snacks. Despite the plywood boards covering the windows and doors, looters with their faces covered in bandanas helped themselves to anything they could find as those who came to memorialize Michael Brown carried on his work.

The violence in Ferguson didn't begin when a police officer shot Michael Brown. It began when a 300 lb thug robbed the Ferguson Market and abused a clerk. The release of the video showing the obese criminal assaulting the clerk led to a terrified statement from the store manager that he had not called the police and had nothing to do with the release of the video.

“They kill us if they think we are responsible," he said.

That is what this conflict is about. The police exist so that Ferguson Market and a hundred other stores can do business without being robbed or murdered. Darren Wilson, the officer who shot Michael Brown, was holding down the thin line that makes it possible for stores to stay open and children to go to school.

When the police pulled back, the rioting and looting began in earnest. A mob forced its way into Ferguson Market and other stores. Governor Nixon, a critic of the police was forced to turn to the National Guard.

After all the lectures about militarization, there was no better solution to the violence than the military. The police were never the problem. The looters and rioters were.

The photos of protesters with their hands in the air confronting police in riot gear told a very misleading story. But the real story was sitting in a video held by the Ferguson police and the Justice Department. It was the video of Michael Brown assaulting a clerk at Ferguson Market.

The Justice Department and Governor Nixon did not want the video released because it put the emphasis back where it should have been all along. This was not a conflict between Michael Brown and the police. It was a conflict between Michael Brown and a Ferguson Market worker.

We are all that worker. 

Any one of us can be targeted by a Michael Brown at any time. Every week delivers up fresh new victims of the knockout game. A pregnant woman. An elderly man. A child.

The police are the common defense we use to protect ourselves against the kind of society where store workers have to fear being killed. They are not perfect, but they are far better than the rule of the Michael Browns who take what they want and attack anyone who tries to stop them.

In Ferguson there was a choice between looters wandering around shouting "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" and ordinary citizens crying out "Hands Up, Don't Loot". Shouting "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" at a police officer might work. Shouting "Hands Up, Don't Loot” at a looter won’t.

And that is why we have police forces. As flawed as they are, they follow some rules. The looters follow no rules at all.

Despite all the talk about the militarization of the police, there is very little discussion of why. The police and the prisons are a societal immune response to an infection.

Talking about the immune response as if it exists entirely apart from the infection is how we ended up with hysterical coverage of the unarmed teen shot in the back by a crazed racist officer. Not only was the media take on the story a lie, but it removed the context of the crime from the response to the crime. That was what made Brown's shooting seem senseless and insane.

Stripping away the rioting and looting from the police in riot gear made the law enforcement response seem deranged and insane. It's only when we see the rioting, the looting and the arson, the shots fired and Molotov cocktails thrown that the heavy gear suddenly has a context.

This is a trick that the left has been playing for a very long time. In Ferguson or Gaza, in Afghanistan or New York, it focuses on what soldiers and police do without the context of what they are responding to. Watch a few hours of media coverage from Gaza and you’ll conclude that Israel is fighting a war against crying children. Without footage of Hamas terrorists or Israeli children under fire, the Israelis seem like murderous lunatics.

And that is exactly what the media wants you to think.

If the United States continues bombing ISIS for another month, the media will stop showing photos of crying Yazidi refugees and instead show us the crying Sunni Arab children of the families in Mosul who support ISIS. And then the United States will start looking like maniacs who are out to murder crying children for no reason at all. Most people will forget that we got into it to save the Yazidis from genocide at the hands of Sunni Muslim supremacists and they will shake their heads.

This happens all the time.

The media gave us every detail of Clayton Lockett's suffering after his botched execution. It didn't tell us how he raped one teenage girl and shot her friend and buried her alive while she begged for her life. It didn't even tell us that Lockett died horribly because opponents of the death penalty had been working overtime to cut off the supply of reliable lethal injection drugs.

Without that context, the justice system seemed monstrous for making a man suffer while the monster was passed off as the innocent victim of the senseless brutality of the system.

All systems and people are flawed, but our law enforcement and military are reactive. When we don't talk about what they are reacting to, then there is nothing meaningful to say. 

We don't have SWAT teams because law enforcement has gone completely insane. We have them because of race riots and urban guerrilla warfare. Without Watts, the Black Panthers and the SLA, the police militarization would probably never have existed. 

The militarization of the police was a response to left-wing violence and terror. And the left knows it. 

If the left hadn't spent much of the last century inciting race riots and setting up terrorist groups, there wouldn't be police officers armed for war. 

If not for the left's disastrous social experiments, the War on Drugs would never have been necessary. Instead the left trashes social values and criminal laws and then complains about the authoritarian rebound from the crime waves that follow. The wealthy liberal who snorts cocaine and dashes from sexual encounter to encounter can walk away with little damage done. The same behavior in the ghetto leaves behind shattered lives and destroyed communities because there is no safety net for it.

Finally, if the left hadn't shifted immigration over to the Third World while sympathizing with Islamic terrorists, September 11 and its law enforcement and military aftermath would never have been necessary.

This is why the left tears away the context from a crisis. If we began to genuinely discuss why there are police officers dressed like soldiers or TSA agents examining your shoes, the line would trace all the way back to the policies and agendas of the left.

The left isn't just covering up for the rioters and the looters, the terrorists and the murderers. It is covering up its own role in causing all of this.

That is why its cultural apparatus snips away the context, reacting to the reaction as if it were the cause. The left keeps yammering about finding the root cause, but it is the root cause. The root cause isn't poverty. It's not racism. It's the left.

Communists realized how useful race riots and the authoritarian backlash could be to their agenda. Terrorists don't just aim for the target; they also exploit the fallout to polarize a society.

That is what the left has been doing for generations since.

Everything from the Weathermen to September 11 became a means of polarizing the response while removing the context. The left plants the bombs and then acts as if the security men running around are insane fascists who could have no other possible motive except abusing innocent people.

Ferguson is more of the same. The left's army of activists and reporters troop down to the city. The activists start the violence while the reporters dramatize it. The coverage polarizes Americans and gives the left another hook for hanging on to power long after its economic policies have been as thoroughly discredited as those of the Soviet Union.

Law enforcement is an immune system. If we have an overdeveloped and oversensitive immune system, that's worth discussing, but it has to be discussed in the context of the infection it is reacting to. Until we treat the infection of the left, the country will be caught in the same cycle of crime and authoritarian backlash, liberals who open the door for criminals and conservatives who slam it shut.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

What is Wrong with ISIS, is What is Wrong with Islam

Know your enemy. To know what ISIS is, we have to clear away the media myths about ISIS.

ISIS is not a new phenomenon.

Wahhabi armies have been attacking Iraq in order to wipe out Shiites for over two hundred years. One of the more notably brutal attacks took place during the administration of President Thomas Jefferson.

That same year the Marine Corps saw action against the Barbary Pirates and West Point opened, but even Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Howard Zinn chiming via Ouija board would have trouble blaming the Wahhabi assault on the Iraqi city of Kerbala in 1802 on the United States or an oil pipeline.

Forget the media portrayals of ISIS as a new extreme group that even the newly moderate Al Qaeda thinks is over the top, its armies are doing the same things that Wahhabi armies have been doing for centuries. ISIS has Twitter accounts, pickup trucks and other borrowed Western technology, but otherwise it’s just a recurring phenomenon that has always been part of Islam. Sunnis and Shiites have been killing each other for over a thousand years. Declaring other Muslims to be infidels and killing them is also a lot older than the suicide bomb vest.

Al Qaeda and ISIS are at odds because its Iraqi namesake had a different agenda. Al Qaeda always had different factions with their own agendas. These factions were not more extreme or less extreme. They just had different nationalistic backgrounds and aims.

The Egyptian wing of Al Qaeda was obsessed with Egypt. Bin Laden was obsessed with Saudi Arabia. Some in Al Qaeda wanted a total world war. Others wanted to focus on taking over Muslim countries as bases. These differences sometimes led to threats and even violence among Al Qaeda members.

Bin Laden prioritized Saudi Arabia and America. That made it possible for Al Qaeda to pick up training from Hezbollah which helped make 9/11 possible. This low level cooperation with Iran was endangered when Al Qaeda in Iraq made fighting a religious war with Shiites into its priority.

That did not mean that Bin Laden liked Shiites and thought that AQIQ was “extreme” for killing them. This was a tactical disagreement over means.

During the Iraq War, Bin Laden had endorsed Al Qaeda in Iraq’s goal of fighting the Shiite “Rejectionists” by framing it as an attack on America. AQIQ’s Zarqawi had privately made it clear that he would not pledge allegiance to Osama bin Laden unless the terrorist leader endorsed his campaign against Shiites.

Bin Laden and the Taliban had been equally comfortable with Sipahe Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi which provided manpower for the Taliban while massacring Shiites in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Last year LEJ had killed over a hundred Shiite Hazaras in one bombing.

The narrative that ISIS was more extreme than Al Qaeda because it killed Shiites and other Muslims doesn’t hold up in even recent history.

The media finds it convenient to depict the rise of newly extremist groups being radicalized by American foreign policy, Israeli blockades or Danish cartoons. A closer look however shows us that these groups did not become radicalized, rather they increased their capabilities.

ISIS understood from the very beginning that targeting Shiites and later Kurds would give it more appeal to Sunni Arabs inside Iraq and around the Persian Gulf. Bin Laden tried to rally Muslims by attacking America. ISIS has rallied Muslims by killing Shiites, Kurds, Christians and anyone else it can find.

Every news report insists that ISIS is an extreme outlier, but if that were really true then it would not have been able to conquer sizable chunks of Iraq and Syria. ISIS became huge and powerful because its ideology drew the most fighters and the most financial support. ISIS is powerful because it’s popular.

ISIS has become more popular and more powerful than Al Qaeda because Muslims hate other Muslims even more than they hate America. Media reports treat ISIS as an outside force that inexplicably rolls across Iraq and terrorizes everyone in its path. In reality, it’s the public face of a Sunni coalition. When ISIS massacres Yazidis, it’s not just following an ideology; it’s giving Sunni Arabs what they want.

Jamal Jamir, a surviving Yazidi, told CNN that his Arab neighbors had joined in the killing.

ISIS is dominating parts of Iraq and Syria because it draws on the support of a sizable part of the Sunni Arab population. It has their support because it is committed to killing or driving out Christians, Yazidis, Shiites and a long list of peoples in Iraq who either aren’t Muslims or aren’t Arabs and giving their land and possessions to the Sunni Arabs.

The media spent years denying that the Syrian Civil War was a sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites. It’s unable to deny the obvious in Iraq, but it carefully avoids considering the implications.

Genocides are local. They are rarely carried out without the consent and participation of the locals. An army alone will have trouble committing genocide unless it has the cooperation of a local population that wants to see another group exterminated. When we talk about ISIS, we are really talking about Sunni Arabs in Iraq and Syria. Not all of them, but enough that ISIS and its associated groups have become the standard bearers of the Sunni civil wars in Syria and Iraq.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain can complain that we could have avoided the rise of ISIS if we had only armed the right sort of Jihadists in Syria. But if ISIS became dominant because its agenda had popular support, then it would not have mattered whom we armed or didn’t arm.

We armed the Iraqi military to the teeth, but it didn’t do any good because the military didn’t represent any larger consensus in an Iraq divided along religious and ethnic lines.

To understand ISIS, we have to unlearn many of the bad ideas we picked up since September 11. Terrorists, the media tell us, represent some extreme edge of the population. If they have popular support, it’s only because the civilian population has somehow become radicalized. (And usually it’s our fault.)

And yet that model doesn’t hold up. It never did.

The religious and ethnic strife in the Middle East out of which ISIS emerged and which has become its brand, goes back over a thousand years. If support for terrorism emerges from radicalization, then the armies of Islam were radicalized in the time of Mohammed and have never been de-radicalized.

Terrorism is not reactive. As ISIS has shown us, it has a vision for the future. The Caliphate, like the Reich, is a utopia which can only be created through the mass murder and repression of all those who do not belong. This isn’t a new vision. It’s the founding vision of Islam.

What is wrong with ISIS is what is wrong with Islam.

We can defeat ISIS, but we should remember that its roots are in the hearts of the Sunni Muslims who have supported it. ISIS and Al Qaeda are only symptoms of the larger problem.

We can see the larger problem flying Jihadist flags in London and New Jersey. We can see it trooping through Australian and Canadian airports to join ISIS. We can see it in the eyes of the Sunni Arabs murdering their Yazidi neighbors. ISIS is an expression of the murderous hate within Islam. We are not only at war with an acronym, but with the dark hatred in the hearts of men, some of whom are in Iraq and Pakistan. And some of whom live next door.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

How to Write About Israel

Writing about Israel is a booming field. No news agency, be it ever so humble, can avoid embedding a few correspondents and a dog's tail of stringers into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, to sit in cafes clicking away on their laptops, meeting up with leftist NGO's and the oppressed Muslim of the week.

At a time when international desks are being cut to the bone, this is the one bone that the newshounds won't give up. Wars can be covered from thousands of miles away, genocide can go to the back page, but, when a rock flies in the West Bank, there had better be a correspondent with a fake continental accent and a khaki shirt to cover it.

Writing about Israel isn't hard. Anyone who has consumed a steady diet of media over the years already knows all the bullet points. The trick is arranging them artistically, like so many wilted flowers, in the story of this week's outrage.

Israel is hot, even in the winter, with the suggestion of violence brimming under the surface. It should be described as a "troubled land." Throw in occasional ironic biblical references and end every article or broadcast by emphasizing that peace is still far away.

It has two types of people; the Israelis who live in posh houses stocked with all the latest appliances and the Arabs who live in crumbling shacks that are always in danger of being bulldozed. The Israelis are fanatical, the Arabs are passionate. The Israelis are hate-filled, while the Arabs are embittered. The Israelis have everything while the Arabs have nothing.

Avoid mentioning all the mansions that you pass on the way to interviewing some Palestinian Authority or Hamas bigwig. When visiting a terrorist prisoner in an Israeli jail, be sure to call him a militant, somewhere in the fifth paragraph, but do not mention the sheer amount of food in the prison, especially if he is on a hunger strike. If you happen to notice that the prisoners live better than most Israelis, that is something you will not refer to. Instead describe them as passionate and embittered. Never ask them how many children they killed or how much they make a month. Ask them what they think the prospects for peace are. Nod knowingly when they say that it's up to Israel.

Weigh every story one way. Depersonalize Israelis, personalize Muslims. One is a statistic, the other a precious snowflake. A Muslim terrorist attack is always in retaliation for something, but an Israeli attack is rarely a retaliation for anything. When Israeli planes bomb a terrorist hideout, suggest that this latest action only feeds the "Cycle of Violence" and quote some official who urges Israel to return to peace negotiations-- whether or not there actually are any negotiations to return to.

Center everything around peace negotiations. If Israel has any domestic politics that don't involve checkpoints and air strikes, do your best to avoid learning about them. Frame all Israeli politics by asking whether a politician is finally willing to make the compromises that you think are necessary for peace. Always sigh regretfully and find them wanting. Assume that all Israelis think the same way. Every vote is a referendum on the peace process. A vote for a conservative party means that Israelis hate peace.

The Israelis can also be divided into two categories. There are the good Israelis, who wear glasses, own iPads and live in trendy neighborhoods. They are very concerned that the country is losing its soul by oppressing another people. They strum out-of-date American peace songs on guitars that they play badly, but which you will describe them as playing "soulfully", and they show up at rallies demanding that the government make peace with the Palestinians.

Your good Israelis invariably volunteer or work for some NGO, a fact that you may or may not mention in your article, but you are not to discuss who funds their NGO, particularly if it's a foreign government. Write about them as if they are the hope of an otherwise brutish and unreasonable Israel too obsessed with killing and destroying to listen to the hopeful voices of its children.

When writing about them, act as if they are representative of the country's youth and its best and brightest, which for all you know they might be, because you rarely meet anyone who isn't like them, because you rarely meet anyone who isn't like you. When you do it's either a taxi driver, repairman or some working-class fellow whom you have nothing in common with, and who turns out to be a raving militant when it comes to the terrorism question.

These are the other Israelis. The big swarthy men who have no interest in alternative art exhibits. If you have to deal with them at all, get a quote from them about their hopes for peace and how much they dislike the government. Pretend that the two things are connected, and that everything that your friends, who are aspiring artists and playwrights, as well as volunteer humanitarians, told you about the country being ready to rise up against right-wingers like Barak and Netanyahu, to demand peace, is absolutely true. Don't ask yourself why the country keeps electing right-wingers; if you do, turn it into an essay that touches on Holocaust trauma and biblical hatred.

At some point, you will have to write about the thin bearded men in black hats rushing through the streets on their inscrutable errands. Describe them as "Ultra-Orthodox", even if the word does not seem to mean anything, and pretend that they're all the same. If anyone tries to explain the distinctions to you, ignore them. When writing about them, be sure to imply that they are ignorant and fanatical. Mention their growing numbers as a danger to the survival of the state, associate them wrongly with the right wing and throw in some of the complaints from your friends about the "Schorim", the blacks,  moving in and destroying secular neighborhoods.

Israeli soldiers should be depicted looming menacingly over children. Your stringers are already experienced at urging a child into camera range, then getting down on one knee and tilting the camera up just as an Israeli soldier walks into the frame. If there isn't time to set up the shot, get what you can. The photo can be cropped afterward to show just the Israeli soldier and the Palestinian child, even if the two are not actually interacting in any way.

In print, contrast the bored detachment of the soldiers with the prolonged miserable suffering of the Arab Muslims. Checkpoint lines should consist entirely of old and pregnant women waiting to visit their families. If you are Jewish then mention that the soldiers have given you special treatment on account of your race, even if the actual reason is because you are a journalist and your kind doesn't set off bombs, your kind acts as the propaganda corps for those who set off bombs.

When visiting "settlers," a term that currently covers a sizable portion of the country, describe them as "dogged" and "fanatical." Dwell on their beards and on their assault rifles. Find some American ones and disarm them with hometown mentions of Brooklyn or Baltimore and then dig for a hateful comment. If you can't get a properly damning quote from one of them, get it from one of their children. If you have no luck there, hit up one of your NGO friends, preferably with a degree, to give you a quote on the danger that they pose to peace.

Convey to the reader that there is something disturbing about the tenacity with which they cling to the land, while making it clear that they will have to be ethnically cleansed from the land for there to be peace. Do not use the word "ethnic cleansing," use "evacuation," it sounds cleaner. Be sure to mention that they believe G-d gave them the land. Mention something about the Caananites and the Amalekites. Talk to the girls and contrast their fresh youthful faces with their unwillingness to make peace with their neighbors.

Pay a visit to Jerusalem. Mention a place or two that you like to eat, make sure that it is owned by Arabs, accept their tale of being here for thousands of years with complete credulity. If they mention that they are worried about East Jerusalem being taken over by the Palestinian Authority, don't report that. Do report any complaints that they have about the Judaization of Jerusalem. Draw a picture of the neighborhood as a wonderfully multicultural place dating back to when the Jordanians expelled all the Jews—that is now under assault by the returning Jews. Mourn all the tourists and the Jewish families who are getting in the way of your orientalism. Be sure to remind readers that the Muslim name of the city, or as you will write, the Arab name, is Al-Quds, and that it is holy to three great religions.

Visit with politicians. Israeli Prime Ministers will invariably be unpleasant obstructionist types, if they make jokes, describe it as a transparent effort to curry favor with you. Generals are even worse. Press them about the separation wall, checkpoints, misery and deprivation in the territories. Then get your NGO friends to introduce you to friendly left-wing pols who will commiserate with you about the state of the peace process and the leap of faith that needs to be taken to make peace. Get a quote from them about the next generation and describe them as saddened by their government's unwilling to make peace.

Palestinian politicians are always willing to make peace, even when they aren't. Work at it and you will get a hypothetical quote about their willingness to one day live in peace with the Jews. Turn that quote into the centerpiece of your article. Contrast it with Israeli leaders who still refuse to come to the table. Never ask them any tough questions about the budget, their support for terrorists or why they refuse to negotiate. Instead feed them softball questions, take their talking points and plug them into the template for the same article that your predecessors have been writing since the seventies.

If an Israeli tells you that there is no such thing as Palestinians, that they're gangs of Muslim militias who have no interest in running their own country, or that Jordan is the actual Palestinian State, ignore him. Details like that don't matter and you're not here to litigate history, you're here to tell a story. The same story that has been told for generations about villainous Israelis and the heroic resistance fighters battling against them.

Don't dig into the relationships between Arab clans, the depth of nepotism within the Palestinian Authority or the lack of elections. Don't discuss Israeli poverty except when your NGO friends ask you to write about their work. Don't mention the epidemic of car thefts or land seizures. Don't try to understand what all the different religious subgroups are really all about. You were sent here to tell a simple story and your job is to tell that story.

Write about the hills and the blood-red sunsets, mention all the armies that probably passed over them in a history you never bothered to learn. Talk about your mixed feelings as a Jew or part-Jew or someone who has Jewish friends, at the sight of Jews oppressing another people. Describe the black soulful eyes of a Palestinian leader or terrorist or terrorist leader. Write up the settler children who are taught to hate. Write about how all the guns make you uncomfortable. Close with an old man who expresses hope that one day peace will come to this troubled land.

Then go home.





Friday, August 15, 2014

Friday Afternoon Roundup - The Long Way Around



LEARNING FROM HISTORY

ISIS represents a familiar Saudi tactic. It’s the revival of the Ikhwan, the armies of Wahhabi bandit raiders who united Saudi Arabia under the House of Saud by terrorizing Sunni rivals and Shiite Muslims. The ISIS atrocities of today were business as usual for the Ikhwan who referred to other Muslims as infidels, invaded Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan, killed some 400,000 people and created a million refugees.

(Similar events had also taken place earlier such as the Wahhabi sack of Kerbala in Iraq in 1802. A contemporary description relates, “The elderly, women, and children—everybody died by the barbarians’ sword.”)

The Ikhwan, like Al Qaeda, turned on the Saudis and their attacks on British territory attracted Imperial attention. The Saudis used British air strikes to put down the Ikhwan in the 1920s and transformed what was left of them into the country’s National Guard. This pattern becomes familiar to us if we swap out the Ikhwan for Al Qaeda in its various forms. The difference is that modern technology and oil wealth have given the Wahhabi raiders a truly global reach as we discovered on September 11.

If Genocide Won’t Unite Iraq, Nothing Will




Family of Dead Palestinians “Killed by Israel” Found to be Alive




ISLAMOPHOBIA - UN Condemns ISIS for Raping Teenage Boys




WHAT JIHAD?

 A Facebook page that appears to be his shows that he “liked” Zaid Shakir and Bilal Philips. Philips was also named an unindicted conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing.

He also likes Khalid Yassin who called for killing gays

New Jersey Muslim “Innocently” Flying ISIS Flag “Liked” Conspirator in WTC Bombing





Al Gore Sues Al Jazeera for Fraud - What happens when one fraud sues another fraud for fraud?




CAUSE AND EFFECT

 The special weapons and tactics concept originated in the late 1960s as a result of several sniping incidents against civilians and police officers around the country. Many of these incidents occurred in Los Angeles during and after the Watts Riot.

If anyone could be labeled as the “founder” of LAPD’s SWAT unit, it would be John Nelson, a former Marine and Vietnam War veteran who joined the LAPD as a patrol officer.

John had served in a USMC elite Force Recon unit during WWII and based the SWAT concept on the Recon units, believing that a small squad of highly trained police officers armed with special weapons would be more effective in a riotous situation than a massive police response.

On Dec. 8, 1969, the department called on SWAT to help serve a warrant for illegal weapons at the Black Panther headquarters.

The heavily armed Black Panthers resisted and attempted to shoot it out with 40 SWAT officers. Thousands of rounds of ammunition were fired during a four-hour siege, resulting in the wounding of three Panthers and three officers. The Panthers eventually surrendered.

The Police Became “Militarized” in Response to Race Riots





While Vets Died, VA Wasted $400 Million on Green Energy




 NEW GAME, OLD RULES

America today has more than a little in common with the period of the great immigration backlash of the 1920s. Economic uncertainty and a period of isolationism after an exhausting foreign war combined with the arrival of huge numbers of immigrants led to an immigration backlash back then. It would not be unprecedented for it to lead to an immigration backlash all over again.

Economic malaise and political isolationism are just as present in the United States as in Europe. The amnesty push polarized the issue and created a major crisis. Obama took on the role of America’s EU, an internationalist force dedicated to unlimited immigration with no concern for the citizenry.

The anti-immigration consensus stunned Tories and Labour alike in the UK. Both parties are still reeling from how easily UKIP exploited popular anger over immigration. And both parties have been forced to learn how to talk to working class voters again. If the same political tsunami hits America, Republicans and Democrats will be even more unprepared to deal with a phenomenon that will make the Tea Party disruptions over ObamaCare seem like a fond memory for the political establishment.

The Amnesty Radicals’ Big Mistake




Did Someone Put Obama in Charge of Policing a Small City in Missouri?




CAUSE AND EFFECT II

“It’s already been disabled! Don’t worry – it won’t explode!” he shouted, jumping up and down on the bomb.”

Hamas Bomb Expert Who Accidentally Blew Up Hamas Bomb Squad Liked to Jump Up and Down on Bombs




Hillary Was Against Arming the Syrian Rebels Before She Was for Arming Them




COME IN, MR. GADDAFI

The UK is all about human rights. That’s why it warned Israel that if Hamas breaks the ceasefire again, it will shut down some weapons export licenses to Israel.

But maybe Israel will just be able to get them secondhand from some of the UK arms industry’s clients. A group that includes China, Zimbabwe, Iran and Sudan.

The UK arms industry’s client list reads like a complete horror show. It even allowed the export of nerve gas components to Syria.

And Russia, despite those sanctions, the licenses are still in place


UK Won’t Sell Weapons to Israel, Will Sell Weapons to Gaddafi, Iran and Pakistan





COMRADE, COMRADE

“One thing has come out strong over the past five years is that Comrade Tony Ehrenreich is the most loved, most popular and generally acceptable amongst all racial divides than any other candidate for the Mayoral seat of Cape Town,” Comrade Tony says of himself.

“Comrade has agreed to serve the people of Cape Town on the mandate of the workers organization – COSATU and under the banner of the of the African National Congress (ANC), the organization that brought respect, dignity, peace and hope to all the races of South Africa.”

But despite Comrade Tony’s commitment to bringing peace to all the races and how much all the races love him, the Comrade really hates Jews.

South African Labor Leader Calls for Murder of Jews Over Gaza




UN Secretary General Promises This is the Last Time He Will Rebuild Gaza




THE GRANTS, THE GRANTS

“We know that different human races actually do not exist,” Swedish Integration Minister Erik Ullenhag told Sveriges Television.

“We also know that the fundamental grounds of racism are based on the belief that there are different races."

The proposal has come under sharp criticism, however, from the National Afro-Swedish Association.

Sabuni said the government’s plan would be a serious roadblock in the fight against racism.

“How can you apply for a grant for fighting racism if the concept of race doesn’t exist in legislation?”

Sweden Announces that Races Don’t Exist

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Barack Obama's Incredible Vacation Wars

Obama has a way of starting wars while on vacation.

During the Libyan War, Obama declared from Martha’s Vineyard that, "Tonight, the momentum against the Gaddafi regime has reached a tipping point."

Then he went to play golf and accompanied Valerie Jarrett on a visit to the home of the CEO of Comcast.

It was August and the Libyan War had been going on for months. NATO planes were conducting hundreds of sorties. But their commander was on vacation.

That was only fitting since Obama had begun the Libyan War while hanging out in sunnier climes.

His ponderous announcement, “Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya” may have had an American flag in the background as stage dressing, but it was actually delivered from a Brazilian convention center.

Obama’s war announcement was made on the first day of his Latin American trip as if he had either made the decision to bomb Libya at the very last minute or he didn’t care enough to postpone a foreign trip for a day to be able to make the announcement from the White House.

The Egyptian military seemed to have picked up on Obama’s priorities when it decided crack down on his Muslim Brotherhood allies while the great man was vacationing in August at Martha’s Vineyard.

Obama had headed off on his vacation even though Egypt was burning. As the New York Times put it, “Mr. Obama was briefed on the situation by his national security adviser, Susan E. Rice. But he appeared determined not to allow events in Egypt to interrupt a day that, besides golf, included cocktails at the home of a major political donor, Brian Roberts.”

Brian Roberts is the aforementioned CEO of Comcast. By the time Obama could tear himself away from golf and his Comcast sugar daddy, hundreds were dead and it was all over but the shouting.

This August, Obama at least had the good grace to announce belated air strikes against ISIS from Washington D.C. before flying off to Martha’s Vineyard for yet another vacation.

Vacations have become the framework for Obama’s wars. As soon as he goes to war, he gets as far away from the White House as he can and heads in the direction of the biggest beach he can find.

These vacation wars only add to the sense of unseriousness surrounding his military efforts. Obama’s wars begin with an announcement that he is “weighing” or “considering” his options. This is a process that can, as in the case of Syria, continue indefinitely.

It’s entirely possible that while vacationing at Martha’s Vineyard in August 2015, Obama will suddenly put down his slice of blueberry cake at the Beach Plum Restaurant and startle the CEO of Comcast along with other patrons by announcing that we begin bombing Damascus in 5 minutes.

Congress and the public are left out of the loop in these weighty deliberations which seem to consist of Obama holing up with Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett and a bunch of Washington Post and New York Times editorials to decide whom he should bomb and whether he should bomb anyone at all.

Meanwhile his targets have had months and sometimes years to prepare for being bombed.

George W. Bush was accused of being an irresponsible cowboy, but it’s Obama who seems to go to war on a whim.

Obama was talked into bombing Libya by Hillary Clinton, but she couldn’t talk him into bombing Syria. He dithered endlessly over Afghanistan, sending mixed signals and replacing generals. In Iraq, he proved every bit as indecisive when it came to extending the presence of US forces. Each time he committed to a war, it was only after prolonged dithering and for unserious reasons.

Why did Obama finally decide to begin bombing ISIS? The New York Times quoted a senior administration official as saying that he was worried about the political impact of another Benghazi.

That’s not leadership, but it’s also nothing new from a politician who came up with ObamaCare out of a last minute need to have something to show off for progressives. Whether it’s gay marriage or illegal alien amnesty, Obama has a track record of suddenly committing to a culture war after years of pressure out of fear that if he doesn’t do something, everyone will realize that he has no idea what he’s doing.

His wars follow the same pattern.

Obama rarely goes to war on his own initiative. Instead after he gets hit with enough criticism from the Washington Post and the New York Times, he finally signs off on air strikes against someone.

Once the air strikes begin, the enemy discovers that Obama likes the idea of minimal force. Kerry promised that the air strikes on Syria would be “unbelievably small” in response to Assad’s violation of Obama’s WMD red line. But if your air strikes are going to be unbelievably small, why even bother?

Bill Clinton also had a penchant for useless unbelievably small strikes that accomplished nothing. These strikes didn’t stop Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Al Qaeda because Bill Clinton, as he admitted on the day before the September 11 attacks, was too worried about collateral damage.

The collateral damage from Clinton’s failure to take out Osama bin Laden however ended up being thousands of American lives and countless numbers of Afghans.

Now Obama is launching his unbelievably small strikes against ISIS’ borrowed armor while neglecting targeted strikes against its leaders. The Pentagon has already admitted that the air strikes will not have a significant impact on ISIS, possibly preventing it from advancing further, but without rolling it back.

In Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, Obama gave the impression that he wanted to keep his distance from any war even while risking American lives. Going away right before a war is one of his ways of avoiding any association with the conflict.

Obama will show up for the victory dance when the war is over, but if things change then he just as quickly disavows his part in the war.

Or even in the ending of a war.

After building his 2008 campaign around pulling out of Iraq and his 2012 campaign around patting himself on the back for eventually doing it, Obama has now shifted over to blaming Bush for his own withdrawal from Iraq. If Obama can’t even take credit for his signature anti-war policy once it becomes even a little bit controversial, it’s obvious that he will do anything to avoid being held accountable for the pursuit of an actual war.

That is the mindset from which “unbelievably small” air strikes and vacation wars come from.

Obama’s failure to keep the pressure on Al Qaeda in Iraq after the withdrawal allowed ISIS to regroup and emerge at the head of a Sunni coalition. Obama claimed that Al Qaeda in Iraq, despite having killed countless American soldiers over the years, was just a JV team. And so he left ISIS free to operate until it was actually a day away from committing genocide. Then the air strikes and the vacation began.

If ISIS is beaten, then Obama will cheerfully come back from vacation to take credit for it. His perpetual campaign will issue commemorate mugs and shirts. If ISIS isn’t beaten, it will turn out that Bush snuck into the White House and ordered air strikes on ISIS while Obama was golfing at Martha’s Vineyard.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

The Romance of the Fall

Robin Williams is the keyword of the hour. Seeing the rash of stories about him, you might think that he went out at the high point of his career. And yet those same people couldn't be bothered to actually watch the movies he was starring in.

The closest he came to a starring role in the last few years was Old Dogs. It made less than $50 million. Before that there was License to Wed. A handful of people saw that.

Last year he was back on television. And the show he was on was cancelled after its first season.

The same public eating up Robin Williams stories now was bored and disinterested. A week ago, it wouldn't have paid attention to Robin Williams if he had paid them to. It didn't go to see his movies. It didn't watch his TV show.

Now that he committed suicide, it temporarily can't get enough of him.

History is speedily rewritten to put him at the center of everything. And yet how many of those same people turning him into the trending topic of everything tuned in to the series finale of The Crazy Ones? The ratings say that not a whole lot of people did.

What makes Robin Williams suddenly so fascinating and compelling is that he killed himself. It's not just that he's dead. It's that he died tragically. It's that he took his own life.

Lauren Bacall, an arguably greater star, isn't picking up the same headlines. She didn't kill herself. There's no terribly compelling backstory of drugs, depression and failed marriages to pick over as the cause of her death.

She just died.

If Robin Williams had died of natural causes, he would have lingered briefly in the news before being shouldered aside by a pop star's outfit. It's his self-destruction that makes his story a magnet for a society that is destroying itself.

It's one thing to slow down to gawk at a car accident, but it's another thing to do it while your own car is crashing into a concrete barrier.

The society that can't get enough of a man who killed himself is killing itself in much the same ways. It suffers from impulse control problems, it's addictions are out of control, it ricochets wildly between frenzied pleasure seeking and deep depression. It has no hope for the future but is constantly cracking jokes.

Robin Williams was on a streak in the nineties. Then his career died in the oughts.

I'm not particularly familiar with what was going on in his personal life, but one obvious metric is that he passed the fifty mark. He was now officially old. Within a few years the career of an actor who had regularly been starring in big movies was gone.

Our society doesn't like getting old. Many of the people mourning Williams are really mourning their own youth. They're marking dates on a calendar, scrolling back to see when Good Morning Vietnam or even Good Will Hunting came out and wondering if so much time could have really passed.

But the society of the cliff, the one that is slowing down to gawk as his body is being wheeled into an ambulance while their car is going over the cliff, finds the instinct of self-destruction compelling. In feeling sorry for him, they are really feeling sorry for themselves.

And that is the new role of fame, to embody not the hopeful and the vibrant, but the destructive. To entertain the people and then to die for the people. To distract the audience from its own mortality.

The compelling stories are no longer on screen, they are off screen. Movies and television are becoming the background for the reality dramas of fame. Audiences are less interested in cinematic evocations of hope, in the dramas of morality and heroism. They prefer the real life dramas of people made famous making fools of themselves in public until they either leave the stage or die.

Robin Williams never left the stage.

This isn't about Robin Williams, who was after all someone's father and someone's husband. Our country is run, politically and culturally, by men and women who make him seem like the soul of rectitude. They just don't announce it on stage. Or when they do, like David Carr or Barack Obama, they spin it as part of their upward trajectory. But there is no upward trajectory.

Our society is dying because we traded the virtues of character for fake inspiration. And fake inspiration is ridiculously cheap and ridiculously worthless. It asks nothing of people and it gives them nothing.

Robin Williams mimed that kind of inspiration in countless movies. And he wasn't the only one. What Obama offered America was the same empty hopeless hope, the invocation of an artificial inspiration created through tone and expression, but that asked nothing of our character.

Deep down everyone can sense the hollowness. It's what leads them to stop and gawk. The crowds who want inspiration are really looking for something darker. They want a hope to save them from themselves. They want some inspiration that will prevent them from seeing who they really are. And if they can't have that, they want an excuse for their deaths and the death of their society.

Actors understand better than anyone that there is no escaping from ourselves. It's the audience that is fooled. It's the audience that wants to believe in inspiration and immortality, and when the belief dies, it weeps over the corpse of the performer, tastes his despair and then moves on.

Character means making difficult decisions and taking responsibility for them. It's not something that our society does anymore. Too many of us have diseases or are victims or somehow disadvantaged. Character is individualistic. It asks us to walk the only path of escape from our own flaws by taking responsibility for them.

The alternative is the romance of the fall. The car headed for the concrete barrier. The society of the cliff pointing and laughing even while it's waiting to fall. Crowds begging for fake inspiration and dying as eternal victims because no one ever taught them how to choose life.

Each generation is called upon to take responsibility for its own choices. The failure to take responsibility is the death drive. Those who refuse to take responsibility are choosing death and the willingness to die attracts them. It embodies the death drive that their beliefs naturally lead to.

They romanticize death because they have chosen to abdicate their lives. Their deaths are a slow thing and may take generations to complete. It is a choice that they can always undo. The romance of the fall always ends in shadow. The end of character is also the death of the soul and the society.

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Hiroshima's Lessons for the War on Terror

In the summer of '45, the United States concluded a war that had come to be seen by some as unwinnable after the carnage at Iwo Jima with a bang.

On August 6th, the bomb fell on Hiroshima. And then on the 9th, it was Nagasaki's turn. Six days later, Japan, which had been preparing to fight to the last man, surrendered.

For generations of liberals those two names would come to represent the horror of America's war machine when they actually saved countless American and Japanese lives.

The two bombs stand in stark contrast to our endless nation-building exercises in which nothing is ever finished until we give up. Instead Truman cut the Gordian Knot and avoided a long campaign that would have depopulated Japan and destroyed the lives of a generation of American soldiers.

That we can talk about Japan as a victory, that the famous couple was caught kissing in Times Square rather than sighing in relief, is attributable to that decision to use the bomb. Without it, Japan would have been another Iraq or Vietnam, we might have eventually won at a terrible cost while destroying our willingness to fight any future wars and that would have given the USSR an early victory in Asia.

Professional soldiers understand the humanitarian virtue of ruthlessness. The pacifist civilian may gasp in horror at the sight of a mushroom cloud, but the professional soldier knows that the longer way around would have left every Japanese city looking far worse than Hiroshima.

More people died in the Battle of Okinawa on both sides than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 9 out of 10 buildings were destroyed. As much as a third of the island's population committed suicide, fled into caves that were bombed, were used as human shields or were killed when American soldiers found themselves unable to distinguish between Japanese soldiers posing as civilians and actual civilians.

And all that was in a part of Japan that was not fully aligned with its national identity. It does not take much to imagine what trying to capture Honshu would have looked like. Take the worst horrors of Vietnam and keep multiplying until you run out of imagination. If you run low, remember that at Okinawa the military was handing out grenades to civilians and its home defense plans involved encouraging the civilian population to commit suicide attacks.

The United States military did not understand the fanatical mindset of its enemies, but it did understand that they had to be fought with equal ruthlessness.

And now on another hot August, we find ourselves in another unwinnable war.  It isn't really unwinnable, but there is the sense that we have done everything possible and all we can do is live with it. As the left will tell us, more Americans died in car accidents in 2001 than on September 11.

Doubtlessly more Americans died in some assortment of accidents in 1941 than at Pearl Harbor. Instead of calling it a day that will live forever in infamy, FDR could have put their deaths into perspective by comparing them to the number of Americans killed by Polio and given a typical Obama speech warning the public not to jump to any conclusions.

Obama gave one of those conclusion-jumping speeches after Nidal Hasan murdered 13 Americans in the Fort Hood Massacre. He gave another one after the Boston Marathon bombings. Meanwhile the media jumped to all the right conclusions, speculating that Hasan might be a victim of secondary PTSD and that the Boston bombers were white tax protesters.

Finally the official report dismissed all conclusions and labeled an attack by a Muslim terrorist affiliated with a major Al Qaeda figure as a case of workplace violence. If the authors of that report had been available to write up the events of December 7 1941, they would have blamed Newton’s Third Law.

The report carefully avoided any mention of Islam, but at his trial, Hasan declared that he was an Islamic holy warrior, in papers he named Anwar Al-Awlaki as his mentor and claimed to be defending Islamic law against the scourge of democracy.

The spectacle of Nidal Hasan trying to communicate to a politically correct military bureaucracy that he really is a Muslim terrorist is almost comical. Before the shootings, he expressed sympathy for terrorists and put his Islamic holy warrior tag on his business cards. He did everything short of hiring a skywriter to fly over Fort Hood writing, "Nidal Hasan is a Muslim Terrorist".

After Hasan committed the massacre while dressed in Islamic garb and shouting "Allah Akbar", the same establishment went back to ignoring him. It must have deeply frustrated Hasan, whose entire legal defense is that he is a Muslim terrorist. Hasan's defense baffles a media which had spent years warning us not to jump to conclusions about a man named Hasan killing Americans only to find that Hasan had already adopted those conclusions as his own.

Hasan had declared war on the United States and has been trying to get someone to notice his declaration. That is a problem which he shares with his Al Qaeda masters. The United States has learned to notice terrorist threats, but not to understand them or deal with them.

On August 8, 1942,  Herbert Hans Haupt was sent to the electric chair. Haupt, a United States citizen, had joined a German raiding party into the United States. The trial of Haupt and his fellow conspirators lasted a month. It was over two months after their capture.

Haupt was put to death seven days after the conclusion of his trial. 

A few years after the war was over, a former soldier spotted a USC student in a Los Angeles Sears. During the war, the student, Tomoya Kawakita, had been noted for special acts of cruelty toward the captured American soldiers in the Oyema POW camp where 1 in 10 prisoners died of malnutrition.

Tomoya had earned the nickname "Meatball" for eating the rations meant for the POWs. The soldier,  had first met Tomoya when the latter attempted to tear off his tattoos while screaming about "American symbols of freedom."

Tomoya was also an American. He was arrested, put on trial and sentenced to death. In pronouncing sentence on him, the judge declared, "The only worthwhile use for the life of a traitor is to serve as an example to those of weak moral fiber who might hereafter be tempted to commit treason."

JFK disagreed, freeing him in one of his final official acts before his own assassination at the hands of a traitor who had defected to the USSR. Had Oswald been tried for treason after his return from Russia, the Kennedy assassination would have never happened; but by then, that pragmatic ruthlessness which had kept America going through Europe and Asia had been lost.

Imagine a general from August 2013 being sent back in time to take over the war in August 1945 and then watch as American soldiers are given handbooks on Japanese culture, forced to attend Shinto ceremonies and sent out without artillery and air support to avoid alienating the local population. The command dedicates much of its time to emphasizing that its war is not with Japan or the Japanese people, but a tiny minority of fanatical extremists.

And then watch as the war goes on for two decades.

Such a course might seem more merciful or moral, but it's neither. It prolongs the pain and suffering for both sides.

The failure by the stronger side to conclude a war when it has the upper hand is not kindness; it's cruelty. It perpetuates the conflict endlessly, dragging it out and opening the door for a prolonged civilian resistance with all the horrors that terrorism and guerrilla warfare can inflict on both sides.

In Vietnam, Iraq, Korea and Afghanistan, in the countries and wars where we pulled our punches, the civilian population was left worse off. The tactics that we thought were merciful were actually cruel, and their end result led to victories by monstrous forces like the Kim family or the Taliban who did far worse things to the civilian population than we ever dreamed of.

America was haunted by Hiroshima, when it should have been haunted by Okinawa. And so now it is haunted by Hasan and by his Al Qaeda comrades and by the Taliban and by entire networks of terrorist groups forming because we pulled our punches in the War on Terror.

There's some old advice about not drawing a gun unless you intend to use it. It's true for individuals and for nations. If you go to war, then you had better mean it. Wars are bloody and messy. They're not for the sort of people who think that putting "Smart" ahead of something automatically makes it better. And "meaning it" means being committed to crushing the enemy.

We don't understand Hasan and Nidal Hasan doesn't understand us. Like so many Islamic terrorists, Nidal Hasan believes that we are fighting a war against Islam, because it is what he would do in our place. He would have had no trouble understanding the America of 1945 that meant what it said, but he is lost trying to comprehend the America of 2013 which only wants to be liked, even when it's dropping bombs.

Hasan wants us to know that he hates us, but our leaders are terrified of the idea of being hated. Ever since Hiroshima, we want the world to love us. We don't want to be seen as the madmen who snuffed out hundreds of thousands of lives. Our enemies are not afraid to be feared and hated. We are.

Our greatest weakness is that we want our enemies to love us. And so we pretend that our enemies are really our friends. We turn wars into humanitarian exercises that inflict a much worse toll on both sides than an actual war would have and then we wonder what went wrong.

Now America faces an enemy whose chief power is hate. The Islamic terrorist has no other real asset except his hate. Unfortunately hate is our weakness. We are an empire terrified of being hated, a world power that shrivels at the thought that someone might not like us. And so the nation that dropped two atomic bombs in August 1945 wilts before the hatred of the Kamikazes of the Koran.

Friday, August 08, 2014

Friday Afternoon Roundup - Open Minds, Closed Hearts



 LEADER-SHIP


The photo was retweeted by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, who had just gotten through explaining that Obama deals with genocide on a case-by-case basis.

The White House also uploaded it to its Flickr page and it’s probably on Instagram and projected above the White House with a laser on the sky.

This situation room photo is serious. It means business. Susan Rice has changed out of her PJs and into her power suit like she’s ready to go on morning shows at any minute and blame a YouTube video for the whole thing.
 Iraq Crisis Worsens, Obama Deploys “Super-Serious” Situation Room Photo







A MAN TOO BROADMINDED TO TAKE HIS OWN SIDE IN A QUARREL

David, for all that he was the underdog, did not set out to be liked. He set out to win. He took an insanely dangerous risk with faith that a Higher Power would help him accomplish the impossible. Israel came closest to that in the Six Day War. It is not Goliath, but it has also forgotten how to be David.

People are more likely to rally behind those with conviction in their own righteousness. The Muslim Goliath has carried off his imitation of David through the degree of his conviction. Israel and its defenders have strived for reasonableness over conviction, trying to prove their humanitarian credentials through a willingness to see both sides.

But as the conflict has become a war of ideas, it has become clear that wars of ideas are no more won by those who see both sides than wars of force are won by those who fight on both sides.

Making David Into Goliath




MEMO TO J STREET

“It makes no difference whether a Jew is pro-peace or pro-war, whether right-wing or left-wing… and serves as a target for the Jihad of the Islamic nation.”

“Allah Akbar.”

“Khaybbar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the Army of Mohammed will return.”

Australian Muslim Leader: Also Kill Left-Wing Anti-War Jews



THE GOOD FIGHT

Mutuality makes morality and immorality in war self-regulating. If you firebomb someone else’s cities, someone else will firebomb your cities. If you want your prisoners of war to be treated well, you have to treat the prisoners you take equally well.

Such mutuality is the only international agreement that truly matters. It takes humanitarian behavior out of the realm of idealism and into the realm of rational self-interest. It creates a direct and working program for rewards and punishments that does not rely on a League of Nations or United Nations.

These rules would have made it impossible to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Had Churchill and FDR been bound by the belief that bombing enemy cities is genocide, Hitler and Tojo would have been free to implement real genocide in Europe and Asia. If the United States had not dropped 635,000 tons of bombs on North Korea, all of Korea would be living under the Kim Dynasty.

Bringing Back the Good War






J Street Accuses Jews of Racism, Blames Jews for Anti-Semitism - Shorter Ben Ami. “Bow to Obama and Kerry, you Jewish dogs.”


Remember, it’s anti-Zionism… not anti-Semitism. That’s why they’re going after a guy with a Jewish grandfather

Algerian Muslims Send Death Threats to Black Catholic Rapper b/c of Jewish Grandfather




Obama Just Can’t Stop Joking About Being a Dictator




RINSE, REPEAT

Obama’s reactive strikes, complete with conditions, are a repetition of his Afghanistan policy which let the enemy set the terms while telling them exactly what we would do.

Obama’s “Defensive” Airstrikes in Iraq




New York Man Arrested for Playing Israeli Music Outside Mosque

NYPD Investigating Criticism of Islamists as Hate Crime






THREE STATE SOLUTION

Abu Wisam is desperate to reach his family, but wants them out of Iraq as quickly as possible. “Iraq is a graveyard for us,” he said.

He would be happy to bring them to Israel. “I wish Netanyahu would let us live here. I wish he would give the Yazidi some land.”

“Take some from the Palestinians and give it to us,” he added, only half-jokingly. “I’d rather be a street cleaner here than go back there with the Islamists, who murder and butcher.”

Yazidi Man in Israel Suggests Resettlement in Gaza, West Bank




When is Plagiarism Okay? When a Liberal Plagiarizes a Conservative




PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL

Saying racist things didn’t get the “public intellectual enough attention so he moved on to bashing Israel. Why? Because news networks will put him on to do it. And Hill is a worthless media figure who stops existing once he’s no longer on CNN.

That’s the dirty little secret of Dr. Marc Lamont Hill. If there’s a flood tomorrow, he’ll figure out a way to insert himself into the story and be on CNN squawking about how floods are wrong even though he knows nothing about floods.

Public Intellectual/Human Joke Claims Not Allowing Hamas to Kill Israelis is Offensive





Obama Complains That Those at the Top Have No Right to Complain





IF ONLY HAMAS WERE A WABBIT


Carter presumes that Hamas wants to lay down its weapons. There is no evidence of that whatsoever.

Hamas is an acronym for “Islamic Resistance Movement”. The goal of terrorist groups is to take power, not put down their weapons. Hamas deals with dissent by shooting dissenters.

None of that suggests that weapons being put down is an endgame.

Jimmy Carter: The Only Way to Fix Gaza is by Giving Hamas Everything It Wants




Huma Abedin to Secret Service Agents: “Do You Know Who I Am?”




APROPOS OF JEWS

I know that Ann Coulter is just being Ann Coulter, namely a devoutly Christian politically incorrect anti-gay GOProud "Gay Icon", fierce opponent of amnesty, supporter of giving green cards to anyone with a degree, Romney/Christie supporter and pal of Bill Maher opportunistically to the right of whoever... but this serves to illustrate a point...

A basic test of anti-Semitism is when someone begins ranting about the Jews, apropos of nothing.

I even agree with Coulter's basic idea that there is more charity to be performed at home in the United States. But then a Coulter column about Ebola and the virtues of doing good at home turns into...

If Dr. Brantly had practiced at Cedars-Sinai hospital in Los Angeles and turned one single Hollywood power-broker to Christ, he would have done more good for the entire world than anything he could accomplish in a century spent in Liberia. Ebola kills only the body; the virus of spiritual bankruptcy and moral decadence spread by so many Hollywood movies infects the world.

If he had provided health care for the uninsured editors, writers, videographers and pundits in Gotham and managed to open one set of eyes, he would have done more good than marinating himself in medieval diseases of the Third World.

Of course, if Brantly had evangelized in New York City or Los Angeles, The New York Times would get upset and accuse him of anti-Semitism, until he swore -- as the pope did -- that you don't have to be a Christian to go to heaven.

I would ask what the Jews have to do with Ebola, but the metaphor is obvious and unoriginal.  

But what if all those Gothamites and Angelinos had instead infected Dr. Brantly with their spiritually bankrupt way of life, which Coulter claims is worse than Ebola?

Coulter has places in New York and Los Angeles and was named GOProud's "Gay Icon." And some of her dates make Obama look like a religion man. It's almost as if she herself has been infected.

Maybe Dr. Brantly should have been trying to convert her to the right path?



BECAUSE OBAMA

“Why does the government want to support this group?” Mr. Gao said in Mandarin. “Why do they want to give them free money? We have to work from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m.”

“When you see them, it looks like they’re going to mug you,” Linda Chang, 50, said in Mandarin. “It makes me feel uncomfortable.”

Asian-Americans Protest Bill de Blasio Housing Homeless in their Neighborhood



THE ROUNDUP

HAMASTANIC

 George Costanza claimed, among other things, that he ran from the house in order to "lead the way out." Hamas claims it forces Gazans to stand on the roofs of targeted buildings to "lead the way out" of an "occupation."...

To Hamas, women and children are expendable as casualties. If the Israelis don’t kill them, Hamas will. And the Israelis have (wrongly) gone out of their way to avoid "civilian" Gazan casualties. They don’t seem to remember that but for the carpet- and fire-bombing of German and Japanese cities during WWII, the war might have gone on indefinitely. Aside from destroying an enemy's capacity for making war, tens of thousands of Germans and Japanese civilians perished from Allied bombings. The purpose of those bombings was also to destroy the enemy's morale and willingness to continue fighting. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cost nearly 150,000 Japanese civilian lives. But those bombings brought the Pacific War to an abrupt end. The alternative was to invade Japan with conventional forces and incur even more horrendous casualties on both sides.

From Edward Cline at Rule of Reason





GETTING REAL

I think we need to have the people of the world focus like a laser on the table stakes of going beyond these little patty-cake wars we are currently diddling around with and look, really look, at what can actually happen with one little slip.

What we need to do this is: "The Live Demo." By this I mean we need to find a small island or deserted space somewhere on the planet and sacrifice it for the greater good by setting off one, just one, low-yield thermonuclear device in the atmosphere for all the world to see.

Think of "The Live Demo" as a remedial educational moment for the entire world; a kind of slap upside the head coupled with a large shout out of: "PAY ATTENTION!"

...from Gerard at American Digest




EVIL IS AS EVIL DOES

Anyone who switched to Al-Jazeera early on in the ground phase of Operation Protective Edge heard piercing shrieks of what sounded like “Shaul Aron.” Then followed a screenshot of the Facebook page of a handsome blue-eyed fellow. His name was plainly spelled out: Oron Shaul. His Bar Mitzvah photos too went on Al-Jazeera’s spine-chilling display.

The number on Oron’s dog-tag became a weapon in Hamas’s psychological warfare. In the midst of what was billed as a humanitarian crisis of epic propositions, Hamas honchos found nothing better to occupy themselves with than to scour the social media and discover Oron’s Facebook uploads.

Inflicting pain on one Israeli family – be it the Shauls, Goldins or any of us – obviously satisfies deep-seated sadistic zeal. It trumps doing something for numerous Gazan families. But helping ordinary families contradicts Hamas’s underlying strategy of using Gaza’s own civilians as human shields.

...from Sarah Honig

Thursday, August 07, 2014

Are All Dead Children Created Equal?



While furious mobs of leftists draped in Keffiyahs and corn syrup were shrieking about Gaza in the public squares of every major city, ISIS was continuing its genocidal advance on Baghdad. In the last 24 hours, the Yazidis, a non-Muslim minority, fled ISIS to a mountaintop where their children are dying of thirst. 

The stark reality of their plight, caught between thirst and a genocidal army, is in sharp contrast to the phony claims made about Gaza where truckloads of goods continue passing from Israel during wartime, where the malls have iPhones and the five star hotels offer cakes so tall they can only be cut from a crane.

The dead Yazidi children won’t inspire any protests or much in the way of outrage. The hysterical rallies for Gaza won’t suddenly turn into anti-ISIS rallies. If any of the angry white hipsters with dead baby posters are asked about it, they will offer some variation on, “It’s Bush’s fault” or “It’s Tony Blair’s fault.”

And they had been out there in the early part of the century denouncing any move to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The dead children gassed by Saddam, along with the children in his prisons, were unfortunately created less equal than the photogenic, oddly blonde children of Gaza’s Hamaswood.

Anna, a two-year-old girl whose feet were crushed by Saddam’s torturers, never mattered to them.  It isn’t the children that they care about, not the dying Yazidi children in Iraq, the tortured children in Saddam Hussein’s prisons, or even the dead children of Gaza, used as human shields by Hamas in life and then brandished at rallies after their deaths as cardboard propaganda shields by furious Marxists.

When they thought that Israel had bombed a playground near the al-Shati refugee camp killing nine children, they went into murderous paroxysm of outrage. When it turned out that a misfired Hamas rocket was responsible, they fell silent. 

They have equally little interest in the 3-year-old Gazan girl killed by a Hamas rocket in the early days of the war. 

The same thing had happened in 2012 when a dead 11-month old baby, formerly an iconic front page photo, vanished into obscurity once the death turned out to have been caused by a Hamas rocket. The same thing happened to Hadil al-Haddad, a 2-year-old girl in Gaza, who went from iconic photo to yesterday’s news once it turned out that a Hamas rocket had been responsible for her death

However the photos of those dead and wounded children, along with the dead children of Syria and perhaps soon the dead children of the Yazidi, will go on showing up at spitefully angry anti-Israel rallies.

If they genuinely cared about children, they would be at least as outraged, moved and pained by the death of a child at the hands of Saddam Hussein, as they were by ISIS terrorists dying at the hands of American and British soldiers. Instead dead Iraqi children inspired apathy and dead Al Qaeda outrage.

If it was the children that they cared about, then the death of an Israeli child or a Muslim child at the hands of Hamas would matter as much to them as the ones on the bloody placards they now brandish.

But they don’t and they never did.

They don’t love children or anyone else for that matter. They only hate. The dead children are only pieces of photographic paper to them which they use to shamelessly assault their ideological enemies.

Once Israel pulled out of Gaza, a report by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs found a striking increase in the amount of internal violence as the majority of deaths were now being caused by clan feuds

During 2007’s battles between Israel and Hamas, as many Palestinian Arab children died in clan feuds as they did in Israeli air strikes. And unlike air strikes, children killed in clan feuds aren’t accidents. 

The dirty little secret is that while Palestinian identity is as phony as a three dollar bill, clan identity is a powerful and defining force. Furthermore it is often hard to tell whether Hamas and Fatah terrorists are aligned with a movement because of personal belief or because their clan is aligned with a movement.

Hamas and Fatah aren’t just ideologies. They are also large extended clan families which fight over land, honor and economic control. 

The origins of Israel’s struggle with terrorism go back to the roots of the al-Husayni clan which arrived in Jerusalem after the Crusades and has been trying to control the city and everything else ever since. 

Prominent members and associates of the clan include Hitler’s Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husayni, and Yasser Arafat. (Arafat however was more directly associated with the Al-Qudwas, a clan which extends from Iraq to Egypt. Both clans considered themselves to be a sort of titled aristocracy, yet another fact which makes their post-colonial posturing as oppressed peoples ridiculously hypocritical and laughable.)

Muslim children being killed in clan feuds between huge families whose local branches claim to be the leaders of the Palestinian people even as they fight with equal ferocity for control over Syria and Iraq is not a subject that any of the placard wavers are interested in. Open that door a crack and their whole self-righteous campaign collapses into incoherent bleating as they struggle to justify the primacy of one terrorist group over another based on the claims of descent from Mohammed by its leading clans.   

There are stories that are simply not told.

When UN inspector and anti-war activist Scott Ritter visited Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, he encountered a prison which, in his own words, “appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene.”

Ritter refused to discuss it any further, “because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.”

Scott Ritter, who was later arrested for soliciting underage girls on the internet, wasn’t waging peace. No more than the placard wavers in London, Sydney and Montreal are waging peace. He was fighting to keep Saddam Hussein power. And he was willing to sacrifice a prison full of children to do that. 

He was willing to sacrifice little girls like Anna, who had her feet crushed in a torture chamber, to keep Saddam Hussein in power. Ritter was willing to do it because he had the same morals as Saddam.

That is the same attitude that the placard wavers have toward the children of Gaza, of Iraq and of countless other places. They use them to wage war in the name of peace when they come in handy.
And when they die of Hamas rockets and clan feuds, when they are killed by ISIS and the entire murderous alphabet soup of Islamic terrorism, they drop them like yesterday’s garbage. 

For Hamas and its supporters screaming “Free Gaza” at the top of their lungs, children, dead or alive, are just another propaganda weapon in the arsenal of terrorist theocracy.

They are eager and willing to let Hamas go on killing Jewish and Muslim children in the name of its war. 

(A version of this article originally appeared at Front Page Magazine)