Articles

Sunday, September 14, 2014

The Headchopper Next Door

Every week another lad or lass from St. Louis, Toronto or Sydney makes the trip through Turkey to the Islamic State. A reporter dispatched by a local paper to talk to the neighbors scribbles down the same recollections about how nice and normal Jihad Joe or Jihad Jane was.

Classmates remember a loud partier or a shy student. Neighbors mention that everything seemed normal until those last few years when he began wearing a robe and she began wearing a burka.

The Somali and Algerian immigrants, the German and American converts, the black burkas and dyed beards, headed into the dying summer to kill Christians and Kurds, Turkmen and Shiites, to behead babies and crucify critics, don’t seem like monsters. They loved their parents. They posed for jokey snapshots on Facebook. They had dreams of becoming biologists or boxers. Until they began killing people, they seemed just like the rest of us.

And with one difference, they were.

The forensic examinations of their lives rarely reveal anything of significance. The extensive digging into the lives of the Boston bombers told us nothing about why they would plant a bomb near a little boy.

The answer lay in the topic that the media carefully avoided. As with the other Muslim terrorists, the meaning of their motives was in the little black book of their religion which commanded them to kill.

The Jihadist isn’t a serial killer. While there are some converts attracted to Islam for its violence, the Muslim convert usually doesn’t convert for the killing, he kills because he converted. Likewise the nice Muslim Jihadist next door might well be moderate by inclination and immoderate by faith.

As the Koran says, “Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah knows, while you know not.” (Quran 2:216)

Allah knows you have to kill. Even if you think you shouldn’t.

The nice Jihadists flocking to rape Yazidi girls in Mosul are convinced that Allah knows best and his Caliph knows best. The worst of them are acting on impulse. The best of them are acting on faith.

Faith is irrational. Believers believe without understanding and act without thinking. The holy men of our religions acted on faith. So do the holy men of Islam. It’s what they have faith in that is the problem.

Charles Manson’s girls, Jim Jones’ followers and Mohammed’s companions all believed in much the same things. They saw the world as a fundamentally hostile place and they believed that only one man could change the world. And they believed that people had to die for that change to come about.

In a multicultural environment in which we believe that all religions are the same, we don’t like to think about what might have happened if Charles Manson had a million groupies instead of a few elderly women locked up in prison. Nor do we like to think about how we would handle Jim Jones if he were running California, instead of just being closely linked to the political infrastructure of the men like Governor Brown and Harvey Milk who did run it.

It’s easy to dismiss a small enough religion as a cult because its leader sleeps with young girls and its members are willing to kill for him. But when the cult grows big enough, we say it’s a religion of peace and hope that its followers believe the peaceful version of Islam that the infidels preach to them.

And they never do. Why should they?

Mohammed was quite clear about what he wanted. For all the abrogations, the Koran is reasonably clear on what it expects its followers to do. Mohammed’s history was that of a man who tried to convince the Arabs that he had seen an angel by telling them and failed, and who succeeded only when he killed enough of them, not to mention the Jews and any other infidels hanging around the place.

That is the history of Islam.

Germany was not a nation of monsters. It was a nation that behaved monstrously. The average German would not stick his neighbor in an oven in his basement or chain him up as a slave. He would however do these things in Poland because he was contextually contaminated by a monstrous ideology.

As an individual he was a nice man who loved his children, petted his dog and enjoyed street fairs. As a loyal member of a system run by the Nazi Party, he would do monstrous things. And then when the Nazi machine was switched off, he would go home to his wife and children without ever killing anyone else.

He was not a good man. Good men don’t do the things he did. But he wasn’t a budding serial killer. He was just doing what a death cult told him to do.

The problem isn’t “radicalization”. What Western governments call radicalization is the process by which the Muslim becomes aware of the dictates of his faith and their relevance to his life. It’s not the internet preachers with their fatwas. They are just the vectors for that awareness. The problem is Islam.

The current misguided thinking is that we can win a debate between a “good Islam” and a “bad Islam”. The good Islam will tell Muslims to refrain from joining ISIS, to work for social change, to embrace diversity and to champion democracy. But this “good Islam” is just a liberal’s conception of what religion should be. Its only real followers are liberal non-Muslims and it has little to do with what Islam really is.

Within the historical context of Islam and in the words of the Koran, our idea of the good Muslim is actually a very bad Muslim. And our idea of the bad Muslim is the best of all Muslims. When we argue that Islam is a religion of peace, we are pushing against the full weight of over a thousand years of history and religious ideas and counting on Muslims to be too ignorant of them to know any better.

Those who genuinely want to change Islam will not do it by lying to Muslims about their religion. Trying to convince the nice Jihadist next door that Mohammed would have rejected his expedition to rape and pillage non-Muslims in Syria is futile. The nice Jihadist may not be a scholar, but he knows his Koran.

If they want to change his mind, they will have to be honest about what Islam is.

Mohammed would have been as happy rampaging around Iraq and Syria as a pig rolling around in dung. ISIS is Islam. It’s the naked religion. There are no angels or djinns, no revelations, just piles of mutilated corpses and children playing with severed heads while other children are raped in prison cells.

It’s Mohammed, but it’s also Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad and Gaddafi. Islam doesn’t end the cycle of tyranny and oppression. It is the reason that the cycle continues.

“Deradicalizing” the nice ISIS Jihadist by lying to him will fail in the long run. Telling him the truth and offering him a clear choice is the only way.

Americans were brutally honest about the evils of Nazism, but failed to equally condemn Communism. Germany hasn’t had another Fuhrer, but Russia is back to acting a lot like the Soviet Union. And while Nazism is confined to trailer parks, sympathy for the red devil is prevalent among Western elites. ISIS is exposing its own evil to the West in a way that neither the brownshirts nor the flyers of the red flag did. If we destroy ISIS without exposing the ideology behind it, then we will have won a Pyrrhic victory because we will still be fighting the nice Jihadist next door for the next thousand years.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Friday Afternoon Roundup - Our Hero



OUR HERO

September 11 had disrupted the multicultural consensus by raising serious questions about immigration and Islam. It had also thrown away the consensus that the collapse of the USSR had made American military power obsolete. Obama had come to revive these consensuses and as recently as the last election dismissed Romney as a reactionary warmonger who didn’t understand the new world order.

Obama had declared victory over an undefeated enemy. He had passed off a strategic withdrawal as a victory. His wars, victories and withdrawals were a series of blatant lies that are catching up with him.

His administration tried to blame the takeover of Libya by Islamist militias after his disastrous regime change intervention on a YouTube video. But there isn’t a YouTube video big enough to blame ISIS on.

ISIS: Obama’s ‘Al-Qaeda on the Run’




I WILL HAVE TO CONVINCE MYSELF TO MOCK HILLARY CLINTON

I sure hope that Hillary Clinton can talk Hillary Clinton into running. It would be a shame if all those donors to the Clinton Foundation had wasted their cash. Especially the foreign donors.

Hillary Clinton has a full campaign in motion. She has a media operation. She has a campaign biography. She’s selling merchandise. Whom is she kidding here?

“And I will have to be convinced that I have a very clear vision with an agenda of what I think needs to be done,” Clinton said.

Hillary Clinton: “I Will Have to Convince Myself to Run for President”



RESET BUTTON II

“Would she be quicker than President Obama to order kinetic military action? Yes,” the former official said. “Her tendencies are more bellicose than the president. … She is a decisive person. She doesn’t speak with a whole lot of semicolons and commas.”

Hillary Clinton never uses commas. She speaks entirely in exclamation marks with occasional guillemets and sheffer strokes thrown in.

As a bellicose and decisive leader, since last week, she will decisively bomb countries without using any commas. If you bring her coffee without sugar, she will bellicosely and decisively bomb Columbia.

At least until the polls change and then her bellicosity will be confined to throwing shoes at Secret Service agents.

Clintonites: Hillary Will be “Bellicose Interventionist”




THE LAST REFUGE

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” Samuel Johnson said. A few centuries later his fellow Englishman, Winston Churchill, quipped, “The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative.”

It’s not true of the United States, but it is true of Barack Obama who, having exhausted every alternative that involved appeasement or pretending that ISIS wasn’t a threat, has decided to do the right thing.

As long as he gets enough applause for doing it.

Obama Will Fight ISIS by Arming ISIS




Now that ISIS is Threatening to Kill Twitter Employees, maybe Twitter will Stop Hosting Terrorist Accounts




CHECK YOUR HYGIENE PRIVILEGE

 Body odour is among 52 criteria that officials at San Diego International Airport use to judge taxi drivers. Cabbies say that smacks of prejudice and discrimination.

It does discriminate between cabbies who smell like an open sewer and those who don’t. It further prejudges what a good smell is.

Check your hygiene privilege. Cabbies who smell badly are probably just oppressed folks who came directly from their terrorist training camp to the airport and didn’t have time to change.

Third World Cabbies Say Expecting Them to Shower is Racist




State Department Proof Most Muslims Reject ISIS Fails So Hard




CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE, PRIVILEGE

A study by Rutgers University – Newark claims that minorities are obese because racial microaggressions cause them to eat fast food and avoid exercise.

“When you are exposed to negative stereotypes, you may gravitate more toward unhealthy foods as opposed to healthy foods,” said Luis Rivera, the experimental social psychologist who conducted the study.

Psychologist Says Minority Obesity and Lack of Exercise Caused by Racism

"There were years when I failed the majority of my classes. This was not a matter of my being better suited for the liberal arts than sciences. I was an English minor in college. I failed American Literature, British Literature, Humanities, and (voilà) French… These observations cannot be disconnected from the country I call home, nor from the government to which I swear fealty."

Because it was Uncle Sam who was responsible for Coates’ lack of interest in French. Despite the fact that Coates did manage to graduate high school and attended college.

It wasn’t his fault. It was America’s fault.

The whole country.

Nothing is Ta-Nehisi Coates’ fault. Not even his stupid name. If he failed a class, it was because of America.


Ta-Nehisi Coates Sucks at French and it’s Your Fault

...from the Twitter responses after Coates retweeted it..."the existence of Daniel Greenfield ably illustrates the pathologies of white culture"




Terrorist Group Says Kids Soccer Game is “Crime Against Humanity”



COMRADE, REALLY IT'S TOO MUCH

Asked by [Dan] Patrick whether Obama would make the current roster in Los Angeles, [Kobe] Bryant said almost immediately, “yes, he could, actually.” The comment wasn’t a slight against his current Lakers team, which despite promising young talent is comprised mostly of borderline NBA players; Bryant said his belief in Obama is more a testament to the President’s skill:

A 53 year old man who shows no particular facility for sports can just make it in the NBA. Why not? They can just sink the baskets for him. Unfortunately they can’t call players who block his shots racists.

Obama Set for Exciting NBA Career After White House



ENDGAME

We were fighting ISIS until fairly recently. The last Americans were killed fighting in Iraq in 2011. Despite Obama’s multiple withdrawals, American advisors continued to stay behind trying to organize a fight against ISIS.

Did that war ever really end? The Iraq War was a complicated beast. We began it by fighting Saddam and we ended it by fighting Al Qaeda. Except we’re still fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Obama decided that the war was over. Certainly ISIS never considered the war over.

Yes, the 9/11 War Authorization Covers ISIS




Mohammed, Obama’s Caliphate Loving Advisor, is Now Born-Again Republican




GAME ON

The game industry has always wanted to be Hollywood. Now the industry is a warped version of Hollywood with a handful of mega-publishers buying up smaller companies and merging with each other. Its AAA games are hugely expensive gambles which can cost upward of $100 million.

In that environment, nothing can be left to chance. The gaming press is an arm of the gaming industry promoting its products. Its “journalists” and “critics” can be fired if they review a game poorly. The “journalists” compensate by promoting social justice narratives and attacking their own readers.

Anita and Zoe Quinn, whose inappropriate relationship with a game reviewer generated the GamerGate scandal, make useful weapons, and joined the pantheon of “victims as weapons,” but it’s not about misogyny. Game developers and journalists are all largely white men using women as weapons in a power struggle between a flailing industry, its apologist journalists and its disgruntled fans.

Game On: Anita Sarkeesian and GamerGate




Founding Editor of International Gay and Lesbian Review Guilty of Internationally Abusing Young Boys




FAT MAN YELLS AT CAMERA


The Roger & Me producer added the following message to POTUS: “Eight years of your life and that’s what people are going to remember. Boy, I got a feeling knowing you that you probably wished you were remembered for a few other things, a few other things you could’ve done. So it is on that level of a big disappointment.”

That’s not much to be remembered for, but it beats being remembered as a novelty fat guy yelling at buildings in carefully edited sequences.

Obama Finally Loses Michael Moore




IRS Commish: “Whenever We Can, We Follow the Law”




RESIDENT SCAM

Why was Burger King taken off the table? Because the Dems don’t want to talk about it because one of their backers is behind it.

That’s an admission that the entire campaign was a scam. The Dems aren’t against inversions. They’re for staying in power and protecting their money supply.

Just as they aren’t for campaign finance reform, they’re for protecting their Democracy Alliance money supply.

Warren Buffett’s Greed Killed Obama’s “Inversion” Campaign




Pro-Hamas Mayor’s Nude Selfies Blamed on Jewish Conspiracy




EVITABLE

Too many Middle Eastern Christians still believe that Arab nationalism can salvage their situation. It clearly cannot. Allying with Hezbollah, a group that puts Shiite Islam ahead of ethnicity, is clear folly.

Sabotaging a conference for persecuted Christians on Hezbollah’s behalf is criminally stupid.

America can save persecuted Christians. Hezbollah will only use them until it no longer has a use for them.

The Unfair and Dishonest Media Attacks on Ted Cruz




Hamas Supporting Yale Chaplain Blames Jewish “Bullying” for Resignation



DENIED

 In 2010, Scott Brown and Joe Lieberman had introduced the Terrorist Expatriation Act. It was similar to Cruz’s bill, but without specifying the voluntary angle. It simply added terrorism as one of the acts already covered by the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

At the time quite a few people on our side attacked them for the bill and it went nowhere. Cruz’s bill reflects a more knowledgeable reading of the law, but it would take a Republican Senate for this to even have a shot and Obama is almost certain to veto it

Ted Cruz and Michele Bachmann’s ISIS Denaturalization Bills

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Divided We Stand

Time brings distance to all events. No pain is as fresh twenty years later as on the day it happened. The shock of the impossible becomes the new normal and then it becomes more background noise.

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic," Joseph Stalin said. The statisticians in Doha, Tehran and Riyadh know it quite well when they count up their numbers. Compound death is more than a statistic; it is incomprehensible.

The banal media coverage of September 11 grapples with a story too big to tell that can only be broken down into human fragments of personal stories.

This is true for most of the dark footprints of history. There is no story of the Holocaust, there are only countless personal stories of survivors and the procedural story of the Nazi killing machine. These perspectives never come together into a single story only human fragments and procedural details, the departments and mechanisms, how many milligrams of Zyklon B it takes per kilogram to kill a person and how many people can be loaded on a train in how much time.

The coverage of 9/11 breaks down into these same mini-stories, survivors describing how they escaped, the families of the dead relating how they reacted to the news, the stories of firefighters and officers, and the procedural questions, how long it takes a falling body to achieve terminal velocity and what happens to the human body when it breathes in enough ash and soot. On the other side are the killers who plotted and planned, checked flight schedules, got their boxcutters and their korans and killed thousands for Allah.

The story of the attacks cannot be told because there is no boundary to it. Where do we begin, with a handful of upper class Muslims in Hamburg? With a scion of the Bin Laden clan becoming a Ghazi or with Hassan Al-Banna finding inspiration in Third Reich propaganda to modernize Islamism? With the Gates of Vienna, the Shores of Tripoli or Mohammed in Mecca? All but the last are incomplete, and even the last leaves too much out.

When a murder happens we trace back the motives of the killer. Was he abused as a child, did the authorities fail to act in time, what made a once sweet boy turn into a killer? To do the same for September 11 is to travel back over a thousand years and still come away with few answers except that sometimes human evil can be congealed into an ideology and passed along from generation to generation like a virus of hatred and cruelty.

"Where were you when the planes hit," attempts to orient us in time. But the question is only an attempt to make the impossible seem real. The businessman covered in ash and stumbling over the Brooklyn Bridge and the Seattle housewife waking up to see news coverage of it on television are more human fragments of a thing that is more than human. War.

War fragments perspectives, and though we have grown used to formal stories of war which began with a legal declaration of war and end with a surrender, these things have as little to do with war as a coroner's statement has to do with death. The laws of war, the treaties and the formalities are ways that human civilization attempts to make the wild force of human nature into a manageable thing.

Europeans and their colonial descendants may pen laws of war, but only they are constrained by them. In the real world outside the dinner parties of Washington D.C. and Brussels, there are no laws in war. Islamic law which has regulations for which foot to use when entering a bathroom (the left foot) and which side to sleep on (the right) has very few laws of war that cannot be nullified by necessity or even whim. On the battlefield, Islamic jurisprudence is boiled down to, Do what thou wilt in the cause of Allah, that is the whole of the law.

The West has tried to make war into a moral force by governing its means, without regard to its ends. But in the Muslim world, war is moral so long as its ends are Islamic-- the means are a technicality that Islamic scholars may squabble over the way they do over every petty matter, but in practice it's anything goes so long as it serves the Ummah. And even those technical debates over civilians in war and terrorism are governed by the ultimate welfare of the Ummah.

What happens when people who believe that the ends justify the means fight against people who believe that the ends never justify the means? In Afghanistan and Iraq the people who believed that the ends justify the means have gained their ends-- while we have lost both the ends and the means, not going far enough for the hawks and going too far for the doves.

This is the broken way of war that we practiced in Vietnam and Korea, constrained by invisible boundaries of our own making that did not prevent us from bombing cities, but did keep us from wiping out entire villages. To our enemies, these morals of ours seem every bit as senseless as their foot washing regulations seem to us. Why do the people who bombed Dresden beat their breasts over Mai Lai, and why was Shock and Awe acceptable, but not Abu Ghraib?

The answers invariably come down not to some externally consistent philosophy or divine law, but our need to feel good about ourselves by setting up a code that makes us seem moral in our own eyes. That makes us feel good about war. And the first law of that code is that killing en masse without really meaning to is more moral than pointing a gun at a man and pulling the trigger. This is the plausible deniability morality of the firing squad which uses enough dummy cartridges so that no one can be sure who fired the shot. No wonder drone attacks are a favorite of an anti-war administration putting as much automation and distance as possible between the soldier and his target.

Laws tell much about a people. Our need to legislate the use of force, and their need to legislate everything but the use of force. We have learned to be afraid of our lurking potential for evil.

It is a fear absent in Islam where a man who serves Allah cannot be a devil no matter what he does, but we know all too well that the devil can come wrapped in a saintly cause. We know it so well that we sometimes forget that while devils do occasionally come wearing halos, mostly they come wearing horns. To our great pain and woe, we have forgotten that we are not our own enemies.

A hundred years ago the attacks of September 11 would have marked the beginning of a war, but in this century they only marked a day of pain and sorrow, and years of a war that was never truly a war. It is this conflicted un-war that the anniversary marks. A war that never ends, because it never began.

War is a framework for violence, which the Muslim world hardly needs. While we search for an enemy to declare war on, all they need is a Fatwa with a clerical argument dubbing us the enemy, our nation, our soldiers, our civilians and our children. All of us.

We have no comfortable war framework except nation building which pretends that war is really the Peace Corps with bombs, habitat for humanity with the homes blown up before they can be rebuilt.

Are we fighting because they attacked us or because girls in Afghanistan can't go to school or for some figment of regional stability in a country where stability isn't even a word. That lack of clarity is fragmentation.  And fragmentation makes all stories seem senseless.

The pain and shock of the attacks gave us a measure of clarity. We were hit hard enough that we felt once again that justice was on our side and we no longer had to feel guilty for standing up for ourselves. In a society whose highest morality has become that of the victim, we were suddenly victims and entitled to defend ourselves.

The need to question ourselves temporarily went away and it felt good. For a brief shining moment the country became aware of external enemies and was united. We stopped being fragments warring with each other and we became Americans.

Had that clarity been sustained, the country today would be a dramatically different place. But it diminished and fell apart, and our identity went with it.We were once again our own enemies and the real enemy went unrecognized. Now the anniversary of the attacks has become like the memory of an old war that was fought once, but no longer really matters. The nation is at war, but it doesn't know that it's at war. And those who know that we are at war, often can't even state who the enemy is.

Without that clarity and unity, all we have are fragments, individual stories without the means to wrap them together. Stalin was right, a million deaths is a statistic unless you find a way to bring together what it means to an entire people. For the Holocaust, it was "Never Again." For 9/11 it was a more ambiguous, "United We Stand", but what do we stand for and what do we stand against?

The anniversaries have long since been reduced to a national therapy session, with pain released and healed in the media's own talking cure. But it isn't the pain that matters, it's what we do with it that counts. We have not yet lost the war-- but we are losing it, and unless we decide as a nation what we stand for and what we stand again, then we will lose. It will take time, like our banks we are too big to fail, but given enough appeasement, enough immigration and enough terrorism-- it will come.

Over a decade of war has passed, and before that a thousand years of war with lulls and pauses, but the din of the scimitar being sharpened for war never truly stopped. Each year that passes is a chance to learn the lessons of the years that have gone by and to remedy their mistakes. The best way to pay tribute to the dead is to unlearn our mistakes so that what happened to them will not happen again. Everything else is the fragmentation of self-indulgence, the therapy of tears, the sensitivity of grief, that will ease our pain, but not our fate.

Every man and woman must defeat their own doubts before they can defeat the enemy. Only then they can they battle the false reasonableness of the consensus that denies war and the enemy, with a consensus that briefly formed after the attacks and that forms even more briefly after every attack, to see ourselves in relation to the outside enemy. To unite against that enemy and to rebuild our identity around a common conflict with those who want to subjugate and destroy us. It may be ten more years before we are ready to do that, but as long as it takes-- that unity is our only hope.

The raw reaction in the aftermath of an event is the true one and the more distance we put between ourselves and that reaction also increases our distance from the truth.

The years of war have added layers of distancing between that first raw reaction when we saw the towers fall. And it is important this day to return not only to the emotion of that moment, but to the clarity that is our greatest weapon. Only that clarity will end this war.

Tuesday, September 09, 2014

Obama's "Iraqization" of America

When it comes to Iraq, Obama lectures the Sunnis and the Shiites on getting along and forming a government that won't exist for the sole benefit of a single group at the expense of the other.

But in America he runs exactly that sort of government.

Only 27% of whites see Obama as a "Uniter" compared to 78% of blacks. Those are Sunni-Shiite numbers. And numbers like that have consequences. 

Iraqis are not stupid. They look at the news and they see Ferguson and Al Sharpton screaming at
angry mobs and know that Obama is not practicing what he preaches to them. Obama may have forced out Maliki, but his own tribal politics are hard to distinguish from those of Maliki or ISIS.

Obama rules not by inspiring people, but, like Maliki and ISIS, he divides and conquers, setting people against each other. Obama's America is as spitefully tribal as Maliki's Iraq. Its bosses, like Eric Holder, hold a divisive worldview that excludes much of the country.

Al Sharpton, Obama's close political ally, and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his mentor, are familiar types in Iraq. You can find a thousand Jeremiah Wrights on any given Friday screaming about killing the Shiites or the Sunnis. You can find a million Al Sharptons community organizing local hatreds until they explode. One of the most prominent Sharptons of Iraq is a Shiite named Muqtada al-Sadr.

The Sharptons and Wrights of Iraq have guns because the machinery of law and order there has collapsed even more comprehensively than it has in Detroit. In a country divided by ethnic and sectarian politics, a multicultural military and police are incapable of enforcing the law and uninterested in standing up to violence from their own people.

Those are the ugly tribal politics that Obama has brought to America. Instead of repairing the economy, he focused on wealth redistribution. Instead of bringing Americans together as one nation, he calculatedly tore them apart around manufactured crises of race, gender, class and religion. He pitted blacks against whites, liberal Protestants against Catholics, the poor against the middle class and the cities against the suburbs.

Not only did Obama pit his own voting bases against the country, but he even sought to make his own voters fight each other.

Instead of reaching out to white Americans after they thoroughly rejected him in the 2012 election, he instead decided that divisive and racist politics were the key to staying in power.

In 2012, Obama decisively lost white voters 59% to 39%. He lost white voters of every sex and age. He lost white voters in almost every state. In the three states where he won them, it was only by the narrowest of margins.

And he only tied Romney among white voters in New York with a 49% to 49% split.

Obama lost white men. He lost white women. He lost young white voters. He lost middle aged and old white voters. He lost white Protestants and he lost white Catholics.

That did not happen because the white voters of 2008 who came out for him in New York 52% to 46% or the young white voters who came out for him 54% to 44%  (only to turn him down 44% to 51% in 2012) developed a sudden belated case of racism.

It was Obama's governing style that developed a sudden belated case of racism.

Obama promised us a united America and gave us a divided America. He has shown that he is a slicker and more polished version of Al Sharpton.

After coming to prominence with a vision of "There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America" he shrugged off helping Americans as a whole and instead championed narrow tribal interests.

Maliki wasn't the Prime Minister of Iraq. He was the Prime Minister of a Shiite Iraq. Obama isn't the President of the United States. He's trying to be the President of Black America, Gay America, Latino America, Asian America, Transgender America and a thousand other micro Americas.

At no point in time has he been the President of the United States of America.

His antics in Ferguson, as in Florida, are yet another reminder that his governing style is tribal. It's Iraqi, not American. He doesn't bring people together, he tears them apart. He plays on racial crises to make minorities feel vulnerable and insecure while his emissaries denounce the majority.

To the left, this politics of acrimony is passed off as being more legitimate than the Sunni and Shiite tail-chewing in Iraq because one race is guiltier than the other. It's not. It's equally vile and equally cynical. And while there is no ISIS rampaging around America (though Muslim violence continues to flare up regularly with brutal killings) the miasma of hatred has consequences.

The victims of the Knockout games and the stores looted and burned in Ferguson are a consequence of Obama's tribal style of leadership. On the other side of the rusty coin are the people stocking up on weapons and preparing for a national collapse.

All that doesn't add up to Iraq, but it's not as far away from it as we would like to think.

America has been weakened by being divided. Divided nations are too busy fighting among themselves to put up a strong defense. The world is going to hell because everyone from Putin to ISIS is confident that Americans are too busy fighting over Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, over gay marriage and illegal alien amnesty, to pay much attention to them.

And they're right.

Obama's governing style isn't just inept, it makes America seem weak. Strong leaders don't need to divide and conquer their populations to keep them in line. Only weak leaders afraid that the people will wake up to their corruption and incompetence play those games.

America's strength was rooted in a republicanism that transcended tribal politics. Now America is sunk in a swamp of tribal politics. Its government is obsessed with negotiating every possible tribal demand on terms favorable to the tribes. There can be no better formula for tearing apart a nation.

Obama's America is as intimidating to ISIS as Maliki's Iraq was. A country at war with itself frightens no one. And Obama's America leaves the world with the impression that it's taking every possible effort by the authorities just to keep it from devolving into another Iraq.

There's nothing to spare for Putin or Al Qaeda except more token gestures. And we're almost out of those.

Democrats accused Bush of wrecking Iraq. Now they have turned America into another Iraq; a tribal society that is growing poorer every day while the tribes bicker over preferential treatment from the government. Americans are losing hope in the future as the left promises them that these conflicts will continue indefinitely because its social justice tribal grievances matter more than national unity.

Iraq fell before ISIS because despite its heavy armor, its air power and large military, it lacked national unity. As we move through a century of Islamic wars, we must take a lesson from the Iraqis.

If we live as a divided nation, we will forever be at the mercy of demagogues like Obama and tribal armies like ISIS. If we cannot unite as Americans, then we will find ourselves scattered as separate tribes, arguing to the last about precedence and privileges, like the Iraqi parliament, while the enemy destroys everything in its path.

Freedom was America's promise. Our equality was not based on tribal privileges, as the left insists it was and as it demands that it should be, but on the open equality of freedom.

Obama's tribal politics are dedicated to squelching the open equality of freedom and turning every aspect of life into a subsidized commodity to be dispensed by a central authority on a tribal basis.

That is not America. That is Egypt. That is Saudi Arabia. That is Iraq.

Iraq couldn't afford Saddam or Maliki. America can't afford Obama. A leader that divides a nation, bribing one half to support him and punishing the other half on account of their religion, their skin color or any other tribal variable is not out to make a nation strong or just.

He is out to weaken it by strengthening his own power over them.

The "Iraqization" of America, the "Sharptonization" of America, will mean the end of America. It will transform us from a country of hope and ambition into a warren of quarreling slums protected by rival gangs whose citizenry feel they have as little in common as the Sunnis and Shiites of Iraq.

That will strengthen Washington and destroy America.

While Obama lectures Iraq on unity and its politicians on working together, he is leading America down the same ugly path of tribe against tribe, religion against religion and citizen against citizen. It's too late for the Iraqis to change, but it's not too late for us to learn from their example.

Sunday, September 07, 2014

Poor Little Rich Liberals

No group has been hit harder by the Obama economy than American liberals. From Marin County, where bundlers have had to struggle to scrape together a few ten grand bills to attend Obama fundraisers, to Washington D.C. whose bedroom communities now have seven of the ten highest household incomes in the country, poverty is hitting poor rich little liberals really hard.

In 2006, Alaska had the highest household income. But voters chose Obama over Palin and these days it's Maryland. Because six-figure consultants on sustainable development, diversity and transgender bathrooms also need McMansions to go home to after a long day of team building exercises, celebrating Pride Week and snorting small mountains of cocaine.

Despite numbers like these, liberals are barely making ends meet. Some are "dead broke" like Hillary Clinton. Forget about a dollar not buying what it used to. Not even a hundred million dollars does. And there's poor Joe Biden who claimed not to have a savings account or any stocks and bonds. And he doesn't. He has five savings accounts and eleven investment funds.

But wealth is relative. Despite earning $100 million, Hillary Clinton claims that she isn't "truly well off". And if a woman with a colonial mansion for every occasion is, in the words of her adviser, still just "trying to earn a living", the economy must really be bad.

With income inequality such a hot topic and Washington D.C. hoovering up more of the country's wealth than ever, the Democratic Party's presidential frontrunners are taking a vow of poverty. They aren't actually draping themselves in burlap sacks and begging for spare change, though they do make a point of being seen shopping at Target or Costco before being driven back in their limos to a pricey exclusive neighborhood, but they are working hard at pretending to be poor.

If Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden can't convince Democrats that they're just one step away from begging for spare change on street corners and truly understand the plight of the people who actually work for a living, Elizabeth Warren is always waiting in the wings. After all who better than a Harvard professor who made $429,981 in her last full year of teaching to understand how hard it is to barely get by under income inequality.

Elizabeth Warren has a net worth of around $15 million, making her more working class than Hillary, but less working class than Joe Biden at around a cool million. Like Biden, Elizabeth Warren also isn't big on investing

 "I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios," Warren told an MSNBC host.

Like "Dead Broke" or "Truly Well Off", “Wealthy Individuals” and "A Lot of Stock Portfolios" are relative terms. Warren only had $8 million in investments. It's not a lot if you're a millionaire who, like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, spends a lot of time around billionaires.

When you have twenty bucks in your wallet, a million seems like a lot. But when you have a million and hang around those who have fifty million, it doesn't seem like so much anymore. And when you earn a hundred million and go to cocktail parties with billionaires, you no longer feel that you are “truly well off”. It's hard to convince the working class that you "feel their pain" when what you really feel is your pain at having to borrow private jets from your billionaire grocery mogul friend to fly to Africa, instead of being able to buy your own fleet of jets.

There's nothing wrong with making money, unless you're a liberal or unless your money comes from dubious sources, such as charging the Boys and Girls Club of Los Angeles $150,000 for a speech (the Clintons), ripping off asbestos victims (Elizabeth Warren) or getting your brother some juicy contracts (Joe Biden). After rich liberals unleashed class warfare against Mitt Romney, they have been reduced to competing against each other in a game of "Who Is the Poorest Democrat?"

(The answer is Harry Truman who had to rely on an Army pension after leaving the White House and moving into a property owned by his wife's family. Now that's dead broke.)

Bill Clinton tried to bail out his wife by rephrasing the question as being which candidate can connect to the plight of ordinary people. The answer is none of them.

Biden has been in politics for over four decades. Hillary Clinton hasn't held down a non-government job in two decades and most of her work before that was really an extension of her husband's politics. Elizabeth Warren spent decades in academia. These are not lives designed to connect them to the daily realities of ordinary people. They are a privileged insulation from those challenging realities.

When Hillary Clinton talks about "working hard" for her money, she means putting her name on books that someone else wrote and reading speeches that someone else wrote to groups that would pay her even if all she did was bark for five hours straight. Bill Clinton may be a compelling and interesting speaker, but no one has ever accused Hillary of either of these things.

Hillary isn't being paid six figures to appear in front of some trade group to talk about how much she cares about the children of the world because she is a powerful and inspirational speaker. The money is being paid out to buy influence with the likely future president or to help elect her president. Hillary's speaking fees, like her law work, are essentially legal bribes from special interests.

It's no wonder that liberals like Elizabeth Warren seem to have a certain disdain for money. They like the money well enough, but they are aware that they have done little to earn it. Elizabeth Warren is well aware that the words that come out of her mouth aren't worth $429,981. Her paychecks only reinforced her conviction that wealth is unearned.

But Warren was making an invalid generalization. Just because she hadn't earned her paychecks and the money she was receiving had little relation to the actual value being created did not mean that the same was true for everyone. There are people out there who really do build that and who actually earn what they are paid through hard work and the creation of value for others and for themselves.

Contempt for wealth has historically been the attitude of wealthy Socialists. Like many modern leftists, Karl Marx went from being a perpetual student supported by his parents to a radical writing angry screeds about the plight of the workers without ever having actual direct experience of their labor. It was no wonder that Marx, who lived most of his life being supported by others, had no clue about the realities of economics or labor.

Dissolute elites put on working class airs while treating their unearned wealth as a shameful secret. Hillary Clinton's fake poverty act is a bit of 19th century theater that is out of step with American values, but an inevitable outgrowth of the renewed radicalization of the Democratic Party.

The concentration of wealth around Washington D.C. is not the work of the Tea Party. It certainly isn't something that the Koch Brothers did. It's what happens around an imperial capital. It's not that the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer, it's that the politically connected get richer while the politically disconnected get poorer.

The significant division is not along lines of class, but of corruption. The working poor may be suffering, but the politically connected welfare poor have plenty of opportunities to game the system. Most of all it's the politically disconnected private sector middle class that invests its time in working instead of voting that is sliding down the hole and taking the economy with it.

The radical technocrats of the Democratic Party champion big government policies that concentrate wealth in a smaller number of hands while campaigning against income inequality. They denounce the rich at fundraisers for the rich. They buy mansions so that they can run for higher office and then claim to be dead broke. They are not only guilty of hypocrisy, that is a common enough sin for politicians, but they are also guilty of creating the conditions of income inequality that they condemn.

Faking poverty isn't just an election strategy, it's also protective camouflage as the members of a political movement that is robbing the country blind cry poverty and point at the Koch Brothers. "They're the ones who robbed you. Go get them, boys."

The Clintons want to enjoy the privileges of their ill-gotten wealth, without accepting any of the responsibility. They want to have their mansions and their class warfare. They want to pile up vast fortunes and then talk about the problems of income inequality. Like many liberals, they want to have the radical privileges of poverty and the prosperous luxuries of wealth at the same time. They want to yammer about capitalism while flying a private jet to a vacation resort.

The poor little rich liberals have made themselves wealthier and the country poorer. Now they are exploiting the miserable economy that they are responsible for with more class warfare.

They are poor, but not in money. They are impoverished in industry and suffer from severe poverties of honesty, decency and shame. They hardly have a single truth to their name and their fake poverty is as fake as their concern for the poor.

Friday, September 05, 2014

Friday Afternoon Roundup - Learning to Love Big Jihad




 Code Pink Takes Time Out from ISIS and Hamas to Support Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine



 LEAVING TO LOVE BIG JIHAD

Israel was told not to take down Arafat or Hamas would take over. Now Israel is being warned that if it destroys Hamas, ISIS will take over...

And who is to say that ISIS is as extreme as it gets? Shouldn’t we be careful not to bomb ISIS too much or it will be replaced by an even more extreme group such as SuperJihad or “Behead Anyone Who Isn’t a Salafi”?

And if SuperJihad ever shows up, we’ll have to turn Gaza over to ISIS before you can say the Shahada six times fast so that it can bomb Tel Aviv before SuperJihad bombs Tel Aviv.
Learning to Love Our Terrorist Friends





PASTAPHOBIA

A protest held by refugees against “monotonous” Italian food was “excessive”, especially at a time when thousands of Italians go hungry, the president of a police organization told The Local.

“There are thousands of Italians living in poverty and who aren’t even eating one meal a day, let alone two or three,” he said.

For two days, a group of about 40 asylum-seekers staying at a refugee centre in the Veneto province of Belluno refused to eat the “pasta with tomato sauce, bread and eggs” meals they were given and called to be fed food from their own countries,

Muslim “Refugees” in Italy Reject Pasta, Demand Food from Own Countries




JOHN KERRY FOR CALIPH

Kerry to NATO: Obama Strategy Becoming Clearer Day by Day

 Muslim Beheader of 82-Year-Old UK Woman Grew Beard, Began Praying

Kerry: Real Face of Islam is Health Care Not Beheadings




THE X FACTOR

And yet Rotherham is very revealing. The British girls being viciously abused were considered “white trash”, lower class girls who were abandoned for an elitist multicultural fantasy.

Hillary Clinton’s rape victim is also lower class.

The celebrities however are about as high up on the ladder of class as it gets. Much like the campus rape debates that constantly show up in the media.

This isn’t about gender, it’s about class.

Rotherham, Celebrity Photos and Hillary Clinton’s Rape Victim





THUS SAYETH THE LIBERAL'S LORD

 Wednesday at a ceremony to appoint Texas lawyer Shaarik Zafar to be special representative to Muslim communities, Secretary of State John Kerry said it was the United States’ Biblical “responsibility” to “confront climate change,” including to protect “vulnerable Muslim majority counties.”
Kerry: God Commands Me to Protect Muslim Countries from Global Warming (VIDEO)



The Great Treadmill of Muslim Extremism




WARNING

"Both Osama Bin Ladin and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri were long-time members of the organization. The Egyptian Zawahiri knows many of the old guard in the party and participated in debates with them. The Brotherhood’s ideologue Sayyid Qutb laid the legal and spiritual foundations for the violent jihad that al Qaeda and others have waged against Arab regimes and their Western backers. Another member, Abdallah Azzam, was the architect of the jihad in Afghanistan."

Beheaded Journalist Steven Sotloff’s Warning About the Muslim Brotherhood




ISIS: Remove Us From UN Terror List or We Won’t Release UN Hostages




ENDGAME

Mohammed and ISIS share a vision for the world and it doesn’t include us. Until we recognize that, things will only keep getting uglier.

Cherry picking Islamic quotes, as politicians like to do when they’re declaring Islam a religion of peace, is laughably futile. Not only do they routinely misuse them in laughable ways, much as when Muslims insist that Freedom of Religion should lead to a ban on Mohammed cartoons, but they miss the larger point that Islam is a mechanism for constructing a theocracy. That is what comes first. Everything else is subsidiary.

You’re not going to talk the other side out of their theocracy. You might convince them that their long term interests are better served by letting a hostage go. That’s what Qatar did with Al Nusra. But you don’t do it by appealing to any Islamic ideals, but to the sole Islamic ideal of a theocratic outcome.

The Beheading of Steven Sotloff Shows Why it’s Useless to Make Islamic Appeals to Terrorists




MASOCHISM

Obama: Beheaded American “Loved the Islamic World

Sotloff Family Spokesman: Murdered Journalist was Martyr for Allah (VIDEO)

He then challenged Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to debate Islam, saying, “Woe to you. You said the month of Ramadan is the month of mercy. Where is your mercy?”

The answer will come with the next beheading. Any “mercy” in the Koran was propaganda for the Mohammedan conquests. A look back at history will teach anyone that there is as much mercy in Islam as water in the desert.




NOT A ONE

 “As I have said consistently over the last few weeks, ISIL [the group has previously been known by this name which is an acronym for the Islaimc State in the Levant] terrorists speak for no religion. They threaten Syrians, Iraqis, Americans and British people alike and make no distinction between Muslims, Christians or any other faith.”

Cameron may remember that the UK and the US got involved with ISIS because it was carrying out genocide against the Yazidis. The group has specifically targeted and purged Christians, Yazidis and Shiites.

UK PM Claims ISIS “Make no Distinction between Muslims, Christians or Any Other Faith.”




SIGN OF WEAKNESS

Obama’s only power comes from his abuse of his authority, but what one man does, another man can undo. Instead of creating a lasting legislative legacy, Obama’s executive orders and legislation by administration are a house of cards that his successor can topple with the same pen and phone.

They seem intimidating in the way that the actions of tyrants are, but tyranny can be undone with tyranny. What Obama failed to do was build a consensus. He didn’t change the course of American history. He didn’t win the hearts and minds of Americans. Now he’s reduced to vandalizing America.

Obama said that Putin’s actions in Ukraine weren’t a sign of strength, but a sign of weakness. There is some truth to that. Putin’s economic policies have failed and he was unpopular at home. But the Obama tyrannical reign of phone and pen also isn’t a sign of strength. It’s a sign of weakness.

Obama’s Miserable Failure




WHEN HAMAS IS RIGHT, IT'S RIGHT

Haniyeh said that “the men of the Palestinian media have formed the source from which the world’s media derived all that was going on in Gaza…”

Hamas Praises “Media Martyrs” who were the Sources for World Media




 MOLON LABE

The Philippine military said Monday that a UN peacekeeping commander in the Golan Heights should be investigated for allegedly asking Filipino troops to surrender to Syrian rebels who had attacked and surrounded their camp

Gen. Gregorio Pio Catapang said he advised the 40 Filipino peacekeepers not to lay down their arms, and they defied the UN peacekeeping commander’s order. Instead, they staged a daring escape from the Golan camp over the weekend, ending a tense, dayslong standoff.

Filipino Soldiers Defied UN Order to Surrender to ISIS




PAULESTINIA

Rand Paul has a Bold Decisive Plan to do the Same Thing in Iraq

Rand Paul was Against America Being Iran’s Air Force, Before He was for It

No, Rand Paul Doesn’t Support Destroying ISIS




A VIOLIN SMALL ENOUGH

The Palestinian Authority’s Social and Prisoners’ Affairs Minister Shawqi al-Ayasa said Sunday that the unity pact signed in June between the PA and Hamas was working with a budget that was “below zero,” signaling deep financial difficulties to to run bureaucratic institutions.

“The US has not provided a single penny since Jan. 1, and Europe and Arab states only provided a third of what they were scheduled to give,” al-Ayasa told the Palestinian news agency Ma’an.

Minister in Charge of Giving Money to Terrorists Complains US Isn’t Sending Money




Genocidal Muslim Leader Who Called for Mass Murder Says Muslims Join ISIS Because They Are “Marginalized”



THE ROUNDUP

... BEYOND REPAIR

Thus, Palestinian Arab Nationalism in its current form (and to be frank I do not know if any other form could ever exist since the very idea of Palestine as a nation is academically defunct) is a form of self-hatred, because it is rooted in the notion that the non-Palestinian Arab is eternally superior and the Palestinian Arab is irrevocably oppressed. Palestinian Nationalism is inherently discriminatory because it contends that a separate distinct “special” Arab race exists, that that special Arab race ought to be oppressed, and that that oppression is what deems it worthy of existing. This is orientalism in its most extreme form, for discrimination can at least be outlawed and even self-hatred can potentially be corrected. But taking pride in one’s self-hatred, well that, is beyond repair.

From Chloe Simone Valdary



OPPRESSION AND REPRESSION

WHEN I WAS VERY YOUNG, majoring in marijuana at the university, hanging out with the Progressive Labor Party, and skipping through the clouds of tear gas on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley, I was convinced that any war that would send my long-haired, sensitive, poetic and acid-tripping self off to wade through rice paddies in Vietnam just had to be wrong, wrong, wrong...

I also found that, like any good Berkeley radical, you needed -- in this realm of unremitting oppressions so thick and so multiple that counting was foolish -- to find some good friends; some very good friends both at home and abroad. And so you looked around, not so much for friends, but for enemies of your enemy, the oppressive AmeriKKKa. You looked around the world using the dubious intellectual filter: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

When you ran everything you said and did through that filter you had no end of friends in the 60s and early 70s. Some of them even had guns, ammo, armies, armor and nuclear weapons.

The "friends" of our slice of the young America included, but were not limited to, The Soviet Union, The People's Republic of China, Castro's Cuba, and socialist and communist parties stretching across Europe and down through Mexico, Central and South America. Elsewhere they included the Viet Minh, the Viet Cong, the Khmer Rouge, the Red Army Faction... on and on until the international litany of political dementia girdled the globe in a seamless political landscape of perpetual Revolution, sexual and otherwise.

You and your oppressed and draftable friends saw those groups and nations as "righteous." You saw them not as the totalitarian serial killers they were, but as the secular saviors of civilization. They were, well, just very cool guys. They were "happening, bro."

...from Gerard at American Digest




MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL

At the diametrically opposite end of mirror-usage reside our neighbors. They never go for plain plane mirrors and they never did.  The Arab world’s favorite looking-glass is the crazy mirror – a.k.a. the carnival mirror – that lowbrow staple of old-time funfairs. No use expecting verisimilitude here. It’s not sought and it is not welcome. The idea isn’t to reflect reality but to invent its deceptive alternative.

Curved mirrors, both convex and concave, distort shapes weirdly and wickedly and render the factual and the imaginary indistinguishable. These mirrors are further adroitly shifted and retracted. With a bit of smoke, conjurers can altogether cunningly both obscure and embellish the truth in a spellbinding hallucinatory extravaganza.

This is why Israelis emerged somewhat downhearted from the latest conflict with Gaza while Hamastan lustily celebrated the triumph it proclaimed absurdly among the ruins.

Both sides here are decidedly loony but in significantly different ways and that difference encapsulates the whole story. It reminds us that we don’t share anything close to the same logic and that we don’t even think or communicate on the same wavelength. It accounts for why there can never be a meeting of the minds between the self-flagellating objectivity of Jews and the illusory subjectivity of Arabs.

We couldn’t be more unalike.

from Sarah Honig at Another Tack


Wednesday, September 03, 2014

Moderate Islam is Our New Religion

I have been searching for moderate Islam since September 11 and just like a lost sock in the dryer, it was in the last place I expected it to be.

There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won’t find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.

You can’t find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.

You won’t find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won’t even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won’t find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.

Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe.

The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn’t a religion at all.

Take Islam, turn it inside out and you have moderate Islam. Take a Muslim who hasn’t been inside a mosque in a year, who can name the entire starting lineup of the San Diego Chargers, but can’t name Mohammed’s companions and you have a moderate Muslim. Or more accurately, a secular Muslim.

An early generation of Western leaders sought the affirmation of their national destinies in the divine. This generation of Western leaders seeks the affirmation of their secular liberalism in a moderate Islam.

Even if they have to make it up.

Without a moderate Islam the Socialist projects of Europe which depend on heavy immigration collapse. America’s War on Terror becomes the endless inescapable slog that the rise of ISIS has once again revealed it to be. Multiculturalism, post-nationalism and Third World Guiltism all implode.

Without moderate Muslims, nationalism returns, borders close and the right wins. That is what they fear.

If there is no moderate Islam, no moderate Mohammed, no moderate Allah, then the Socialist Kingdom of Heaven on Earth has to go in the rubbish bin. The grand coalitions in which LGBT activists and Islamists scream at Jews over Gaza aren’t the future; they’re the Weimar Republic on wheels.

Flash back to Obama in his tan suit wearily saying that he has no strategy for ISIS. The original plan was to capture Osama alive, give him a civilian trial, cut a deal with the moderate Taliban and announce the end of the War on Terror before the midterm elections.

So much for that.

Moderate Islam is a difficult faith. To believe in it you have to disregard over a thousand years of recorded history, theology, demographics and just about everything that predates 1965. You have to ignore the bearded men chopping off heads because they don’t represent the majority of Muslims.

Neither does Mohammed, who did his own fair share of headchopping.

The real Islam is a topic that non-Muslims of no faith who hold sacred only the platitudes of a post-everything society are eager to lecture on without knowing anything about it.

Their Islam is not the religion of Mohammed, the Koran, the Hadiths, the Caliphs or its practitioners in such places as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq or Indonesia. Their Islam is a religion that does not exist, but that they fervently believe must exist because without it their way of life is as doomed as the dodo.

They aren’t Muslims. They have no faith in Allah or the Koran. Instead they have faith in the goodness of an Islam that exists without resort to scriptures, theology or deity. This may seem strange to actual believers, but after all their own poor tattered scraps of Christianity or Judaism don’t bother paying too much attention to deities or scriptures except when it comes to cherry-picking quotes about tolerance.

Is it any wonder that they treat Islam the same way?

The true moderate Muslims are secular liberals of loosely Christian and Jewish persuasion who have invented and believe in a moderate Islam that doesn’t exist outside of their own heads. This secular Islam, which values all life, is dedicated to social justice and universal tolerance, is a counterpart of their own bastardized religions. And they are too afraid to wake up and realize that it doesn’t exist.

When American and European leaders insist that Islam has nothing to do with the latest Islamic atrocity, they are not referencing a religion practiced by Muslims, but an imaginary religion that they imagine Muslims must practice because the alternative is the end of everything that they believe in.

Their moderate Islam is light on the details, beyond standing for social justice, fighting Global Warming and supporting gay rights, because it is really multiculturalism wearing a fake beard. When a Western leader claims that the latest batch of Islamic terrorists don’t speak for Islam, he isn’t defending Muslims, he’s defending multiculturalism. He assumes that Muslims believe in multiculturalism because he does.

Moderate Islam is just multiculturalism misspelled. Its existence is a firm article of faith for those who believe in multiculturalism.

Dissuading a believer in moderate Muslims from his invented faith by citing the long trail of corpses or the hateful Hadiths that call for mass murder is futile because these are not the roots of his religion. He doesn’t know what a Hadith is nor does he care. As a social justice man in good standing, he attributes the violent track record of Islam to European colonialism and oppression.

He has never read the Koran. He has read a thousand articles about how Muslims are oppressed at the airport, in Gaza, in Burma and in Bugs Bunny cartoons. They are his new noble savages and he will not hear a word against them. Having colonized their identities in his imagination (despite the marked up copy of Edward Said’s Orientalism that he keeps by his bedside) he treats them as reflections of his ego.

When you say that moderate Muslims don’t exist, you are calling him a bad person. When you challenge Islam, you are attacking multiculturalism and he will call you a racist, regardless of the fact that Islam is as much of a race as Communism, Nazism or the Mickey Mouse Fan Club were races.

The moderate Muslim is an invention of the liberal academic, the secular theologian, the vapid politician and his shrill idiot cousin, the political activist. Like the money in the budgets that underpin their plans and the scientific evidence for Global Warming, he does not exist.

And it is not necessary that he should exist. It is only necessary that we have faith in his existence.

The degraded lefty descendants of Christians and Jews wait for a moderate Muslim messiah who will reconcile the impossibilities of their multicultural society by healing the conflicts between Islam and the West. Until they find him, they have to believe, not in a divinity, but in the moderate Muslim.

Monday, September 01, 2014

The Deadly Israeli House Strikes Again

There are few weapons as deadly as the Israeli house. When its brick and mortar are combined together, the house, whether it is one of those modest one story hilltop affairs or a five floor apartment building complete with hot and cold running water, becomes far more dangerous than anything green and glowing that comes out of the Iranian centrifuges.

Forget the cluster bomb and the mine, the poison gas shell and even tailored viruses. Iran can keep its nuclear bombs. They don't impress anyone in Europe or in Washington. Genocide is a minor matter when in the presence of the fearsome weapon of terror that is an Israeli family of four moving into a new apartment.

Sudan may have built a small mountain of African corpses, but it can't expect to command the full and undivided attention of the world until it does something truly outrageous like building a house and filling it with Jews. Since the Sudanese Jews are as gone as the Jews of Egypt, Iraq, Syria and good old Afghanistan, the chances of Bashir the Butcher pulling off that trick are rather slim.

Due to the Muslim world's shortsightedness in driving out its Jews from Cairo, Aleppo and Baghdad  to Jerusalem, the ultimate weapon in international affairs is entirely controlled by the Jewish State. The Jewish State's stockpile of Jews should worry the international community far more than its hypothetical stockpiles of nuclear weapons. No one besides Israel, and possibly Saudi Arabia, cares much about the Iranian bomb. But when Israel builds a house, then the international community tears its clothes, wails, threatens to recall its ambassadors and boycott Israeli peaches.

Angry British men in red Keffiyahs hold up signs about the Holocaust in front of Jewish cosmetics stores in London. Marginalized French youth, by way of Algeria and Tunisia, hurl stones at synagogues. John Kerry interrupts a speech on the dangers of Global Warming as an aide notifies him of an even bigger threat to the world. David just made a down payment on a two bedroom in Gvaot.

You can spit on the White House carpets and steal all the gold in Greece. You can blow up anything you like and threaten anyone you will, but you had better not lift a drill near the hills from which Balaam tried and failed to curse the Jewish people. Where the old Mesopotamian warlock failed, his successors in the United Nations follow in his footsteps by cursing Israel every day of the week.

Some may think that nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapons, but as we see, time and time again, the ultimate weapon is a hammer and a fistful of nails in a Jewish hand.

Obama has yet to dig up a strategy for ISIS and can't think of what to do about Putin in the Ukraine, but there's always a final status solution strategy for Israel which involves destroying as many Jewish houses as possible and driving out the families living inside them.

Everyone has their standards. There are things that we all cannot abide. And for all the Miss America answers about ending war, hunger and people who wear plaid in public, the one thing that everyone will stand up against or sit down in opposition to is the Israeli house.

China announcing that there would be no democracy in Hong Kong, ISIS losing a battle to Iraqi forces and Jihadists occupying the US embassy in Tripoli were all minor stories thoroughly buried by the horrifying report that Israel might "seize" 988 acres of land for housing.

From the amount of media coverage you might have thought that Israel had conquered France or Kuwait instead of allocating some land the size of a farm or a ranch for housing. If Israel had only allocated 2,000 acres, then aliens could have landed in Berkeley and the news would have been buried under coverage of the houses which might be build and on which Jews might one day live.

The land being "seized" had belonged to Israel and had no prior claims against it. If Qatar had decided to finance a Muslim construction project on the site, no one would have been opposed. But there are different rules for the Jews. There have always been different rules about where the Jews can live. International law is the new ghetto. Its enforcers are diplomats and BDS.

The State Department has claimed that building houses is "counterproductive" to peace. On the other hand the Palestinian Authority's funding of terrorists never seems to be counterproductive. The legal decision about the land was made in accordance with the existing Ottoman law of the Muslim empire. But Muslim laws are only supposed to be applied when they advantage Muslims.

White House officials have in the past claimed that Netanyahu "humiliated" Obama by authorizing the building of houses. While Russia may threaten nuclear war against the United States, and Iran  may play Obama for a fool, only Israel has managed to achieve official recognition for "humiliating" Obama, without even trying, proving once again that the Jewish race is so talented that it often achieves things that other peoples may only dream of without even realizing that it is doing it.

Now that Netanyahu has gone to the mattresses, literally, by authorizing new housing, the media will begin braying that Israel has humiliated Obama all over again. They say that every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings. But every time an Israeli jackhammer roars, Obama stands, like that famous trash-mourning fake Indian, with a tear slowly making its way down one glistening cheek at the sight of another humiliating Israeli house.

According to the New York Times, which is never wrong, building more houses makes peace impossible. Peace, which is not in any way obstructed by rockets, suicide bombers, unilateral statehood bids and declarations of war, comes up against only one obstacle. The stout unyielding wall of the Israeli house.

You can shell Israeli houses, bomb them and break inside to massacre the people living inside, but then after all that, Israel goes and builds more of those damn things.

Hamas shoots thousands of rockets and Israel builds thousands of houses. But Israeli houses generally stay where they're built, while Hamas rockets are as likely to kill Gazans as they are to put holes in the roofs of those dastardly houses. And in the arms race between houses and rockets, the Israelis appear to be winning. And that's not good for peace.

If Israelis get the dangerous idea that they can just keep building houses and outlast all the talented rocketeers who spend their time with the Koran in front of one eye and the Anarchist's Cookbook in front of the other, what hope is there for peace?

That is why no one cares much about Hamas rockets, which mostly kill Israelis, who most reasonable people in London, Paris and Brussels think have it coming anyway, but get into a foaming lather about an Israeli house.

Killing Israelis has never been any obstacle to peace. Twenty years of killing Israelis has not dissuaded a single Israeli government from sitting down at the table to dicker with the terrorists. But an Israeli family living in a house is holding down territory that it will be harder to then cede to terrorists when the angels have blown their horns, the seas have all gone dry and peace is carried in on a golden platter by 72 virgins accompanied by their flying suicide bomber mates.

The problem is an old one. Pharaoh struggled with it. So did Hitler. And so does Hamas. What do you do when there are too many Jews living. The answer is usually obvious.

Israel's Peace Partners tried to go back to the time-honored Egyptian tradition of throwing all the Jews into the sea. But despite an entire officer corps temporarily "on leave" from the armed forces of the United Kingdom, they only got as far as half of Jerusalem, where they blew up every synagogue, and took the West Bank of Israel, or as the non-indigenous Zionist invaders with no roots in the region call it, Judea and Samaria.

Nineteen years later, Israel's Peace Partners had traded in their British officer corps for a Soviet officer corps, and lost Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, proving that when it came to killing Jews, the Communists were better at it when the Jews weren't shooting back. Ever since then the world, or those portions of it populated entirely by diplomats and the better class of journalists, has been urging Israel to give back the land to an imaginary country to be populated entirely by terrorists.

This peace plan, which has worked as well as fighting fire with gasoline, has not in any way been endangered by two decades of terror, but trembles down to its toes every time an Israeli hammer falls on an Israeli nail. Because that land must go back so that rockets can be shot from it into Israel, so that Israel can invade it and reclaim it, and then sit down for another peace process to return the land from which the rockets will be fired, which will be invaded, which will be given back... for peace.

And Israeli houses endanger this cycle of peace and violence. They endanger it by creating "facts on the ground", a piquant phrase that only seems to apply to houses with Jews. Muslim houses in no way create facts on the ground, even though they are built out of the same material and filled with people. Or perhaps they create the good kind of facts on the ground. The kind of preemption of negotiations that the professional peacemakers approve of.

But it's hard to know what exactly the peacemakers approve of, because their arguments and their definitions keep changing all the time. All that we know is that they disapprove of Israeli houses.

The United States repeatedly assured Israel that Jerusalem would in no way be endangered by the peace process. No less a personality than Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. co-sponsored three Senate resolutions urging that Jerusalem should remain Israel's undivided capital. Then like all good politicians, he was horribly offended when the Israelis actually took him at his word.

Obama gave an election speech where he declared that Jerusalem should be undivided. A day later he explained that he meant "undivided" in some spiritual sense that did not preclude it from actually being physically divided.

UN Chief Ban Ki-moon has declared Israeli houses to be an "almost fatal blow" to the peace process. It is, of course, only an "almost fatal blow"  because the peace process, like Dracula, cannot be killed. Israeli houses, fearsome as they may be with their balconies and poor heating in winter, are never quite enough to kill it.

Like the monster of a horror movie, the peace process always comes back and no matter how many blows the Israeli house delivers to it, a year later there's a sequel where the Israeli house is being stalked by the peace process monster all over again.

The army of lethal Israeli houses, which may not be built for another five years, if ever, seem formidable in the black newsprint of the New York Times and in the fulminations of Guardian columnists, but their actual potency is limited to housing Jewish families and infuriating international diplomats and their media coathangers.

Europe is furious, Obama is seething, the UN is energized, and somewhere in Iraq, the Caliph of ISIS wipes the grease out of his beard and wonders what he could do to get this much attention. He briefly scribbles down some thoughts on a napkin but then dismisses them as being too implausible.

As much as it might get the world's attention, there is no way ISIS can build houses for Jews in Israel.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

The Imaginary Non-Interventionist

Ever since Hillary broke with Barack over the virtues of doing stupid stuff, the editorial columnists have been pretending that she has some new and exciting foreign policy.

She doesn't.

The left has been denouncing her as an interventionist, the second coming of George W. Bush. They just can't explain how Hillary is any more of an interventionist than her old boss who bombed Libya, is bombing Iraq and wanted to bomb Syria. Other places he's bombing include Yemen and Pakistan. And all that is without taking account of his attempt to implement the Arab Spring's regime changes across the region with tragic and disastrous results.

The closest thing to a disagreement between them was over Syria and considering that Obama was days away from getting into Syria, that's not much of a firewall.

Hillary took a cheap shot at Obama. The media spent so much time discussing the cheap shot and their hugging summit that it completely ignored the fact that it was a cheap shot with no substance to it. Hillary and Obama have the same ideological DNA and get their ideas from the same narrow circles. Hillary doesn't have a better or worse foreign policy. They both have the same foreign policy.

Underneath the manufactured political reality show drama that happens when a candidate of the same party as a lame duck administration tries to explain why she's so different than the miserable failure now holding down the job is the sober reality that they're both reading from the same scripts.

How could they not?

Hillary Clinton is trying to distance herself from the foreign policy of an administration in which she served as Secretary of State. Hillary is trying to distance herself from her own approach to international relations That's a level of schizophrenia that is a bit extreme even for a woman who sheds accents, identities and sports team affinities the way that a snake sheds its skin.

Hillary isn't disavowing Obama. She's disavowing Hillary.

The newly reinvented Hillary is suddenly pro-Israel after spending years berating the Jewish State. She suddenly realized the importance of having a coherent foreign policy after having the same confused position on Iraq as John Kerry. She is suddenly full of the wisdom that was missing until last year. And she's somehow more of an interventionist than Obama even though they were both intervening in the exact same places.


Hillary is an interventionist. But so is Obama.

The non-interventionist, like the pacifist, is a mythical woodland creature who appears in the fables of many cultures. He isn't however to be found in the vicinity of Washington D.C.

Break down the arguments of the non-interventionist and you will find a set of conspiracy theories explaining why every previous intervention was motivated by bad faith, secret agendas and racism. The non-interventionist doesn't reject intervention; instead he contends that every previous intervention failed because it was carried out at the behest of the banks, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, the Jews, American arrogance and the oil industry.

But the non-interventionist who makes it into the White House is free to intervene as much as he likes because his motives are pure. He isn't trying to secretly build oil pipelines or put money into Haliburton. He won't be a unilateral cowboy launching new crusades for no good reason. And so he becomes the non-interventionist interventionist, the multilateral unilateralist, the good invader.

The fake interventionist is a lot more dangerous than the real interventionist because he thinks that he has learned all the lessons from history when all he has done is filled his head with idiotic conspiracy theories. By assigning evil underhanded motives to all his predecessors, he passes up the opportunity to actually learn from their example and instead operates under an unrealistic sense of self-confidence in his own judgement. Because he is certain that they were evil and he isn't, he believes that he can do no wrong. 

A true non-interventionist would reject intervention wholesale. Our fake non-interventionists turn up their noses at it when their political opponents do it. But once they have the power, they intervene out of entirely pure motives such as helping the Muslim Brotherhood take over entire countries.

Obama is a non-interventionist because he spends a lot of time hesitating and apologizing for each intervention. He doesn't however bother getting permission from Congress or even UN approval.

Why should he? His motives are pure. Process is a way of slowing down men with impure motives such as George W. Bush. But pacifist saints can bomb as many countries as they want without the requirements of process getting in the way.

Hillary's crime is that she currently sounds somewhat less apologetic and uncertain about intervention, but that's not policy, that's pose. Hillary's husband boasted on the day before September 11 that he passed on killing Bin Laden because of the collateral damage. And Bill Clinton is, if anything, more of a hawk than his wife.

Anyone who thinks that Hillary is a hawk has forgotten how American personnel in Benghazi were left in a precarious security situation on her watch. It's quite possible that Hillary might decide to bomb Syria. But don't expect her to bomb in defense of American national interests.

She's not that kind of interventionist.

Hillary knows that many voters are unhappy about American weakness. They don't actually want war, but they want someone in the White House whom Putin will take seriously. And they know that isn't Obama.

Hillary is temporarily talking tough to win them over encouraging them to forget her Reset Button pandering to the Russians and instead convince them that she's the woman to make Vladimir respect America again. And to do that she has to sound more assertive in foreign affairs than Obama.

That doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton can stand up to Putin any better than Obama. Or that she will. But she needs uncertain Democrats to believe that the new boss will be different than the old boss, when the new boss is really the old boss in a pantsuit and with worse posters.

Unfortunately Democrats and Republicans don't currently differ very much on foreign policy. Where they differ is orientation. And that's more significant than it sounds. Both Obama and McCain would have backed the Arab Spring, but McCain would have done it out of a misguided sense that it was in America's national interest, while Obama did it to undermine American national interests.

The significance of the difference is not so much in the outcome as in attitude and in the tools that they use.

Obama and McCain would have both bombed Libya, but Obama holds the military in contempt and treats it that way. Obama and McCain would have both endorsed the Arab Spring, but Obama did it in a way that signaled American weakness. That is why Obama's approach has weakened America even more than the actual outcome of his policies.

A country can survive bad policy. We've had bad foreign policy for much of the 20th century. But a leader who communicates that the bad policy is a symptom of national weakness is a disaster on a whole other scale. Both Carter and Reagan made mistakes, but Carter and Reagan sent two very different messages about American power even while they made their mistakes.

Leadership isn't always about what you do. It's about how you communicate your priorities and values.

Hillary Clinton is trying to package her old Obama policies with a new attitude, but underneath the attitude is the same old lefty radical who smooched Arafat's wife, brought a Reset Button to Russia and apologized to Pakistan for a YouTube video.

We've already seen Hillary's foreign policy on display in Pakistan, Russia and Benghazi. All the cheap shots at Obama won't change the fact that Hillary's foreign policy is another Obama rerun.