#Brexit and Donald Trump

First: Congratulations to the People of Great Britain for their courage and commitment to self-rule and local governance.  I'm glad they voted to leave the European Union; it's in their best interests.  The days ahead will be hard, and at every bump in the road talking heads will tell them how "it's their own fault" for choosing independence.  To a degree they're right: independence, self-rule, these things are hard and not without difficulty.  But they are worth far more than the fake "security" of being ruled from afar.

As the English withdrawal from the European Union is analyzed and constantly second-guessed, let me submit to you that it was inevitable, and it shows that Donald Trump has a much better chance to win in November than the Talking Heads would have you believe.  See, I believe that Brexit and the Rise of Trump are both based on the same thing - the realization by the People that their so-called leaders have failed in their actual duties.

National governments have basically two jobs - ensure a "level playing field" inside their borders and protecting their citizens from non-citizens.  That's it.  Both of these are predicated on one foundational idea that the West seems determined to abandon: "Us First."  A nation's government should always, as its first priority, put the well-being and interests of its citizens over the well-being and interests of non-citizens. 

Whether that's non-naturalized immigrants living within its population, foreign threats, foreign business, or even just healthy old international competition, a national government's first priority should be "what is in the best interests of my citizens?"

That's a harder question to answer sometimes that it might seem.  Are trade terriffs on imports good?  How about a lax or strict immigration policy?  What about (any given) war?  Not always easy.

Sometimes, however, it is easy.  Is illegal immigration good for a nation's citizens, or bad?  Bad.  There's not even a question here.  Is unchecked immigration from majority muslim countries good, or bad?  Bad.  Again, not even a question - when your best answer is "we don't know they're a threat," you're not arguing that it's good, just that it might not be as bad as feared.  Ergo: bad.

Now, most people don't even think of these things in these terms.  I'm pretty sure the average Englishman doesn't think in terms of terriffs and duties, or immigration policy.  What they do think of is: how easy it is to find a job (harder with lax immigration, and even harder with massive illegal immigration)?  How good is my standard of living (worse with poor trade policy and massive immigration)?  How safe am I in my home (worse with Muslim Terrorists moving easily about the globe, worse with illegal immigrants)?

And that brings us back to our own shores and Donald Trump.  Donald Trump resonantes with people because he understands* these things.  He understands them in his bones.  Look at his campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again."  That says it all in four words.  America was great "before."  What is "before?"  Well, that's up to the individual.  But it's not great now.  So let's make it great again. 

Let's put Americans first.  Let's say that the well being of American businesses, the American worker, is more important to us than the well being of Iraqis, Afghans, Israelis, Austrialians, the British, Canadians, or anyone else.  Let's get control of our borders - all four of them, and stop importing unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce (what, you think we didn't have one?  Everyone starts "unskilled").  Let's stop immigration from majority Muslim countries - we owe them nothing - until either Mohammedanism can tamp down on its more violent tendencies or we can find a way to screen out the terrorists.  Let's stop engaging in wars to benefit others and not ourselves.  If American boys and girls are going to die, let's make it to the benefit of the country they serve, and not just someone else.

And that's where the leaders of Great Britain (not the EU) and the United States have failed.  By allowing massive immigration (usually without requiring assimilation), we import unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce.  The EU member nations are importing terrorists - and it won't be too long before one gets over here.  The so-called leadership of Great Britain and the United States has failed to put their own citizens first, and the citizens are crying "no more."

Of course, they also said (as late as yesterday), that the Brexit would fail.

Will Donald Trump win in November?  I don't know.  People are saying he has no chance.


* - Understanding is not the same as agreeing with or supporting.  Personally, I believe he does both, but whether or not he agrees with or believes in "America First," it is clear that he - unlike the talking heads and Washington Establishment - at least understands it.

"No! Shut them all down!"

First, if you don’t recognize that line, I’m not sure we can be friends.

Second, go read this from Larry Kudlow, and then go read this from Ace.

I tend to be on Ace’s side here.  The Republican Establishment has been too open borders for too long, despite the grass roots’ very specific objections that our border situation was a National Security concern.  Either they are way too stupid to be in charge (for not realizing what us rubes in fly-over land, free-market Jesus paradise have realized for the last couple of decades), or they are simply trying to co-opt a position they don’t actually believe to make us rubes in fly-over land, free-market Jesus paradise a little less angry at them.

For over 14 years the Minute Men have been on the border between the US and Mexico attempting (voluntarily) to help US Border Patrol.  They understood (as did many of the rest of us) the danger posed by an open border way back then.  So is really that another terror attack on US soil finally got Larry’s attention, or is he trying to sound tough so that the grass roots will start trusting the Establishment again?

However, with all that said, I think Kudlow is an idiot even in his new hawkish opinion.  He reminds me rather of C-3PO telling R2D2 not to shut down “all the trash compactors on the detention level” but rather, “No! Shut them all down!”

We don’t have a problem with immigrants or visitors from England, France, or Sweden.  Not by and large, at any rate, and certainly not a recognizable terrorism problem from those countries.  Why should we prevent them from coming here and, potentially, even further alienate our allies?  Larry wants to pretend that this is not “about religion.”  To do so, he has to pretend it’s about “immigration” more generally, and so the only option is complete embargo.

Note to Larry Kudlow and the rest of the GOP Establishment:  It’s the Mohammedanism, stupid.

What is the common denominator among Iraq, Syria, Libya, Israel’s West Bank, and the rest of the Middle East?  Mohammedanism.  Who are the euphemistic “warlords” in Africa?  Mostly Mohammedans.  Who is throwing gays off of buildings, beheading Christians, and slaughtering innocents?  Mohammedans.  Who shot up a Christmas Party in San Bernadino, detonated a bomb at the Boston Marathon, and flew 3 planes into US landmarks?  Mohammedans.

It would be really nice if Mohammedanism really was “a religion of peace,” as its apologists claim.  It simply isn’t.  Mohammedanism, is an evil death cult.  Mohammed preached (and practiced) conversion by the sword, conquest, rape, and pillage.  Today, a majority of Mohammedans world-wide believe that violent jihad is a valid form of Mohammedanism.  A majority of US Mohammedans believe that Sharia Law, which has been called “completely incompatible with American Values, should be the law of the land.


Trump is certainly bombastic.  He’s a carnival barker, a narcissist, and a whole host of other unsavory things.  But between him and Larry Kudlow?  Trump is the one who is right.

Peace from the tip of a Sword

It has been said that there is a certain kind of peace that only comes out the other side of a war.  George W. Bush famously stated that "peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice."  When the European Powers of the 1930s would make moves of appeasement toward Hitler's Germany, they would secure peace for a year or two, or sometimes just months.  It was not until Germany was opposed and defeated that the threat of Nazi Germany was completely removed.

Over the last six decades, Israel has spent much of its time defending itself from Islamic threats.  The so-called "Palestinians" have demanded more and more land, with the express purpose of removing the State of Israel.  They now own the Gaza strip, in another failed land-for-peace deal.  Yet every year more and more rockets of greater efficacy pour into Israel in a rain of indiscriminate death.  Then, when Israel feels it is being forced to respond, they are somehow made to be the bad guys.

The most recent example of this, of course, was Operation Pillar of Defence (in Hebrew, I'm informed this is a reference to the Pillar of Fire/Smoke that God used to lead the Israelites out of Egypt).  So the United States and Egypt stepped in to "negotiate a peace" which was really just Israel agreeing not to demolish Hamas, and Hamas admitting they were completely outclassed, and wanted to rest up before starting another attack.

Until this is allowed to sort itself out through the use of applied violence, there will always be this tension and terror in Israel.  Remember that there is no reason for a "separate Palestinian" state.  It is not illegal to practice Islam in Israel.  I'm not even certain Muslims are barred from serving on the Knesset.  Muslims have no additional burdens on themselves when they live in Israel.  What Muslims hate about Israel isn't that they "kicked out the inhabitants" (they didn't), or that they're "oppressing" Muslims (they aren't), it's the existence of a Jewish State at all that they hate, and they will not stop until it is destroyed, or it has proven that they cannot destroy it.

If we really want peace in the Middle East, we must stop being a weight on the sword-arm of Israel.  We must allow them to complete the mission and force the Palestinians into capitulation.  Only when that occurs will Israel be able to negotiate from a position of strength.  And since Israel is the party there that is not fully invested in the destruction of their opponent, they are the ones we should want negotiating from strength.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama and his State Department, with the help of the now Islamic Tyrannical State of Egypt, imposed a peace which will only result in more war, more destruction, and more death.

Not Optimal- Ambassador Stevens Begged For More Security

UPDATE: Here is the full document release.  It actually turns out security concerns date back to November of 2011, at least (I haven't gotten all the way through them, yet)

From Fox News.

Today, a pair of Republican Senators (that is the only way they are identified in the article) released 166 pages of internal State Department documents showing that for months (going back to at least February) Ambassador Stevens had asked for increased security for Benghazi, Libya, citing increasing violence and the presence of Terrorist Organizations.  And they show that he was denied, every time.

Up until the day he was murdered (in a move Barack Obama characterized as "not optimal), the ambassador was requesting increased security.

Remember that the administration claimed for two full weeks that the attack was because of a YouTube video.  Here is proof positive that Barack Obama (he claimed responsibility stopped with him) should be fired or, preferably, impeached.

This is proof that the "video" story was a lie from the beginning.  Forget "within the first 24 hours."  They knew a terror attack was possible, if not highly probable, anyway.  Once the attack occurred, their first thought should have been "terror attack." 

These documents prove that the Administration was aware that security was "not optimal" at Benghazi.  In one of the documents, a State Department official points out that Benghazi will only have two agents for security.  Two.  Agents.

These documents prove that Al Qaeda was known to be operating openly in Libya.  In one email, Ambassador Stevens referred to the fact that the Al Qaeda flag had been seen over both government buildings and training grounds.

These documents prove that the Administration knew that violence was worsening in Libya, and that their personnel were unsafe.  The ambassador went so far as to point out that "Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable."

Barack Obama lied about the Benghazi attack, and then he had the unmitigated gall to call the murders of 4 Americans, murders which his Administration enabled by not providing adequate security, "not optimal."

Who Ordered the Coverup?

On September 11, 2012, the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was assaulted by Al Qaeda terrorists using rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.  During the attack, US Ambassador Christ Stevens disappeared and was unaccounted for for quite some time.  When he was finally located, he and three other Americans were dead; murdered at the hands of terrorists.

This was a terrible, and probably preventable series of events.  Libya was known to have active terrorist cells, including Al Qaeda.  Libya, having just gone through a revolution, has a relatively weak and unstable government.

Immediately the State Department and Administration decided to blame a YouTube video, "The Innocence of Muslims."  The story, from the beginning, was that a spontaneous mob erupted over this video.  There were problems with the story from the beginning.  First off, there was the video itself.  No one could quite articulate what it said that was so offensive to Muslims.  Added to that, the video was basically unknown, and even those who had heard of it were unlikely to have watched it. 

In addition to the video, there was the nature of the attack.  Even in the Middle East, people don't just walk around with RPGs and mortars.  The fact that these weapons were used, and were known to be in use from the beginning, disprove the theory that it was some "spontaneous demonstration" which had just turned violent.

Still, with all of this, the question somehow became who was responsible for the lapse in security.  Indeed, that's an important question.  Whoever was to blame for the lapse of security in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11 needs to be fired forthwith.  As important as it is, it should not be "the question."

As with Nixon and Watergate, which did not have a body count, the question is what did Obama know, and when did he know it.  Put another way, who ordered the coverup?  The Administration lied to the American people.  Specifically, they lied the families of the victims.  They hid behind the ridiculous story about a YouTube video for over a week.  Why?  Who decided that the American people should blame a filmmaker in America instead of Al Qaeda?

The answer can only come back to one man- Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States.  Whoever suggested the coverup, whoever argued for it, whoever outlined the talking points, it was Barack Obama who had to authorize it.  Barack Obama had to make a conscious decision to lie to the American people, repeatedly.  Not only did he lie to the American people, he used it as another excuse to apologize for America before the United Nations. 

It is unreasonable to believe that Barack Obama did not immediately know that it was a terror attack.  It is unreasonable to believe that he would seriously blame a little-known YouTube video.  It is unreasonable to believe anyone else made the final call to lie to the American people generally, and the families of the victims specifically.

Obama Administration Arming Terrorists

In the Vice Presidential debate last week, Joe Biden said that we were working with our allies in the Middle East to make sure that the Syrian Rebels were armed to take down Assad.  When Paul Ryan responded that, had there been a plan, we could have made sure those groups who share our values in Syria were getting the weapons instead of Islamist and Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, Biden responded:

“We are in the process now — and have been for months — in making sure that help, humanitarian aid, as well as other aid and training is getting to those forces that we believe, the Turks believe, the Jordanians believe, the Saudis believe are the free forces inside of Syria. That is underway.”

Like every other assertion Biden made during the debate, it was a complete lie.  According to the New York Times (link goes to Washington Post opinion piece), of all places, not only are "most of the weapons shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar... going to hard-line Islamic jihadists," but that Biden knew, or should have known, that his statement was completely false.  That is, he lied.

Barack Obama and his Administration, who lied about, and covered up the nature of, the Al Qaeda attack on our Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is now supplying arms to terrorists.  The axiom, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," is not actually true.  At most the enemy of my enemy is tactically useful.  It is true that my allies will be enemies of my enemy, but the relationship is reversed; they're my friend first.  In this case we are arming groups who, while they do hate Assad, hate us and want us all dead.

Worse, once they succeed in toppling Assad, if we don't then step in somehow to ensure that the secular groups take control of the country, the Islamists will hold another country making our ally Israel even less safe.

In the Cold War, America and our allies pursued a "containment" strategy.  That is, whenever the Soviets wanted to move into a country, even by proxy, we did everything we could to prevent it.  We knew the Soviets were a danger to us, and would not hesitate to attack if they ever thought they held a true advantage.  This is also what was behind SDI and MAD.

Unfortunately, Liberals are so wedded to their ideology that they cannot see how that applies here.  The Islamists, as with the Soviets, hate us and seek our destruction.  The Islamists, as with the Soviets, are seeking to expand their power until they are capable of opposing us.  Unlike the Soviets, the Islamists are much more likely to attack if they think our forces are merely equal, instead of waiting until they have a dependable advantage.

The same containment strategy we used against Soviet Russia would not work against the Middle East.  It could, however, be a template on which we based our opposition to the growth of the Islamist states.  Unfortunately, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are more concerned with apologizing for America's imagined faults than seeing to it that her citizens are safe.

State Department to Obama- You're a SCOAMF

And, Coincidentally, A Traitor

Let's set the Way Back Machine for September 11, 2012, Benghazi, Libya.  There, a terrorist attack on a US Consulate resulted in the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three security personnel.  The first successful terrorist attack against the US Civilian Population in exactly 11 years.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, everyone from Barack Obama, to Hillary Clinton, to their various media spokespersons were blaming the little-known video, "The Innocence of Muslims."  They continued to blame that video and "spontaneous violence" resulting from it for over a week.

They even arrested the film maker.

Mr. Obama even went before the UN and claimed that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," in a reference to the video.

(Aside: can you really slander an admitted murderer, thief, and pedophile?)

Now State Department Officials have been hauled in front of Congress.  Congress, it seems, is a little skeptical that an attack, using mortars and RPGs, on the anniversary of the worst Terror Attack in US history, in a country with little-to-no security was the result of a mob.

Faced with Congress, the State Department is saying "we never said it was a video."  They're saying they never had any intelligence relating to the video.  In short, they're calling the entire senior Administration liars and (by providing Aid and Comfort to our enemies) Traitors.

Understand- that's the only logical conclusion.  If the Administration misled the entire country about the fact it was a terror attack, the only effect it could have would be to quiet calls for reprisals against Al Qaeda before they could start.  If that's not "aid and comfort" I don't know what is.

The Barack Obama administration actively misled the country, and covered up the circumstances of Ambassador Stevens' murder.

Thugs and Monsters

Taliban Gunman tries to kill 14 year old girl

A Taliban Gunman in Pakistan shot and wounded Malala Yousufazi, a 14 year old girl who has been championing women's rights and education in Pakistan, as well as trying to bring attention to Taliban atrocities.  He attacked her on a loaded school bus- not caring about additional casualties he might inflict.  Indeed, when he wasn't sure which girl was his target, he shot Malala and a girl who had pointed her out.

Go to the linked article for more on the news portion of the story, but I think I should highlight another issue- namely that Islam is evil.

The Taliban are a deeply devout group of Islamists.  They believe only what the Koran teaches, which is to say: subjugation of women, jihad against anyone who isn't Muslim, and forced conversions.  Indeed, Islam is unique in its evil; the only things that separate Islam from most other faiths- the points of distinction beyond those things on which everyone agrees- are all evil. 

Yet, in the United States of America, we have become either too numb or afraid to call out the evil for what it is, and to defend ourselves from that evil.  From a literal midnight raid on the maker of a movie that "slandered" Islam, to anti-blasphemy laws, the United States has largely, in an official capacity at least, accepted Islam as the State Religion.  Deerborn, Michigan plays the Muslim Call To Prayer city-wide five times a day.  Can you imagine them doing the same for Catholic Mass?  What, the Muslim community in Deerborn can't set their watches?

In New York City, the MTA has banned speech that might be "offensive" or "provoke violence."  Is there any doubt that the only people they're afraid will get violent are Muslims?

For more than a week, the Obama administration blamed a little-known video for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya and across the Middle East.

This girl has more guts than the entire Obama Administration combined.  It's time to stop selling soft-soap regarding Islam.  If the Muslims wish to be seen as the "Religion of Peace," then maybe they could try being peaceful.  When Muslim terrorists attack, it should be Muslims who first stand up and say, "They don't represent us."

White House Refuses To Deny They Were Warned About Benghazi Attack

"Shut Up," They explained.

Reporters finally having been shamed into doing their jobs, Jay Carney was asked about allegations that the White House had foreknowledge of security threats to the Benghazi Consulate and had specifically declined to increase security.  He responded, "I’m not going to get into a situation under review by the State Department and the FBI."

However, it is clear from the Administrations actions that this was a failure to act, not a failure of intelligence.  Perhaps most telling is this quote, also from Mr. Carney, "Secretary Clinton instituted an accountability review that is underway as we speak."  If there was no foreknowledge, how could anyone be accountable?  Remember that the original story was that this was a spontaneous mob outraged by a YouTube video.

Additionally, Carney himself admitted that Libya was a security risk.  From the article:
About the list of security issues, Carney said it was a "known fact that Libya is in transition" and that in the eastern part of Libya in particular there are militant groups and "a great number of armed individuals and militias."

So, even if there weren't a "specific threat" (there was), wouldn't the area being "in transition" with "a great number of armed individuals and militias" require pretty substantial security?  Certainly I would expect actual US Marines instead of a local "security company."

David Plouffe: Obama is Incompetent

Didn't Lie that Benghazi Attack Was Preplanned

On NBC's "Meet the Press," Obama Adviser David Plouffe attempted to defend the miserable failure of a response to the Benghazi consulate attack and murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens.  Despite the fact we now know that the State Department knew that the attack was preplanned within 24 hours, and had plenty of advance warning that an attack was possible, and even probable, Mr. Plouffe claimed it was "preposterous and really offensive" to suggest that Mr. Obama lied about the attack.

He went on to say, "This president's record on terrorism takes a back seat to no one." 

Excuse me, Mr. Plouffe: Post 9/11 years without a terrorist attack: Bush: 7 / Obama: 3.  Back seat to no one?  Al Qaida is reassembling in the middle east, and has deep ties to some of the new regimes which arose in the "Arab Spring."

But let's assume that Mr. Plouffe isn't just trying to cover for Mr. Obama's lies with further lies.  Let's assume that he's right: Mr. Obama wasn't lying.  Well, in that case, what are we left with?  The information he gave was false.  It was known by the time Mr. Obama made his comments on the attacks that they had been preplanned.  It was almost immediately obvious.  So if he was so grossly wrong, but not lying, that leaves only one other option: He didn't know.

And why didn't he know?  Besides the fact he hadn't been taking his Presidential Daily Brief, you would think someone would have told him once the attack occurred that terrorism was suspected.  That they did not (in Plouffe's telling) indicates that the President either is not exerting the control over CIA and State that he should, or that he's seen as such a clustef*ck that they didn't trust him with that information.  In either way the underlying problem is incompetence.

With the challenges in the Middle East, we cannot afford an incompetent Commander-in-Chief.  Iran seeking nuclear power, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaida gaining influence in Mid-East Governments, and our constant problems in Afghanistan demand a competent President.  They demand a President who can exert the right kind of power at the right time in the right levels to ensure the safety of our people and our Allies.

I'd almost rather he'd been lying.


h/t: Jammie Wearing Fool

Barack Obama Covering Up Facts in Ambassador Stevens Murder

Knew in 24 hours it was a terrorist attack, blamed "mob" and "video" for over a week.

 It is now being reported that US Intelligence, and therefore the White House, knew within 24 hours of the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya was a terrorist attack with links to Al Qaida.  Despite this knowledge, the Administration continued to blame a film no one had heard of, and fewer had seen, for the attack.  So lax were they in following up on the attack, CNN was able to waltz in and take Ambassador Stevens' personal diary.

This is not your normal kind of cover up.  Nothing is gained by claiming a "mob" is responsible when we know that terrorists are.  Admitting it was a terrorist attack would not be showing any cards.  It would not be giving away any intelligence, or intelligence sources.  It would, however, have been embarrassing for the SCOAMT in office.  The first successful terrorist attacks on US Soil since 9/11 happened on his watch, less than 4 years after taking office, and just months after his administration provided assistance to the Islamist governments which now control both Egypt and Libya.

But even that does not explain covering up that fact.  Everyone knew it was a terror attack as soon as it happened.  Mobs don't carry mortars and RPGs.  So covering that fact up still makes no sense.  Unless there's something else that we don't know.

Rumor is spreading on the internet that part of the reason for the attack was that Ambassador Stevens was openly gay.  Christians just don't want same-sex couples to marry, Muslims think they should be beheaded.  Was that part of the reason for the attack?  If so, do Hillary Clinton (who personally appointed Ambassador Stevens) and Barack Obama (her boss) bear some amount of the direct blame for the attack?  If it was part of the reason, it would seem theirs is a more proximate relationship than some YouTube video, wouldn't it?

Or maybe that's completely wrong, and there was some other reason behind the attack.  Certainly it's true that Islamic terrorists love themselves some anniversaries, and the first 9/11 when they had a real opportunity would have been too good to pass up- but that wouldn't explain the cover up.

So what is the Administration hiding?  What dark secret won't survive the light of day?  What did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it?

Barack Obama: "We Accept" Limits on Free Speech

Today's address by Barack Obama to the UN General Assembly was execrable for a variety of reasons.  I could go into a variety of reasons, but the most important are these two quotes:

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

and

"Many countries do not share our freedom of speech... we accept that."

Yes, Barack Obama has admitted to the world that he is willing to limit Americans' speech.  That's what those two phrases mean, and there is no way to spin them otherwise.

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam?"  How about those who slander Christians, or Christ Himself?  How about those who slander Jews?  Mormons?  Hindus?  Why is Islam special?  Or are we suddenly defending religion from vitriol and I just missed it?  Wait, no, Modern Family and The New Normal are still on TV, so I'm guessing I didn't miss a memo, there.

And since when do we accept limits on Freedom of Speech (note the caps)?.  Understand that "accepting" other countries' limits on speech means implicitly accepting when a Muslim country jails someone for being a Christian.  It means, taken to a not-unimaginable-end, that we're willing to arrest people for violating speech rules in other countries.  Oh, wait, we already did that.

No American should accept limits on Freedom of Speech, and slander of Mohammed should not influence whether the future "belong[s] to" you or not.

With these statements, Barack Obama is setting the stage for more midnight, brownshirted raids.  Right now it's for the maker of a movie who his administration quickly threw under the bus for coordinated Terror Attacks (Remember: post 9/11 years w/o terror attacks: Bush - 7/ Obama - 3).  What next?  Do we capitulate when the Muslims already in this country start demanding "anti-blasphemy" laws?  Do we start surrendering American Christians and Jews to Muslim thugs?

Nothing short of a full-throated defense of Freedom of Speech should ever be acceptable from the United States President. 

No, Mr. Obama, we don't accept that.

President Obama: The Problem "has been Islam"

But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because — you know, in a lot of these places — the one organizing principle — has been Islam.

That's a direct quote from the President on 60 Minutes last night (one minute for every live viewer, I suppose).   Many pundits, especially Conservative pundits, are focusing on the "bumps in the road" portion of the comment.  They are rightly pointing out that the murder of four Americans, including an ambassador, and the assaults against our embassies and those of our allies are hardly mere "bumps in the road."

One thing I think is not getting enough attention, though, (and I'll toss a h/t to Gabe over at the AoSHQ for this) is the fact that Barack Obama is finally admitting that Islam is the problem.

Islam requires these riots and murder.  To Islam, there is nothing worse than an insult, real or perceived, and any insult must be answered with violence.  It is a barbaric religion focused on conquest.  In short, Islam is Evil.

Now, I don't think Barack Obama is going to confront this Evil he has so tepidly admitted, but it is nice to at least finally get the admission.

If you want to place blame for the various crises in the Middle East on someone, look no further than Islam.  If you want to place blame for Israel's precarious position on someone, look no further than Islam.  If you want to place blame for violence, destruction, and murder in the Middle East on someone, look no further than Islam.

Years W/O Terrorist Attack on US Soil: Bush 7 / Obama 3

Specific and Credible Threat Reported for Benghazi Embassy

When terrorist thugs attacked our Consulate in Benghazi, murdering the Ambassador and three additional personnel, Barack Obama's Administration stated that the attack was a "spontaneous" outgrowth of a riot.  The story was that the Ambassador was merely a target of opportunity.

Now, however, we have learned that Libya had informed the State Department of a specific threat against the Benghazi Consulate.  It also appears that there was no mob, and therefore no riot.  This was a specific terrorist attack.  Further, Ambassador Stevens had already told the State Department that he was on an Al Qaida hit-list.

During the aftermath of 9/11, I was told that those attacks were George Bush's fault for not "connecting the dots."  Despite no specific credible threats, the idea was that Bush should have consulted the auguries and determined that 19 terrorist thugs were going to hijack four airplanes and use them to kill 3,000 people.

Well, now we don't have disconnected dots, we have three very specific pieces of information.  It is well known that Al Qaida specifically, and Islamists more generally, love anniversaries.  We also had a specific report of a specific threat against the Benghazi Consulate.  Ambassador Stevens was known to be a specific target for assassination.  If Bush and Clinton were at fault for 9/11/2001, then Barack Obama is directly responsible for the security failures that lead to the death of Ambassador Stevens.

Ambassador Stevens's blood is on the hands of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Psychotic Death Cult Coerces U.S. President

One week ago today, members of a psychotic death cult, known to the world as "Islam" began a protracted and concerted assault on the United States and her values.  On the 11th Anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks, and for the rest of that week, members of the so-called "Religion of Peace" assaulted US Embassies, as well as Embassies of US Allies.  The excuse they seized upon for their attacks was, supposedly, the release of a movie no one had heard of, and even fewer had watched.  They claimed it insulted Mohammed.

In response to these unprovoked attacks, the United States demanded justice, and informed the Countries in which the violence occurred that we would be beefing up security, whether they liked it or not.

Wait.  No.  That was on Bizzaro Earth.  On real Earth, the U.S. Government, Democrats, and their allies in the media did their best to make the issue about the movie and that it was "bad."  They decided to enact defacto anti-blasphemy ordinances in favor of Islam (but no other religions), enacting defacto Sharia Law, at least in part.  In addition, they executed a literal night-time raid by literal brown-shirted enforcers to throw a man in jail for exercising his right to free speech.  Here's what that looked like:

Blindfolded...

Does that look like a man who is having his identity protected, or does he look like a political prisoner about to be left to rot in the gulag?

Now, others have been chronicling the SCOAMT Administration's epic failures of foreign policy.  But many, if not most of them, have said something wrong- because it's easy to say.  What they're saying also fits in with their world view that most people are basically good.  I have no such illusions, and since no one else (at least- no one else who's mouth isn't flecked with foam) is saying it, I will.

Islam is evil.  It's adherents are evil.  There is no way to be a devout Muslim without being evil.  It is not just a "backward" religion.  It is not just a "young" religion.  It is evil to its core.  In many ways, Mohammed met the Christian definition of "Anti-Christ."  The religion is founded on World Conquest and forced conversion.  It preaches intolerance and slaughter.  Its adherents regularly stone women for being raped.  If a man can't keep it in his pants, that's obviously the fault of the woman- who was swaddled in so many layers of clothing it's a minor miracle she hadn't already suffocated.

Islam is a perversion of parts of Christianity and Judaism.  It claims to be the continuation of those two traditions, yet, to do so, must say that God is a liar.  Or, at least, that God chooses liars as His representatives.  For Islam to be true, every part of the Old Testament (using the Christian Bible) after the birth of Isaac must be either completely false, or at least a misrepresentation of God's will.  For Islam to be true, Jesus himself had to be a liar and a con-man (at best), who was guilty of blasphemy.  And yet, it incongruously claims that Jesus was a prophet of God.

Since its introduction, Islam has been responsible for genocide and war.  It has kept its adherents largely impoverished and given them a perpetual victim mentality.  It's adherents are willing to strap bombs to their children.  Even the ones who don't go that far cheer when others do.

Now, many will say- and this is the untrue thing that I referred to earlier- that it's a "minority of Islam" that does these things.  No, it is not.  Anyone who rejects forced conversion, anyone who rejects Jihad, anyone who rejects the stoning of rape victims and honor killings is not practicing Islam.  They may claim to be Muslim, but that's rather like someone claiming to be Jewish while sleeping with his neighbor's wife, working on Saturday, and eating a breakfast of pork sausage and bacon every morning.  It would be like someone claiming to be a Christian but never going to Church Services, never giving money to the needy, and never taking communion. 

Islam preaches these things.  To deny that it does is like denying that Christianity preaches the resurrection of Christ.  It's like denying that Hinduism teaches reincarnation.  You can claim all you want that "only a minority believe," but that just means that there are a majority of people who claim to follow the religion who don't actually follow the religion.

And if that were true, the outrage from the so-called "Moderate Muslims" would be deafening.  They would rise up with the rest of us to claim that this requirement that all speech contrary to Islam be silenced is not only un-American, it is also outrageous on more general grounds.  They would be clamoring to go on talk shows and TV to say "We don't support this."

But they don't.  Maybe they don't because they're afraid.  It's hardly a secret that Militant Islamists (the fanatics, even among the devout) seek to kill those who disagree with Islam, or who paint it in a bad light.  Maybe they think its self-evident that they don't support it.  We'll, sorry, folks, but it's not.  Or maybe, just maybe, there really is a part of them, too, who does agree with it.  There are Christians like that.  The ones I mentioned before- who don't go to Church, never perform any actions of a Christian, and don't take communion- yet they're glad for those who do.  They realize, at some level, that this is what is required of Christians, and they're glad some people are keeping it up- even as they do not. 

Now, I understand this is... well, maybe not "incendiary" but borrowing trouble.  But we cannot defeat "Radical" Islam if we continue to deny that the only thing "Radical" about it is that they are actually practicing the literal words preached to them from their own Koran.  You cannot solve a problem you refuse to acknowledge.  The problem is not some small minority of Muslims, the problem is Islam.

U.S. Under Siege

Cairo.  Benghazi.  Tunisia.  Yemen.  Sudan.  University of Texas (Austin).  North Dakota State University.

As the US and her allies (Israeli embassy in London, British and German embassies in Tunisia) are under attack for a third day, you hear much hand-wringing from the Media and from Barack Obama's administration.  There was absolutely no way, they say, they could have foreseen this.

None?  No way at all?  You mean, besides all their previous actions?

Meanwhile, the Media focuses on a movie no one had heard of, and Mitt Romney's criticism of the Cairo embassy statement.  The Media would have you believe that a film maker in California, a pastor in Florida, and Mitt Romney caused all this.

No.  It was Barack Obama who assisted with the ouster of Mubarak and Qaddaffy.  It was Barack Obama who apologized to the entire Islamic world for what he perceived as America's faults.  It was Barack Obama who claimed that the barbarians in Egypt and Libya were justified for their violence.  If any one person deserves blame for the current world crisis, it is Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States.

Now the US is under siege, and the Commander-in-Chief is a man who loves the Islamic world more than he loves America.  The US is under siege, and the President has decided to golf while the world burns. 

Beyond Parody

If I had wanted to write a parody of what an out-of-touch Liberal Reporter would say about the attacks on American Embassies in the Middle East, I would have started with this piece from Kari Huus from NBC.  Then I would have directed a critical eye at it and said, "Nah, that's too much."

Oh.  My.  God.

Her (I presume Kari is a her) premise seems to be that yes, yes, those attacks are deplorable, but it's not the Muslim's fault.  It was the fault of that icky YouTube video that no one had heard of, let alone seen, prior to the attacks.  Indeed, she tried to equate them to "vocal protest."  Yes.  Really.

Want proof?  Sure you do, that's an unbelievable charge.  No one would try to equate the rape and murder of four Americans, including an Ambassador, with vocal protest.

He pointed to the uproar over 1988 Hollywood film "The Last Temptation of Christ." Director Martin Scorsese's adaptation of a book by the same name showed Jesus struggling with lust, depression and doubt, and  engaging in sex — in his imaginings — before snapping back to reality and dying on the cross. That movie was seen as blasphemy by some Christians, who — though not violent — were vocal enough to prevent the film from being shown in many parts of the United States.

Wait what?

Now, some may point out that this isn't "her" saying it, but the interviewee.  That is, these aren't her words, they're his.  Three problems with that.  First, at no point does she express any incredulity over the assertion, which one would expect if she did, in fact, disagree.  Second, this isn't a direct quote, meaning this is her interpretation of the comment, again, you would think there would be some comment if she disagreed.  Finally, the only one interviewed for the piece was John Espizito- there were no contrasting opinions.  Based on all of that, it is quite clear that Ms. Huus agrees with the sentiment.

And that's not the worst from the article.  How about this little gem (later in the piece):

"Muhammad didn’t win over his enemies by violence, he did so through compassion."

Ummm... excuse me, but I'm pretty sure "slay them" and variations of such are found throughout the Koran.  He did expressly win over his enemies by violence.  Indeed, it was because he failed to win them over and was exiled that he started assembling armies and conquering his neighbors "by the sword."

Here's another:

"Innocence of Muslims" features wooden acting, poor dubbing, awkward sexual moments and ham-fisted insults, with none of the production values of "The Last Temptation of Christ," or any serious exploration of Islam. Experts said it would almost certainly have remained obscure had it not ignited the protests and violence after being circulated in Arabic via the Internet.

Yes, because it's quality should matter regarding a) it's "worthiness" as free speech and b) whether or not someone should be offended enough to riot and murder.

Perhaps the kicker, though, it the thought that dominates the end of the piece.  The thought seems to be that Muslims, in general, are just nice, go-along-to-get-along folks, rubes even, who just can't help themselves when their religion is subjected to any form of criticism or ridicule.  Further, that the ones to blame here are somehow not "Muslims" but are, instead, "extremists in the region who are using anti-American sentiment to advance their own goals." 

Umm... goals like Jihad, forced conversions, and world conquest?  Like the Koran teaches?  Those goals?

More:

"The sad thing is these people are doing it on purpose," he said. "And unfortunately these Muslims fell right into the trap."

Yes.  Because the victims here are not four murdered Americans, it's the Muslims.

That NBC could approve this piece is beyond me.  Beyond being moral relativist drivel, which I expect, it's infantile, one-sided, and pathetically credulous.  Moreover, it's insulting- it's insulting to Muslims (oh, those poor dears are too stupid to know they shouldn't riot), it's insulting to Christians (vocal oppostion to an offensive movie is just like rioting, anal rape, and murder), but mostly its insulting and insensitive to those victims and their friends and family.  It's using their deaths to squash religious speech of which Ms. Huus obviously disapproves.  They deserve better than that.

H/T: @tsrblke

Lead By Children

So, in the wake of the dual embassy attacks in Cairo and Benghazi, we find out that The SCOAMT had not met with his security council in at least a week prior to 9/11.  Meanwhile, the Malfeasant Media were all fawning over his "successes" in the middle east.  If that weren't enough, we find out that the embassy in Benghazi was not actually guarded by Marines, as it should have been; that duty had been contracted out to a local security force.

Now, I could say many things about this.  In fact, I opined on it to some extent earlier, but I think there's something else that we need to be clear on.

We're being lead by a Child with a sense of entitlement the size of Jupiter, and all the political acumen of a retarded potato.  With apologies to the mentally retarded, as well as to potatoes.

What?  Did they think all the bad people had gone away?  Did they think that the apparently omnipotent George W Bush had defeated terrorists and they didn't have to be on guard anymore?  Did they believe their own press about the Muslim world now loving us because of Barky's apology tour?

These are a child's beliefs.  Grown ups know that the world is a dangerous place, and that we must be on guard.  We take notice of our surroundings and circumstances, and we either avoid places and times of extra danger, or we take extra precautions we can't avoid them.  Grown ups wouldn't have been surprised by multiple "protests" (read: attacks) on the anniversary of 9/11. 

Children believe that everything is safe because Mom and Dad will keep them safe.  Children don't think twice of jumping out of a tree, because they know Mom or Dad will catch them.  Children are oblivious to their surroundings, knowing that Mom and Dad wouldn't take them somewhere dangerous.

The world is a dangerous place.  There are people who hate us and want to kill us.  Many of those people now revere September 11 as a sort of holy day which they celebrate by killing more of us.  We have enemies.

We need an adult to lead us, not a child.

F*ck This Sh*t

Yesterday into early this morning, barbarous scum wearing human suits attacked the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya.  In the attack, they firebombed the embassy itself and killed the US Ambassador.  It appears they hanged him.  They certainly paraded his body through the streets.

What is the Obama Administration answer to this?

Barack Obama:

"As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my administration, and deeply saddened by this loss."

Hillary Clinton: 

"We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future."

Strangely absent?  Any call for Justice.  Every last one of those involved in this attack have declared war on the United States of America.  Every last one of them should be brought to justice.

But, you see, it's all our fault.  That, at least, is what the US Embassy in Cairo would have you believe, and so would the Media.  From the linked article:

The protests broke out due to outrage linked to an American video posted online that many Muslims have found offensive. Soon after news of Ambassador Stevens' death broke, Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the "inhuman and abusive act" of the filmmakers, which he said, "has caused enmity and confrontation between the religions and cultures of the world,"

Get that?  Its our fault because someone made a movie.  Those poor Islamists simply couldn't stop themselves from committing an Act of War against the United States.  They couldn't help dragging the body of one of our citizens- one who had attempted to help them- through the streets like some trophy.

Well, F*ck that.

It's time for America to stand up for ourselves again.  Every single Islamist should be pissing in their burkas right now, not sure when the bombs will drop- ending their murderous lives.  What passes for the Libyan government should be begging us to give them time to deliver the murderers into our hands.

But because Barack Obama is without spine, without shift, and without feck, they aren't.

Well, F*ck that, too.

Congress should immediately declare war on Libya, and impeach the President if he does not act immediately to resolve the situation.

And none of this "You break it, you bought it" folderol.  No: smash them and let them pick up the pieces.

And maybe, just maybe, electing someone with spine, with shift, and with feck in November will remind the barbarians in the world that America is no the country with which they wish to fight.

Remember: He's the Foreign Policy President

In his speech accepting the Democrat Nomination for President, Barack Obama made mention that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan don't have his foreign policy experience.  Now, beyond the sheer gall required for someone who's only "foreign policy experience" prior to gaining the Presidency involved believing that 'Austrian' was a language, I don't think I would run on foreign policy if I had the President's record.

Let's address the assertion that Mitt Romney has no foreign policy experience first, though, because it's obviously false if you think about it for just a couple of minutes.  As the founder and leader of an international corporation, Mitt Romney interacted with foreign cultures at many levels- from the purely personal up through various levels of government.  As head of the Winter Olympic Games held in Utah, he, again, interacted with various countries at various levels of government.  More pertinent to actual foreign policy, he had to juggle their needs and demands quite judiciously to bring of a successful Olympic Games.  As Governor of the State of Massachusetts, he was one of those government officials with whom international businessmen interacted.  Additionally, he would have interacted on a directly diplomatic basis with various foreign governments, as he tried to entice foreign companies (which are often tied to their home country's national interests) to open facilities in his state. 

So it is fairly safe to say that Mitt Romney has at least as much, and really more, than Barack Obama had in 2008.

Now, let's consider Obama's foreign policy experience since 2008.

Immediately after taking office, Barack Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill which had graced the White House for decades to Great Briton, offending our ally.  He scolded Israel for their position regarding settlement expansion, offending our ally.  He went on a "World Apology Tour" where he bowed before several foreign leaders and declared that America was not actually exceptional.  He joined in two wars without congressional authorization- making those actions illegal.  He failed to support a genuinely democratic uprising in Iran, and supported faux democratic uprisings (really lead by the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization) in, among other places, Egypt and Libya.

Now, Egypt appears to be becoming more hostile to Israel, Iran is unabashedly pursuing nuclear arms, and our allies have good reason to believe we won't be there to support them.

But remember: he's the Foreign Policy President.

Then, yesterday- on the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, savages in Egypt and Libya stormed our embassies.  In Egypt, they literally stormed the walls, tore down the US Flag, and raised a flag to Al Qaida.  In Libya, they fire-bombed the embassy, and killed the US Ambassador and at least two of his staff in what is being described, alternatively, as a mortar or missile attack.

But remember: he's the Foreign Policy President.

Immediately after the act of war in Cairo, the Cairo embassy Apologized for America, and claimed that Americans were responsible for the attack, because we'd upset their poor Muslim sensibilities.

Immediately after the act of war in Benghazi, the President "condemned the attack."  No further action appears to be in the offing.

Does anyone believe that the Cairo embassy would have apologized for upsetting poor Muslim sensibilities after having been attacked under Mitt Romney?  Does anyone think that he would issue a mere "strongly worded letter," to Libya?

But remember: Barack Obama is a the Foreign Policy President.