From Politico:

Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid.

Continue Reading

“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”…

Uh, Ron, old buddy – bin Laden was living right by the Pakistani version of West Point. If by some bizarre happenstance no one in the Pakistani government knew bin Laden was there, just as soon as we told them, his minions within the Pakistani government would have tipped him off. More than likely, however, the Paks did know he was there and gave at least some tacit approval for the mission…whatever forces had been protecting him for years decided that it was no longer worth it to keep it up.

This is the problem with most libertarian politicians when it comes to foreign and defense policy – a complete lack of understanding of how the world really works. It is dark, cruel and brutal out there – we are a sheltered people. Shielded by our supremely powerful military, living in a society of laws (in spite of relentless attempts by liberals to subvert the rule of law), Americans simply don’t know the thread we hang by…and how that thread is entirely missing in most of the world. Because of the way the world is, the United States both has to maintain a supreme military, and be willing to use it at times in a very ruthless manner…it is the only way we can ensure our survival, as well as offer some hope to the benighted areas of the world for a better future.

Ron Paul is great on a lot of things – most notably in currency and government finance matters – but he is positively naive when it comes to foreign affairs. This statement of his ensure that he simply will not be the GOP nominee. He’ll generate a lot of heat, raise bags of money…and in the end, won’t even win a single primary. He might as well pack it in now and save everyone a lot of trouble.

Because, you see, it didn’t fit the narrative. The Obama Story is that illegal immigrants are just 100% swell folks and only an evil, wicked, bad, raaaacist Republican could want something other than amnesty. This bit of nonsense, of course, is not actually directed at Texans or, indeed, at immigrants. It is for the consumption of (mostly white) liberals along the east and west coast who want to feel superior…and are quite willing to wreck everything except their own gated, carefully guarded, mostly white enclaves to do it (they really don’t care if emergency rooms are over-run with illegals; that welfare is drained by illegals; that schools are overburdened by illegals…these rich liberals don’t use the same hospitals and schools you do, and don’t need welfare…though, of course, a cushy, government job with a fat paycheck for no work is fine…).

Obama is just playing to his base – trying to make it seem like he’s doing the ultra-liberal thing when he knows that he can’t do it while the GOP holds the House (and a round dozen Democrat Senators are at risk of being defeated next year). Come January, you won’t hear much about this – maybe a mention at the Convention speech, but for Obama 2011 is for locking down the base, 2012 is for suckering the swing voters; and, so, no effort in the liberal cause that year.

The truth of what is going on is, however, in that picture…with the signs written in English and Spanish, all of them asserting the crisis we are in…and the crisis Obama is ignoring in favor of playing politics.

HAT TIP: PJ Tatler

From Fox News:

When liberal (financial shark) George Soros gave $1.8 million to National Public Radio , it became part of the firestorm of controversy that jeopardized NPR’s federal funding. But that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros, who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004, has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC.

Prominent journalists like ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethical code stating: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.”…

Ah, but that is just a misunderstanding on the part of Dan Gainor, the article’s author: There isn’t any conflict, real or perceived, between taking Soros’ money and being an MSMer. It is, indeed, the perfect fit: all sides agreeing that a socialist, amoral, weakened, impoverished America living in an increasingly global-government world is the ideal. There would be a conflict if they took money from, say, the Heritage Foundation…because Heritage is a patriotic organization in favor of freedom…two things the MSM is absolutely opposed to.

It has been decades since there was anything like “ethics” in journalism – if, indeed, there ever really was. The “yellow journalism” of the late 19th and early 20th century is held up as an object of scorn…by modern day yellow journalists who will, facts be darned, spread the most amazing lies in the service of an ideology. What, really, has changed in the past century? Where was honest service to the facts then, or now? To be sure, some journalists and a few media outlets do try hard to be honest – but the common run is made up of ideological, ignorant hacks who just regurgitate whatever they’re told.

And that is why the old media is dying, and the New Media is rising – in the 10,000 sources which make up the New Media (and that means left, right and center) the truth can squeeze through. Every blogger knows this – which is why we’re careful not to put out something we know to be false; for goodness sake, if we make the slightest mistake we’ve got 20 critics in minutes quoting chapter and verse where we got it wrong. When its opinion, we make it clear its opinion; when its theorizing based upon facts, we make it clear that its a theory…and if we assert a fact, we’d better darn well be able to back it up. None of this pretend objectivity masking rank partisanship for us…and even though we are of a certain view, I think we commonly get more respect than MSMers who try to lie about being impartial.

Soros is buying a dying entity – in a sense, he’s wasting his money. He hopes that by controlling the MSM he can control the narrative and force America ever leftwards. It won’t work. Oh, he’ll have some success – any propagandist knows how the Big Lie works – but the truth comes out, and comes out a lot faster than it ever used to.

Because the International Community is mulling over issuing an arrest warrant for him – from the AP:

Italy’s foreign minister says he expects the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi at the end of the month.

Franco Frattini said Thursday that would be a “key moment” in the Libya crisis, suggesting that after the warrant is issued it would be impossible for Gadhafi to agree to an exile.

Frattini said “from that moment on an exit from power or from the country will no longer be imaginable” because “after the arrest warrant is issued all the international community would have legal obligations.”…

Meanwhile, no one is considering issuing an arrest warrant for Fidel Castro…because he’s a good guy, right? Free health care! Wait, Gadhafi has that, too…

Anyways, what a crock – what’s next? A parking ticket for the tanks he’s using to crush the opposition? Are there any men left in Europe, at all? Is there anyone who can say, “here’s an evil man, and I’ll kill him”?

No. Nothing like that. Pointless bombing. Half-assed intervention. Arrest warrants…I’ll lay money that Gadhafi is still in power a year from now.

I’m sure you’ve heard the story – a Toronto cop advised that one way to help protect against sexual assault is for women to not dress in an overtly sexual manner. In response to this, a lot of people have expressed outrage – at the cop for daring to even so much as suggest that the actions of a woman can make more possible a sexual assault. So far have we fallen away from basic, common sense. Monsignor Charles Pope, reviewing a Hannity segment on this matter, neatly encapsulates the issue:

A Central Problem – One of the women says, “In dressing provocatively a woman is saying, I am asking you to look at me as a sexual object, instead of a woman worthy of respect.” The other woman responds, “There is nothing wrong with looking like a sexual object.” And this pretty well spells out where many in our culture have gone. Intentionally provoking a purely sexual response not only tempts men, it also diminishes women by encouraging the notion that sex is the main thing…

If a woman dresses in an overtly sexual manner, all but a few men will respond – those few who have either risen entirely above sexual desires and those who sexual desires lead entirely elsewhere. Outside of these two, very tiny groups, most men will respond. To be sure, the response of most men will be silent – no overt word or action. But it will be there – all of us men know it; when we see a woman dressed in a manner suggestive of sexual possibility, the thought of sex does flash across our minds. We suppress it – we remember our wives, our vows and our responsibilities, and move on. But what of those men who either don’t have such vows, or don’t care much about them?

The success of advertising is not that it will move everyone to do a certain thing, but that it will move a small margin to do so. The endlessly repeated advertisement for toothpaste won’t make everyone buy that toothpaste, but it will make some do so…and that is why advertising is engaged in. Why it is such a gigantic, multi-billion dollar annual business. So, when a woman advertises sexual availability, it won’t move most men to want to have sex with her – but it will move some. Including some who are not inclined to take “no” for an answer. And, in fact, given the nature of things, it is precisely those who are least inclined to care about the woman, as a person, who are most likely to respond to the “advertisement”. A woman dressing in a sexually provocative manner is, in a sense, casting about for attention from the least desirable people from the woman’s point of view.

This is all just common sense – and no amount of “I, as a woman, should be able to dress as I please” will make the least bit of difference. Of course a woman can dress as she pleases – but each of our choices has consequences, and all of life is a matter of balancing risks. While dressing like a puritan won’t make a woman rape-proof, neither will ignoring reality. There are certain things which are proper and certain things which are not – and wearing spike heels, a short, tight skirt and a low-cut blouse is not necessarily the wisest choice of attire.

In addition to that, a woman should have more sense. Unless a woman really wants to be nothing more than an object to whatever man happens along, a certain degree of modesty is required. And, yes, it goes for men, too. Tell me ladies, if two men were to appear at your front door, asking you to dinner, which would you go with – the unshaved lout dressed in sweats, or the properly groomed man wearing slacks and a jacket? Clothes don’t determine the worth of a man – but if a man respects you, don’t you think he’d go to the trouble of sprucing up before asking you out? In a very real sense, women are treated more like dirt in 2011 than in 1911…mostly because all too many women have fallen for the idea that being trashy is a requirement; that some how a willingness to engage in sex – and be known immediately to be willing to have sex – is the only way to get a man. Trouble is that the sort of men who go along with this are going to be increasingly unlikely to treat a woman with any sense of chivalry, or even basic decency.

The social problems we experience – violence in the home; out of control illegitimacy; increasing abuse of women; the spread of pornography; the spread of sexual abuse of children; an underclass locked in poverty and ignorance – all stem from the break-down of standards. Because we have gone along with an “if it feels good, do it” mentality, we are suffering from societal break down. The biggest loud mouths, the most obscene people, the most depraved rule the roost. We allowed the foot in the door back in the 60’s, and now they’ve taken over the entire public square…until, in response to a cop offering a bit of wisdom, we have foolish women engaging in “slut walks” in protest. Yes, we’ve reached a point where we’re now supposed to applaud someone for acting like a slut – and condemn the person who so understands the worth of women that he’d rather they dressed like women, rather than like objects.

It is a strange, distressing condition, to be sure. And we have to get away from it – we have to wake up and become sane again. We’re going so far now that we’re about to be offering up our children to this – there are people out there arguing that the age of consent should be lowered so that ever younger girls can be objectified by ever older men. It is said we can’t turn the clock back – such a statement is nonsense. Akin to a man saying that once you’ve made a wrong turn, you have to keep going and never think of going back to where you turned wrong. We must go back – the life of our civilization depends on it.

From Rasmussen:

…The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that the president currently earns support from 45% of Likely Voters across the nation, while a Generic Republican attracts 43% of the vote…

The good news for Obama is that he’s still out in front – the bad news is that he’s only barely ahead, and below 50%.

Key to Obama’s victory in 2012 would be the economy turning around – if there is a reasonable GOPer out there who can get people to answer “no” to the “are you better off than you were four years ago”, then Obama is toast. This may seem to mean that the GOP should just find the most reasonable candidate – but I want more than just Obama out: I want liberalism crushed. That means a candidate who can not only win on that question, but will so heartily attack Obama and his policies that a slim win becomes a crushing victory. Remember, Reagan didn’t just win because he wasn’t Carter – he won huge because he offered a vision for America in such stark contrast to Carter that the people rose up in what amounted to a revolution.

And I think that such a candidate would beat Obama even if the economy is turning around – I don’t think the economy will turn around, but even supposing it does, the people are sick of the sort of politics Obama represents. Sure, he presented himself as the new force in 2008 – but that was swiftly proven a lie in practice, and Obama is just another Ruling Class hack, as far as that goes. If the GOP can fire the popular imagination of an America restored to greatness, then even 7% unemployment won’t save Obama…and if the country is wallowing in 9% or higher unemployment in November, then the defeat of liberalism could become epic, if we have the right sort of fighting candidate.

And, so, that is what I’m on the look out – the man who offers the finest vision; the man who is most solid on the core issue…but mostly for the man (or woman, of course) who will fight the hardest and never let up for a minute on Obama and his Democrats.

Or, at least, that is how our liberals like to frame the issue – because there is just nothing we can cut (well, defense, but even there nothing which would eat in to a grafting politician’s campaign funds, ok?). Every last item in the budget is vital, and there is no waste in there, at all…from the Orange County Register:

High pay and benefits for lifeguards in Newport Beach is the latest example of frustrating levels of compensation for public employees. More than half the city’s full-time lifeguards are paid a salary of over $100,000 and all but one of them collect more than $100,000 in total compensation including benefits.

When thinking about career options with high salaries, lifeguarding is probably not one of the first jobs to come to mind. But it apparently should. In one of Orange County’s most desirable beach destinations, Newport Beach, lifeguards are compensated all too well; especially compared with the county annual median household income of $71,735…

Yep, lifeguards. And you just know if someone tries to cut the pay or the number of guards, we’ll have horror stories about how the kiddies will all drown. More than likely, that would work – because if you did vote to cut the spending and a kid did drown at the beach this summer, you’d get blamed. But, seriously, 100 grand for a lifeguard? I’ve been at the beach quite a bit over my life – can’t recall ever seeing a lifeguard actually get out of the tower…

I mean can’t we get some college kids willing to do it over the summer for, say, 20 or 25 grand? Its day work. Its at the beach. For crying out loud, they’d lining up for the job. But, we’ve apparently got career lifeguards…and we’re going to have to keep paying them because they can retire at 50 with 90% pay (wasn’t it once upon a time that a pension was half or one third of your pay?).

You liberals can squawk all you want – but as more and more stories like this come out the people are losing interest in your “the kids will die!” argument about the need to spend. I assert that we could reduce spending by 50% all across the board from Federal down to local government and if we just had some proper management, not one iota of government service would be impacted. Liberalism has built up a pile of corrupt, government garbage…and its time we took a shovel to it.

HAT TIP: Mish’s

And, of course, a bit of race-baiting political advantage for the President in 2012. From Business Week:

…At the Justice Dept., a new 20-person unit dedicated to fair lending issues received a record number of discrimination referrals from regulators in 2010 and has dozens of open cases, according to a recent agency report. Potential penalties can reach into the millions of dollars. “We are using every tool in our arsenal to combat lending discrimination,” Thomas E. Perez, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Div., told a conference of community development advocates in Washington in April.

To some banks the crackdown has come as a surprise, say consultants and lawyers representing financial institutions in discussions with regulators. Like Midwest BankCentre, some lenders are being cited for failing to operate in minority and low-income census tracts near their branches, even when they have never done business there before. “If you put your branches only in upper-income areas, the regulators are not accepting that anymore,” says Warren W. Traiger, a lawyer at BuckleySandler in New York, which advises banks on fair lending issues…

If there is anything we should have learned from the recession and our crushing, national debt is that debt is poison – you’re not doing a person a favor by lending them money. All you’re doing is hooking them – and making it less likely they’ll be responsible and giving them fewer real opportunities to build wealth and acquire property. Borrowed money is like a drug – and once you borrow some, you’ll want to borrow some more. After all, borrowing money allowed you to instantly gratify that desire for a new car…so why not allow it to gratify your desire for a new TV and some fine, new clothes? After a while, your disposable income – part of which is supposed to be saved – is being eaten up by interest and fees. You never get ahead.

True, some people can manage debt – manage, that is, to pay it off with rapidity. Most people aren’t able to do that. It just becomes too easy. I work in credit; I see it all the time. People who have piled up debt and never pay it off. Some go bankrupt (and most of the time start the process over again as soon as discharged), others just stagger along, making slightly more than the minimum payments, never getting done with it. I’m not saying we should ban debt – some times it can be vital, but mostly only in purchases of very large items (a house, eg) or for business expansion – but we should never, ever be seeking ways to make obtaining debt easier. It should be hard – only the most successful, hard-nosed people should be able to obtain it…because only they won’t be screwed by it.

Mostly, this is just a pander – a way to generate leftist sympathy; let the minority communities know that Obama is “fighting for them”; get in the papers. The other side of the coin is the corrupt deals that government will cut with the banks to let them off the hook – the sort of deals which profited handsomely politicians like former Senator Dodd while also allowing things like Fannie Mae to become financial monsters. But it is bad, all around bad – and the worst effect will be on the poor people it is supposed to be helping. Making it easier for them to borrow – making it easier for them to become debtors; making people least equipped to handle complex, financial matters the easy prey of those best able to create financial scams.

For goodness sake, it is high time we got government out of this – to learn the lesson that if you try to “fix” things in the economy via government power, you’ll just make it worse. The way out of poverty is by hard work and frugal living – not by a combination of welfare and a credit card. Sure, that can make a poor person seem like he’s not poor…but it doesn’t help him obtain work skills, financial skills, savings and property…the things of real wealth. Those who are pressing this issue should be ashamed.

As far as intellect goes, he’s at the top rank – and far superior to the dunderhead currently in the White House. In policy, Gingrich has excellent ideas as well as the practical, political experience to get them through Congress.

But can Gingrich win? Or is he just yesterday’s news?

That, to me, is the larger question. If you’re to have a poetry night at the White House, the big question is whether the poets are writing anything worthy of thought, of consideration. It looks as though Common (Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr.) has been dissed a bit at the White House, but his invite is still causing all sorts of controversy. Not being someone who listens to a lot of rap (these days I tend to the sillier songs of the 60’s and 70’s, along with bit of Mozart…yes, it is a bit of musical vertigo), I decided to look up some of Common’s recent lyrics – this is from Universal Mind Control

Get-Get it

Get-Get it

Get-Get it

I am a Renegade,

I’ve never been afraid, Fresh and Im getting paid the future, future of this age.

From the Chi, so I talk this way. Twista hate at the Grand Marque, rock the fly (expletive deleted) like everyday till the top and im on my way. Let’s go, uh

This is that new (expletive deleted). keep them standin in line. That Universal Mind Control, now move your behind. You know you like it, it’s calling your name. (N-word), this is that new (expletive deleted) and it don’t feel the same. It’s that bang bigga-bang ba-bang ba-bang bang. Bang bigga-bang ba-bang ba-bang bang. Bom bigga-bom ba-bang ba-bang bigga-bigga bom bigga-bom ba-bang ba-bang bang.

One too many bangs, perhaps? Before we make a judgment, we should find something universally recognized as good poetry to compare it to. So, from Chesterton – Ballad of Suicide:

The gallows in my garden, people say,

Is new and neat and adequately tall;

I tie the noose on in a knowing way

As one that knots his necktie for a ball;

But just as all the neighbours on the wall

Are drawing a long breath to shout “Hurray!”

The strangest whim has seized me. . . After all

I think I will not hang myself to-day.

To-morrow is the time I get my pay

My uncle’s sword is hanging in the hall

I see a little cloud all pink and grey

Perhaps the rector’s mother will NOT call

I fancy that I heard from Mr. Gall

That mushrooms could be cooked another way

I never read the works of Juvenal

I think I will not hang myself to-day.

The world will have another washing-day;

The decadents decay; the pedants pall;

And H.G. Wells has found that children play,

And Bernard Shaw discovered that they squall;

Rationalists are growing rational

And through thick woods one finds a stream astray,

So secret that the very sky seems small

I think I will not hang myself to-day.

So, is Common’s work poetry? We report, you decide.