Make a Deal With Assad?

Mark Noonan

So opines Leslie Gelb over at the Daily Beast – also noting that we’d have to do some sort of deal with Iran, while also keeping Saudi Arabia and Turkey on-side. Which is, well, a rather muddleheaded thing to try because, just as one for-instance, Iran and Saudi Arabia are not going to see eye to eye as long as their respective government’s are in power.

Now, as far as rat-bastards go in the Middle East, Assad is certainly not the worst, though he is pretty darned bad. In choosing what to do in that area, any where we turn we’re going to be dealing with nefarious characters. The question is which nefarious characters do we want to deal with, supposing we want a deal?

You see, we don’t actually have to be deeply involved at the moment in the area. To be sure, leaving it to fester in it’s own nastiness will carry the risk that some of the nastiness will be directed our way – vast numbers of people over there live for the day when they can kill lots of Americans. I’m sure ISIS has already got at least some preliminary plans to hit us – though being tied down in head-chopping, slave-dealing and attempted conquest, they probably can’t spare the time for us at the moment. We can pull back right now – and, in fact, under Obama it is probably better that we do so, given his complete incomprehension of the realities of power politics in the global arena. But even a hard-headed realist can make the argument that a U.S. withdrawal is a good course of action for the moment.

That argument goes like this: the American people don’t want to fight over there right now. The various factions fighting for power and influence all have, at best, grave doubts about us and, at worst, bitter enmity. For a variety of reasons, our post-9/11 campaign in the Middle East has failed and our prestige is at rock bottom in the Middle East. Getting our people out of there takes the immediate pressure off us – and by getting out of there, I mean all of us…troops, aid workers, diplomats, etc. If we really feel the desperate need to keep some sort of U.S. presence in a particular Middle Eastern nation (say, in places like Turkey, Jordan, Egypt), then it should be as small as possible. Essentially, don’t leave many American targets for the Islamists to attack. As we have recently proved, we’ve got enough oil and natural gas here at home so that even a complete collapse of oil production in the area can be endured…we’d be up to $5 a gallon gas, but as we recently paid $4 a gallon, we’d survive (and, of course, no one who attains any power over there is really going to cut off the oil spigot completely). As we are no longer involved, the blame for what happens there will less and less accrue to us and if there is an attack on us from the Middle East, the political will for war will swiftly return to the American body politic.

But we’re going to stay, of course, because inertia in politics is like that – we’ve been there, we are there, and so we’re going to keep on being there. And suppose Obama came down with a case of the ‘flu and had to spend a week in bed and during that time someone slipped him a copy of, say, Churchill’s The World Crisis or Hanson’s The Father of Us All and so Obama finally learned a thing or two about how the world works? We then might be able to proceed to a policy of U.S. engagement which isn’t stupid. And in an engagement policy which isn’t stupid, what is the best course of action?

Quite simply, it is to find a power player who can be purchased by us – and that does indicate Assad more than anyone else. His Iranian allies have not been able to restore his fortunes in Syria and he might be in the market for a new friend who can help out. Of course, he’d have to change his tune on a few things. We can’t expect him to do something enormous like make peace with Israel – but there is much he can do.

First off, no longer allow his territory to be a conduit of aid to the Iran-backed Islamists in Lebanon. Also, no longer keep any of his troops in Lebanon, thus freeing up that nation to be at least neutral in the various conflicts in the region…demilitarized, Jihadist sent packing or into the hereafter. Still a Muslim nation making rote denunciations of Israel and the United States, but no longer a subsidiary of Tehran and Islamism.

Secondly, part of Syria is going to have to become autonomous Christian areas…with Christian militias ostensibly under Syrian command, but really existing to keep Islamists out of Christian territory. It isn’t going to be much territory, but it has to be enough for Christians to live on in peace and security…and as they’ll be set up to lack heavy weapons, they’ll never constitute a threat to the existence of the Syrian government. Think of it as being akin to the Kurdish area of Iraq before everything fell apart in that nation.

Third, he’d have to amnesty those parts of the rebels who are not the full on, head-choppy Islamist fanatics…and incorporate them into his army and offer them a genuine seat at the power table in Syria. Not a full democracy – such is not really possible – but with veto power over government proposals which directly effect their lives. This new Syrian army – no longer being just the personal following of the Assad family – could then, with US air and some ground support (mostly special forces types), probably make short work of the biggest problem in Syria – the ISIS goons. Once the are taken care of, Assad gets U.S. aid to rebuild Syria and lines up with us against Iran in the regional balance of power.

Carried out with vigor and a keen eye to realities, such a policy could bring immense security relief to Israel (we might even be able to get Israel to give back a symbolic portion of the Golan: they can’t give it all back for security reasons, of course), free up Lebanon and turn Syria from long-term enemy to at least temporary friend – friend at least during the impending crisis of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and attempting to make Iraq a satrapy of Tehran…and if the deal can also be worked that the Kurdish areas of Syria are joined to those of Iraq in a new Republic of Kurdistan, then we’ve picked up three dominoes in the area and are in a much better position to confront Iran as well as an increasingly hostile Turkey. We’d also be less strategically dependent on Saudi Arabia and so we could start to systemically detach ourselves from the Saudis…until such time as they really feel the pressure from Iran and are willing to, well, not be quite so stoning-people, owning-slaves, flogging-bloggers sorts of people.

Of course, we’ll end up doing neither – we won’t get out, we won’t go in sensibly. So, get prepared for the worst of all worlds in the Middle East.

France’s Go Ahead and Go (If You’re Brave) Zones

Mark Noonan9 Comments

I was working the Worst President Twitter account and I came across a tweet by National Review’s Charles C. W. Cooke, regarding an article he’s written about Paris. In the article he discusses, among other things, the now-infamous Fox News report about Paris’ no-go zones:

Outside the periphique, it’s dangerous, ugly, tense—often lawless. If you’re Jewish you’re in trouble. There’s little sense of “Frenchness.”

To which I responded, in Twitter form, that if it isn’t French; if Jews better watch out and it is rather lawless then that would fit the definition of a no-go zone, if you ask me. Cooke took exception to that, asserting vigorously that the concept of a no-go zone is untrue. I promised to read his National Review article. Proving definitively that National Review is not part of Obama’s America, I had to pay twenty five cents for the privilege of reading it – and it was well worth the two bits (actually, it is worth quite a bit more than that). If you’ve got a quarter and a little time to spare, I highly recommend it – and you can read it here.

Getting down to no-go brass tacks, the article includes this:

Approximately 80 percent of those who live in Aulnay’s cités are Muslim, I am told. “So,” I ask, “is this one of those sharia-bound no-go areas that we always hear about?”

To my surprise, the question provokes laughter. “That’s a myth,” my hosts exclaim. “It’s impossible.” There are certainly serious “tensions” between the police and the locals, one guide says. “Police won’t go and interfere with women illegally wearing niqabs because they don’t want to prompt retaliation. Definitely, there’s tolerance toward this stuff.” Recently, I learn, a veiled woman who was stopped by police refused to hand over her ID. Instead, she called for help. Quickly, the police in the area were surrounded, and, hoping to defuse the situation, the local commissioner let her go. Angry at the intrusion, a gang came back and burned a copy of the civil code.

This, it seems, is fairly typical. But sharia, as we understand it? “No.”

I have immense respect for Mr. Cooke and enjoy his writing on a regular basis – but, for crying out loud, the wearing of the niqab is required by Sharia law and forbidden by French law…and the French authorities allowed the lady in question to adhere to Sharia law.

I get the point that what is in the public mind when they think “no-go” is an exaggeration; the concept that there are places under French jurisdiction where the police and other authorities never go. If that is what is claimed as a myth, then I concede the point. The French police and military are fully capable of entering any place under French jurisdiction any time they wish and I’m sure that when something the authorities can’t ignore happens, they go in. But, as it actually made pretty clear in Cooke’s article, there is massive criminal activity going on in parts of Paris and the authorities aren’t doing much about it. Cooke’s story of pretty open drug dealing out in front of a Mosque means, to me, that the police know full well that if they try to interfere with this then Muslim radicals in the area will kick up a fuss and lots of elite voices in France will start making accusations of racism…and so they just don’t go. The area is, for practical purposes, a no-go zone for the French authorities. Not because they can’t go, but because they won’t go – and they won’t go because they believe the political costs of going outweigh the benefits of not going.

Don’t be too down on the French about this: there are no-go zones in the United States, as well. Why do you think in places like Chicago there are neighborhoods horrifically crime-ridden while the neighborhood just down the street is nearly crime-free? I can’t think of any other reason than that the police are protecting one area very well, but not too interested in what is going on in the other. Take a look at the crime stats for the Hyde Park and Washington Park areas of Chicago – Hyde Park ranks 44th of Chicago’s 77 neighborhoods in violent crime; Washington Park ranks 5th. They are right next to each other. Seriously – you can cross the street from Hyde Park to Washington Park. Criminals can’t cross the street? Of course they can – but for some reason they don’t. In fact, why don’t criminals routinely head to the richest areas of town to rob and burglarize? Its not like criminals don’t have cars – why beat someone for $50 when you can beat someone else ten miles away for $500? One area is protected, another area isn’t. One area is under the laws of the City of Chicago, one area not quite so much. As to why these two neighborhoods are different I’ll leave that to someone with the time for more in-depth research…but, to me, Washington Park is a no-go zone. I won’t go there. Certainly not after dark. So are those neighborhoods of Paris where Mr. Cooke recently toured. They aren’t entirely part of France – I can’t expect a friendly and polite French police officer to protect me in some areas. I can’t even be very certain that if I were killed in one of those areas that an in-depth investigation would be done…after all, it might lead to someone of a certain faith being the prime suspect and arresting him could cause a riot. Better just to send the American stiff back home and close the case as “unsolved”.

As a citizen of the United States, there should be no part of the United States where it is unsafe for me to travel – any time, day or night. And if I got myself a visa to visit France, I should be able to wander aimlessly about France with never a worry for my safety. That is what government’s which are doing their job ensure. Indeed, it is the prime reason to have a government. Most of the rest of what government does is dross. But, that is not the case. Of course, it has always been like that: there have always been bad neighborhoods that are best to stay out of. But the difference we have today with the past is that a bad neighborhood in the past might have been that way for a multitude of reasons, but some of the bad neighborhoods in Paris (and elsewhere in the Western world) are to be stayed out of simply because of the faith of a majority of the people living there. Safely defended by a craven fear among our elite leadership, areas of the West are being sutured off from our laws and customs. To be sure, a great deal of run-of-the-mill criminal activity is going on in these areas, but the defense of the run-of-the-mill criminals is the fact that they operate out of primarily Muslim areas.

There are various kinds of injustice in the world but one of the worst is when average folks are not afforded protection. In our elite’s desire to not deal with real problems, they have essentially thrown a large number of people to the wolves. In the Muslim neighborhoods of Paris – as Cooke points out – you don’t see a lot of women on the streets and those you do would fit nicely into Mecca. But is that what they really want? Do all Muslim women in those Paris neighborhoods want to wear the niqab? I doubt it. Human nature being what it is, there are certainly some who would prefer to dress like French women – but they dare not, because French law and customs don’t matter and while in theory a Muslim French woman in those areas could appeal to the police for protection, the reality is that she’s at the mercy of those who actually rule the neighborhood. We do it, too, you know? Just for one example we throw people to the criminal wolves on our border because we refuse to enforce our laws – and if we won’t enforce our laws, then someone will enforce their laws. In the case of our border the laws are those of various criminal gangs. If what it would take to ensure the enforcement of French law is an armed French policeman on every corner in the Muslim neighborhoods, then that is what France’s government is morally bound to provide. But, they don’t. Too difficult. Might get called a racist.

It is a paradox of the modern West that as our governments have asserted increasing power over our lives, they have less able to actually protect our lives. This is a sign of civilizational collapse. I’m not at all certain how this is all going to come out in the long run, other than a solid assurance that it can’t go on too much longer, and when the final smash comes, it will be quite astonishing. Whether the remains of western civilization will emerge to rebuild – or be buried forever – remains to be seen. But if we do want our western civilization to survive, then it is a requirement that we look at the facts with a clear eye. Needlessly causing offense is wrong – that is why I asserted a few days ago that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were wrong – but if telling the truth is offensive, then offend away.

Muslims living in the West have an absolute right to the same freedoms that the rest of us enjoy and if we don’t guarantee them their rights, then we have failed in our duties. Among these rights are, of course, the right to be as devoutly Muslim as they wish to be – but they also have a right to be as slipshod and/or heretical as they wish to be, just as the rest of us have the right to be devout about our beliefs, or ignore them nine days out of ten. Just as, say, a Jew must be in no danger if he doesn’t adhere to Judaism, so much a Muslim be in no danger – no matter where the Muslim lives in the West – for not adhering to Islam. And whatever amount of law enforcement activity is necessary – guided, of course, by a strong sense of justice tempered by mercy – to ensure this state of affairs, that is what must be done. Say, if you wish, that there aren’t any no-go zones in Paris or other Western cities. Fine. Granted. But what are we going to do about those non-no-go zones where a person steps away from the ruling orthodoxy at the peril of their life?

112 And Counting……

tiredoflibbs15 Comments

Here is a list of unkept promises from other State of the Union addresses…. some realistic, some fantasy, most he did not even try and most are what the low information voter, “progressive” drones wanted to hear.
https://grabien.com/story.php?id=20735

2009

1. The stimulus bill will create 3.5 million jobs over the next few years, 90 percent of which will be in the private sector.

2. Create program that will enable Americans facing foreclosure to lower their mortgage payments and save their homes.

3. Double the supply of renewable energy within the next three years.

4. The “largest ever” federal spending program on science will yield breakthroughs in energy, medicine, science, and technology.

5. Lay down 1,000s of miles of power lines to connect Americans’ homes to these new sources of energy.

6. Reduce Americans’ energy bills by “billions of dollars.”

7. Cure cancer “in our time.”

8. Use stimulus funds to spend on preventive health care, which will get federal health spending “under control.”

9. Use the savings that result from the stimulus’ reform of health-care to reduce the deficit.

10. Cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.

11. Go “line by line” through the federal budget to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs – saving $2 trillion over the next 10 years.

12. Never raise taxes “a single dime” on any family earning less than $250,000.

13. Stop the growing cost of Medicare and Social Security.

14. Make Social Security sustainable.

15. Create tax-free savings accounts for all Americans.

16. Close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

2010

17. Use stimulus funds to build a high-speed railway in Florida.

18. Research funds from the previous year’s stimulus will cure cancer, lead to “the cheapest solar cells.”

19. Building a new generation of nuclear energy plants.

20. Passing a climate-change law that will make clean energy profitable

21. Passing health-reform that lets Americans keep their doctors and their plans.

22. The health-reform law will reduce costs for “millions” of families and businesses

23. The health-reform law will bring down the deficit $1 trillion over the next 20 years.

24. Starting in 2011, government spending “ will be frozen for three years.”

25. Cut programs we don’t need to maintain a balanced budget.

26. Veto spending bills that don’t adhere to balanced budgeting. ($7.5 trillion added debt and counting)

27. Go through budget “line by line” to eliminate programs that we can’t afford and don’t work.

28. Create a bipartisan fiscal commission; the recommendations of which he’ll enact.

29. Restore the pay-as-you-go budgeting rules.

30. Create a website that publishes every lawmakers’ earmark requests.

31. Never give up “ trying to change the tone of our politics.”

32. Pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

33. Secure America’s borders.

34. Enforce existing immigration laws

2011

35. More nuclear power, more natural gas, more wind and solar.

36. Pass comprehensive immigration reform.

37. Secure America’s borders.

38. Enforce existing immigration laws.

39. Reduce unemployment by increasing the number of people working on infrastructure projects – ensuring these projects are “fully paid for.”

40. Recruit private sector financing to assist these infrastructure projects.

41. Projects will be prioritized by importance, not by politics.

42. Give 85 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years.

43. Within the next three years, enable 98 percent of Americans to receive high-speed wireless Internet.

44. Lower the corporate tax rate and eliminate loopholes.

45. Reduce business regulations restraining growth and investment.

46. Starting this year, freeze domestic spending for the next five years.

47. ObamaCare will slow rising costs of health-insurance premiums.

48. Enact medical malpractice tort reform.

49. Consolidating various federal departments to streamline federal bureaucracy and ensure it’s “more competent and more efficient.”

50. Create website that lists all federal spending.

51. Veto every bill that contains earmarks.

2012

52. Reduce corporate income taxes.

53. Consolidate federal jobs-training programs – creating a single website that makes all information about these programs available in one place.

54. Convert federal unemployment insurance into a system that focuses on finding the unemployed jobs.

55. Enact comprehensive immigration reform.

56. Force all high schools to require students to stay in school until they graduate or turn 18.

57. Open more than 75 percent of off-shore U.S. territory to drilling.

58. Go “all out” on every type of energy.

59. Take “every possible action” to expand natural gas production.

60. Ordering “every federal agency to eliminate rules that don’t make sense.”

61. Create “financial crimes unit” to crack down on white-collar crime.

62. Work with Congress to procure power to consolidate federal bureaucracy.

63. “End the notion that political parties must be engaged in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction.”

2013

64. Reform Medicare and Medicaid to save as much as was proposed by the Simpson-Bowles Commission.

65. “Reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies.”

66. Raises taxes on the wealthiest seniors.

67. Bring down health-care costs by changing the way the federal government pays for Medicare.

68. Eliminate loopholes and deductions for the “well off.”

69. Enact comprehensive tax reform that brings down the deficit and encourages job growth.

70. Cut “red tape and speed up new oil and gas permits.”

71. Create an “energy security trust.”

72. Create a “fix it first” program that will direct the unemployed to the highest priority programs.

73. Make “high quality” preschool available to every child in America.

74. Require that aid to colleges be distributed according to the value they impart upon students.

75. Pass comprehensive immigration reform.

76. Raise the minimum wage to $9/hour.

77. Create a tax incentive for companies to hire the long-term unemployed.

78. Create a program to put people back to work by rebuilding vacant homes in rundown neighborhoods.

79. Enact new tax credits for businesses that hire and invest.

80. Eliminate the marriage penalty for low-income couples.

81. Encourage fatherhood through tax policy adjustments.

82. By the end of 2014, end the war in Afghanistan.

83. Never make promises the government can’t actually keep.

84. Keep the promises already made. (Bwahahahahahahahahahaaa!)

2014

85. Lower corporate income taxes, close loopholes.

86. Use the money saved from corporate tax reform to finance new infrastructure spending.

87. Slash bureaucracy through executive orders.

88. Create an additional six “high tech manufacturing hubs” in 2014.

89. “Do more” to help entrepreneurs and small business owners.

90. Use government research funds to create entirely new industries – like vaccines that adapt to evolving bacteria, and inventing material thinner than paper but stronger than steel.

91. Pass a patent reform bill.

92. Use executive orders to cut red tape to enable factories to be built that are powered by natural gas.

93. Reform taxes so that fossil fuel companies are taxed more and “ fuels of the future” are taxed less.

94. Enact new fuel-efficiency standards for trucks.

95. Pass comprehensive immigration reform.

96. Consolidate federal jobs training programs, helping match people with skills to jobs they can fill.

97. Reform unemployment insurance to encourage Americans to return to the workforce faster.

98. Assemble a coalition to help more kids access pre-K education.

99. Pass the “Equal Pay Act” for women.

100. Raise the minimum wage to $10.10

101. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit

102. Reform the tax code to help lower-class Americans save

103. Give every American access to “an automatic IRA on the job.”

104. Ensure Americans never have to wait more than a half hour to vote.

105. Pass legislation that will prevent mass shooting tragedies.

106. End the Afghan war by the end of 2014.

107. Reform NSA surveillance programs.

108. Close Guantanamo Bay Prison in 2014.

109. End the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

110. Ensuring the Iran will stop installing advanced centrifuges.

111. Be the “first” to call for more sanctions if Iran doesn’t abandon nuclear program.

112. Reform Veterans Affairs so that vets no longer have to deal with backlogs and instead receive the health care that they need.
———-

We can confidently say that this pResident is INCOMPETENT and a FAILURE.

Update: We have a reason why obame has failed in keeping his promises, from the loony left.  The reasons are, “it’s because he’s black and the evil GOP wants him to fail.”  Wow, talk about regurgitating dumbed down talking points. So, if the GOP was so effective at stopping obame’s agenda, where did cappy’s “success” list come from? Also, when his own party opposed him on some issues, were they being racist also?

So when obame and his party had control of both houses before 2011, what is the excuse for not keeping those promises in 2009 and 2010?  Plus for 2011 till present, why not sign more Executive Orders?

Thinking About “American Sniper”

Mark Noonan2 Comments

First off, let me just say the movie is emotionally devastating. It is a very powerful movie – and very gritty. It is not at all for kids – or, indeed, for anyone who has trouble with not so much violence, as a thing, but the horrific reality of what counter-insurgency warfare is like.

The movie is not about a hero so much as it is about how a man – just an average man – deals with events which force him to be heroic. Bradley Cooper, as Chris Kyle, plays a sort of man I’ve known in my life. For one, the man who recruited me into the United States Navy; a Navy SEAL of Vietnam-era vintage. I’ve met a few others of the type over the years. Quiet, calm men who are dedicated to defending those who cannot defend themselves. You have to think about it for a moment when you’re with them – the knowledge that they know how to kill and will kill without hesitation if they believe it necessary. Men who are also, as depicted in the movie, pursued by what they have done long after it is over – the man who recruited me dealt with it by making a big joke out of life (I’ll never forget the gales of laughter he had while telling me the story of his father – trouble was, it was about how his father, a submariner in the Navy, was accidentally killed by a torpedo).

The story also gets into how the families of these men are forced to live in desperate fear of what will happen; how they still have to keep up a brave front to the world while they are worried sick; how when the warrior comes home, they are often dealing with a person who is at least partially broken by the terrible events endured.

But as I’ve pondered the movie over the last 24 hours, what has most struck me is that when we engage in war – when we send men like Chris Kyle out to do battle – then we’d better be in it to win it; and we should be doing it vastly different from how we’ve done it. You see, Chris Kyle’s job was to protect his fellow soldiers by using his sniper rifle to kill the enemy before the enemy could kill our troops. But in a counter-insurgency campaign, such a job means that the sniper will have to make snap decisions on who lives and dies…and then live with the consequences of that decision for the rest of his life. One thing I would now prefer for all time to come is that if we have to go to war, we don’t go into that particular kind of war.

You see, the enemy knows us – and knows our weakest point: our desire not to harm. In our desire to be nice (can’t think of a better word), I think we do a disservice to ourselves and, in the end, end up with more harm than we need. The sort of people we fight – and the sort of people we’ll always fight for the foreseeable future – are brutes. They care nothing for human lives. They deliberately hide themselves among civilians knowing that when we come to kill, we’ll kill at least some of the civilians and those dead – which are 100% the fault of the enemy – will be blamed on us. Mogadishu is the battle plan at all times – draw Americans into built up areas, set bombs and ambushes and just wait for civilians to be caught in the cross-fire. Chris Kyle dealt with that through four tours of duty. No more of that, as far as I’m concerned. If we must fight, we’re not to fight the way the enemy wants.

I would never agree to sending Americans into a house-to-house battle to clear out terrorists dug in among civilians. If we’re ever faced with something like Fallujah, again, then I say we just properly besiege the place, allow no one in or out, no food in, and just wait for them to starve into surrender. Yes, people will die. Yes, some of them will be civilians. But they won’t die because of cross fire between us and a barbaric enemy…and when the enemy does come out to stack arms, and he will because starvation will do that to you, the world will know and see that the enemy surrendered to us…coming out, hands in the air, into our prison camps. I’m tired of fighting the war the way the enemy wants. When we send the like of Chris Kyle into battle, I want them to win it all with an enemy begging for peace…not coming home after a nasty fight to deal with PTSD while idiots at home condemn them for fighting.

God rest your soul, Chris Kyle – and may God cast His blessings upon you and your fellow warriors.

Democrat Culture of Corruption Update

Mark Noonan2 Comments

Senator Feinstein edition:

The US Postal Service plans to sell 56 buildings — so it can lease space more expensively — and the real estate company of the California senator’s husband, Richard Blum, is set to pocket about $1 billion in commissions…

I’m sure it was just bizarre, freakish coincidence which made it that her husband’s firm would be the sole real estate agent for this massive deal. I’ve also got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya.

To be sure, I’ll bet dollars to donuts there won’t be a paper trail – in other words, we’re almost certain to never find a letter sent by someone to Feinstein offering the deal, nor from her asking for the deal. Its all done with a wink and a nod…and all part of a series of moves to bail out the Postal Service. But the thing is that it should be impossible for anyone connected with government to make a profit off the deal. Maybe the buildings to need to be sold – ok; so find a firm which has no executives who are related to people who work in government…and if we can’t find such a thing, then that just shows you how deep the corruption runs. And if Senator Feinstein had an ounce of public spirit, she should have told her husband to make certain the he and his interests have nothing to do with it.

This is the system we have today – a massive con where people connected to government self-deal themselves in to fabulous riches while the people are left out in the cold.

The Left: “2014 THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD!!!!”……… YAWN

tiredoflibbs21 Comments

The leftist spin continues with them claiming that 2014 is the warmest year on record. “Seeeeeee!……” I’ll let science and climatologists (who are most likely not taking government money to prove man-made climate change) speak for themselves. Remember, pro-global warming is a boondoggle for scientists who are desperate for grant money. Follow the money: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/07/on-global-warming-follow-the-money.php

If big oil is greedy, then what does that make big environment? http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

And as usual, the drones on the left focus on the link of Climate Depot and not the content.  When this tactic is used against their links, they predictably go batshit crazy and throw tantrums as to how theirs is different (and no less they take great stock in OPINION pieces) and only they can use that excuse.  To bad they ignored these quotes from SCIENTISTS AND CLIMATOLOGISTS and their associated links.

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: ‘Claiming 2014 is the ‘hottest year’ on record based on hundredths of a degree temperature difference is a fancy way of saying the global warming ‘pause’ is continuing.’

Astrophysicist Dr. Dr David Whitehouse: ‘The NASA press release is highly misleading…talk of a record is scientifically and statistically meaningless.’

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’ (based on surface data)– ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ 

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels debunks 2014 ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Is 58.46° then distinguishable from 58.45°? In a word, ‘NO.’

No Record Temperatures According To Satellites

Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: ‘Please laugh out loud when someone will be telling you that it was the warmest year’

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: ‘We have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.’

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade.’

Details…. details…… but as we know, the left will ignore details and lie about anything to their advantage.

Now, since the mindless drones on the left cannot dispute climatologists and scientists pointing out the spin and cheery-picking of temperature data commonly used by those who want to scare the population into doing what they want, the left resorts to their tried and true tactic: demonization. They claim the above scientists and climatologists are “in the pockets of big oil”. Proof? They don’t need any! Since their intentions are “pure and noble”, why would they lie?

Yes, There are Limits

Mark Noonan13 Comments

There’s been a lot of back and forth on this since the Charlie Hebdo attack, and now Pope Francis has chimed in:

Pope Francis suggested there are limits to freedom of expression, saying in response to the Charlie Hebdo terror attack that “one cannot make fun of faith” and that anyone who throws insults can expect a “punch.”

The pontiff said that both freedom of faith and freedom of speech were fundamental human rights and that “every religion has its dignity.”

“One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith,” he said. “There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity … in freedom of expression there are limits.”

The pope was speaking to reporters on a plane as he flew from Sri Lanka to the Philippines on his tour of Asia…

Over at Ace, they are little disappointed about this. Allahpundit is also not too pleased. I’ve seen over the past week plenty of comments from conservative and libertarian people who are really not thinking this thing through. To be sure, there is the understandable desire to defend against Islamists who, after all, will kill us no matter what we do – but just because we’re dealing with people like that doesn’t mean we have no responsibility for our own actions. Too many people are getting themselves into the position that unless we applaud the most vile expressions, we are letting the terrorists win. There’s a word for that – but I won’t use it, because it is vulgar and might cause offense…and because I’m someone making failing, weak efforts at being a Christian gentleman, I try not to be offensive.

I’m five feet, seven inches tall. I weigh about 175 pounds. I’m not exactly of the body-builder sort. Now, suppose I had a neighbor who is six feet, six inches tall; weighs about 280 and bench presses cars. I take a dislike to this neighbor because he’s a jerk – and I express my views about him by drawing insulting pictures of him and posting them on a board out in front of my house. Now, to be sure, my gigantic neighbor – who is a jerk, as I said – should still take my insults in stride. There is no actual justification for him to pound me into a pulp because I drew unflattering pictures of him. On the other hand, if I did get pounded into a pulp, how many of you would be thinking – at least – that I shouldn’t have been writing checks my body can’t cash? Even if you called the police to have the man arrested and were willing to testify against him in court because, still, he shouldn’t have pounded me, wouldn’t any reasonable person say that I had played a role in bringing on the pounding? There are plenty of ways I can deal with a jerk – including if really pressed to it, fighting. But if I’m going to fight, then I’d better be ready to fight. If I’m not prepared to actually fight, then maybe I should seek other means of redress? Thinking is a very important part of deciding what to do.

In our definition of free speech there is no license to print whatever you want. You might have heard the word “libel” from time to time. Also, the famous “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” exception is well known. Even in good, old, First Amendment USA, there is no absolute right to say what one pleases. We have these reasonable restrictions on free speech because they are, well, reasonable. Of course, this still allows a very wide latitude for people to write things – and in the United States, we tend to have the widest latitude in the world. And this is a good thing – a thing I would die in the last ditch to defend. There was nothing legally wrong in what Charlie Hebdo printed. No reasonable person in the United States – or even in France, for that matter – would want Charlie Hebdo shut down over the offensive cartoons. Furthermore, no reasonable person would assert a right of the offended party to do violence against Charlie Hebdo for their offensive cartoons. There is no justification for what happened – and if it had happened in the United States and the perpetrators were caught and brought to trial, I would be only too pleased to pronounce a guilty verdict against them in court…nor would I shed tears if the perpetrators wound up killed by the police, as the French perpetrators ultimately did. But with all those caveats, I still have to say – as unpopular as it might be – that Charlie Hedbo did play a role in bringing on the attack. And they played that role without having made any provision for repelling an attack. I’m guessing because they never imagined that there would be such an attack – or, perhaps, they thought that the French government, which has been slack as all European governments, would protect them?

Choose your battles: that is an old saw; but none the less wise for having been used often. People who have read my stuff over the years know that I’m on board with fighting Islamist terrorists. In fact, I’m in favor of much more vigorous war than we’re doing – and even much more vigorous war than President Bush engaged in. I’m incensed on a regular basis at the crimes of the Islamists – especially, these days, the horrific massacres of Christians. I’d like us to really take the fight to the enemy. But I’m not going to sit here and just write nasty things about Muslims and think I’m doing something against Islamist terrorism. It might make a person feel good – though I really can’t imagine why – to do such things, but I don’t see any point in it. All it does is take our eye off the ball and, additionally, provide additional recruiting tools for the very people we want destroyed. We are, indeed, supposed to be better than the enemy – true, we should be physically stronger and better able to apply force against them, but we should also be more just, more merciful and more respectful of their innate, human dignity. Better. You see?

We’re doing it all wrong, in my view. Obama and the liberals are wrong in that they believe that Muslims are the offended party and if we’ll just show forbearance, they’ll quit. Plenty of conservatives are wrong in that they believe if we just give brag and insult and drop bombs, they’ll quit. Other people are a combination of these things. Me? I want to win the war. I want Islamism destroyed. To do that will take intelligence, foresight, courage and a fine and sensitive touch with the great mass of the Muslim people.

Of course, our real handicap is that far too many people in the West – and probably a majority; especially in Europe – don’t really believe in anything. They don’t believe in honesty. Don’t believe in decency. Don’t believe in self-sacrifice. All they want is their creature comforts and a life free from responsibility – and they’ll bury their heads as deep in the sand as necessary to live like that. We’re easy pickings for people like the Islamists – I am the person entirely unsurprised when Western people volunteer to join them. People, if they are not utterly craven, want to believe. We in the West offer nothing to believe in – just more gadgets and more moral disintegration. Those in the West who do have good beliefs are ridiculed, and absurdly compared to the terrorists, as well. A kid who has been taught to believe in nothing worthy – who, indeed, has been told that worthy beliefs are flat out wrong – and who has been fed a steady diet of nonsense is especially prone to fall for the first charlatan who comes along.

The Islamists offer something to believe in, and a lot of people go for it – and that we know it is stupid and destructive doesn’t alter our position or our peril. The Islamists are not the first people to sucker large numbers into doing evil, while thinking they are doing good. Ultimately, we won’t win this war unless we start to believe in something superior to the Islamists. We’d better figure out real quick who we are and what we believe. Defending a vulgar, little paper like Charlie Hebdo won’t do the trick – in fact, it is our celebration of such that is at the heart of our problem. It is a sign of strength if we tolerate such things in our midst, it is suicide if we praise such things…and while a collection of liberals apparently had a long held feeling of hate towards Charlie Hedbo, that was more a function of cowardice than a desire for standards of decency…we know this because the only thing liberals didn’t like about Charlie Hedbo was that it insulted Islam. This is just a species of “please cut my throat last” cowardice. If we were a people who condemned Charlie Hebdo for all its insults – you know, including the insults against Jews and Christians – while never making a move to suppress it, then we would be morally healthy, and better able to fight and win against Islamists. But that would also be a people who condemned 80%+ of what is in popular culture these days.

I’m getting a little long in the tooth at age 50. No one in their right mind is going to place me on the battlefield – but I assure one and all that I am ready to defend Judeo-Christian, Western civilization. I’m not so willing to die to defend the right of adolescent jerks to insult people. Do you see the difference? I’ll fight and die for “We hold these truths to be self evident…” and “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth…”, but I’m not really pleased at the thought of dying so that the next vulgar little reality series can be broadcast on television. In fact, no one is willing to die for that. The Islamists have their dogmas they are willing to fight and die for – what dogmas are we willing to fight and die for? And if we do have some people believing in dogmas worth fighting for, are there enough of them?

Ultimately, there are limits – because there have to be. The limits are necessary for us to have civilization. You can’t have it all. You can either hold to rigid standards of conduct or you can be destroyed by people who hold to rigid standards of conduct. Those are your choices, boiled down. Among the rigid standards of conduct in our civilization is a cautious courtesy of speech – an unwillingness to cause needless offense. Gracious, there are enough things to offend us all just in day to day living – we don’t need to add to it. Yes, at times we must take the course of King St. Louis – when someone is insanely persistent in demanding death and destruction, we must drive a sword through him as far as it will go. But good King St. Louis also would never have dreamed of just insulting people for the fun of it – and he was a Crusader, my friends; a more devoted enemy of Islamic aggression you will not find in the annals of history.

I really do love this country of ours – warts and all. I really do think that in secular terms, we offer the best that humanity has to offer. I do think our nation worth defending. But it is worth defending only if we live up to the standards upon which it was founded. Look through the Declaration and the Constitution and you’ll see it shot through from start to finish with decency. Even when Jefferson condemned George III before the bar of history, he didn’t offer insult. No one reading that sublime document could conclude other than that the king was in the wrong, and right and justice were on our side. Jefferson offered truth, well written to appeal to the better angels of human nature. Contrast it to the cowardly tripe of modern liberals, or the school-yard insults hurled by some. We’re better than that. At all events, we had better be better – because if we aren’t better than the enemy, we won’t beat him.

Why There Must be an Israel

Mark Noonan6 Comments

At the end of the day, it is the only place earth where a Jew can be sure of being safe:

…Jewish emigration from France is accelerating. From being the largest Jewish community in the EU at the start of this decade, with a population of around 500,000, it is expected by Jewish community leaders to have fallen to 400,000 within a few years. That figure is thought by some to be too optimistic. Anecdotally, every French Jew I know has either already left or is working out how to leave.

Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet refusenik who is now chair of the Jewish Agency Chairman, said last year that 2,254 French Jews moved to Israel during the first five months of 2014, against only 580 in all of 2013. That is a staggering 289 per cent increase, but in recent months the figure is thought to have increased exponentially…

We here in the United States can take pride in the fact that we are the most Jew-friendly nation in the world – but even here, forces and voices are growing more hostile to Jews. The American left is picking up the worst aspects of anti-Semitism, hiding it behind a bogus concern for Palestinians – the reality is that the left hates Israel because it is safer to hate Israel than to hate Islamism; haters gotta hate, but always better to hate those who won’t chop off your head (at least, for now: the leftists don’t realize how much the Islamists hate them, too).

The exodus of Jews from France will probably only accelerate after the events of the past few days. This exodus from France and the rest of Europe will merely accentuate the growing anti-Semitism of Europe…as more Jews leave and more Muslims move in, it’ll become ever more politically acceptable to be anti-Semitic in Europe.

The reason I defend Israel is two-fold: First off, because it is a fellow democracy. I just can’t agree that any free people should be subjugated. Secondly, because Jews have to have a place to run to. I hope and pray that my nation is always a friend of Israel – but I can’t be sure of that. Things change; people change. Appeals to hatred and fear are often successful. Israel must exist so that the Jews may be sure of existing. Period.

What I Think About the Hebdo Attack

Mark Noonan29 Comments

First off, the Charlie Hebdo drawings are rather crude and not at all to my taste.

Secondly, to call this an attack upon free speech when we’re decades into Political Correctness in the West is an absurdity.

Third, One might like to think that such a brazen crime as this will wake people up, but it won’t: we’ll have our candle light vigils and our hand wringing…and maybe someone will lob a few missiles in the general direction of Islamists, somewhere; but we won’t actually face up to the facts. To do so would call forth a whole series of very inconvenient things which would distract politicians from grafting, corporations from squeezing profits and average folks from watching mindless television programs.

One thing that caught my eye over the course of the day was the furious reaction – mostly on the right, as far as I can tell – to the head of the Catholic League’s statement on the matter. To quote a bit:

…While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not. Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran. What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them…

That is bound to make people mad. Partially because it appears to excuse the killers (though it doesn’t actually do that, if you read the whole thing), partially because lots of people are dead and we’re supposed to be agog at the heroism of Charlie Hebdo from now on.

Charlie Hebdo did create some rather vulgar depictions of a lot of things – including Catholic things. Of course, vulgar depictions of Christians of any sort are common in popular media. Its a sort of go-to thing for anyone wanting to (safely) make a name for themselves as transgressive. Sure, when you insult a Christian there might be a Christian or two who complains, but its not like Christians are going to kill you over it. To give a bit of credit to Charlie Hebdo, the insults were directed a lot of people, including Muslims – in a world where most people walk on eggshells around Muslim issues, that says something. But, it also doesn’t excuse crude insults.

Just to make myself clear: a person is not properly exercising his or her right to free speech when they are hurling an insult. To be sure, such things happen – and no one possessed of their wits will ever try to prevent someone from saying something because it might be insulting. But, here’s the thing: our entire Western world does precisely that. And, yes, that does make us rather witless. We’re making Charlie Hebdo into a hero for being ecumenically insulting but we’ll drive out of corporate America a person who once donated to a pro-traditional marriage cause. Yeah, that makes sense. People at Charlie Hebdo abuse the privilege of free speech and it is accounted heroic – someone properly exercises their right to free speech and he’s socially unacceptable. Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

My guess is that my more libertarian friends would say that both Charlie Hebdo and the corporate boss should have been left alone. And they would be right for saying that. Still, one man was fired for quietly expressing his opinion, the other were people gainfully employed for loudly shouting insults.

The drawings of Charlie Hebdo remind me of nothing so much as a the crude pictures in the anti-Semitic Der Sturmer; they shouldn’t have been printed in any decent publication in the world. If you have something to say against, then it is your bound duty to say it in a manner which provides information in a non-insulting manner. Like most social duties, this cannot be enforced; as per usual, being decent is something which pretty much has to be done voluntarily. If someone wants to wallow in the gutter, there’s not much anyone can do about it. But such people aren’t being brave or heroic – they’re just being jerks. Additionally, if something can’t be said politely then it is probably at least partially incorrect on factual grounds.

At the end of the day, Charlie Hebdo should have found different themes to draw upon. They could well have used art to provoke discussion – including discussion about the very serious problems the world confronts in Islamic radicalism. In a very small way, the world would be a better place had things gone like that. Of course, the Hebdo massacre could well have been done by Islamists for even carefully reasoned and polite criticism of Islam – the Islamist enemy is like that. But the old saw is that it costs nothing to be polite – and it can cost a lot to be insulting. Better, on the whole, to be polite.

Freedom is the ability to freely choose to do the right thing, or it is nothing. We know that shooting up a news office is not the right thing and thus anyone who uses his God-given right of choice to do such a thing has done wrong. I am hopeful that most people will also hold that insulting people is to freely choose to do the wrong thing – not nearly as wrong as killing, of course, but still wrong. Anyone out there want to lay odds on who will win in a fight between those who want to insult and those who want to kill those who insult?

The fight, I think, would have a different outcome if the Islamists were confronted with people who firmly but politely stated their views and demonstrated their willingness to kill or die for them.

(Ed Note: Updated to make it clear that Charlie Hebdo is a magazine, not a person. My excuse is that it was late at night and the original concept of this was to write specifically about Stéphane Charbonnier, but I felt that was to get too personal into it and re-worked the whole article…but forgetting that I was talking about a magazine, not a person. Sorry for being a bonehead. Not the first time it happened, won’t be the last!)

It Should Come As No Surprise – Open Thread

Cluster12 Comments

As the GOP Senate and House are sworn in today, the liberal media is not surprisingly grilling new GOP representatives on how and where they plan to work with Obama. Donny Deutsch on MSNBC went so far this morning to say to an incoming GOP House member that considering the “low gas prices, new dialogue with Cuba, and one of the most important pieces of legislation passed in a generation (ACA), this President is viewed as a huge success, so what are your plans to continue to get things done”. Appropriately the response was right on target when he responded by saying (and I don’t remember who he was)  that “thanks to folks in North Dakota and Montana we have aggressively extracted our domestic crude resources on private lands almost in spite of the President’s desire, and have added substantially to the world supply helping lower prices, and if you are referring to the ACA I would remind you that that bill is still very unpopular with the majority of Americans and has many problems, and in regards to Cuba, that open dialogue has done nothing to free dissidents, or to stop the flow of Cubans who so desperately want to leave that country”.

Obama has already demonstrated that he has no intention of working with the new GOP Congress, so it should come as no surprise that the media will follow his lead and berate the GOP for actually representing their constituents rather than being a lap dog for Obama as Harry Reid was for so many years. Let the games begin.