Sunday, November 29, 2009

58% of Swiss Vote to Ban Minarets (the towers above Mosques) in Switzerland...

This is very welcome news!

The Swiss people voted to ban minarets (those towers, or spires above Mosques) in Switzerland, by a whopping 58% of Swiss voters!

The Wall Street Journal reported it this way, “Swiss voters Sunday approved a ban on the construction of new minarets on mosques, defying appeals from the government to reject the proposal and raising the specter of a new round of tensions in Europe concerning the role of Islam on the Continent.

“The vote highlights the persistent conflict over the integration of Europe's growing Muslim population into civil society...”

“...The Swiss voted strongly for the ban, with 58% of votes in favor of the initiative and 42% against. Until about a month ago, polls had predicted voters would solidly reject the ban...”


I’m liking the Swiss more and MORE!

An Awesome Speech by Congressional Candidate Lieutenant Colonel Allen West

This is an absolutely AWESOME video of a GREAT speech by Congressional Candidate Lieutenant Colonel Allen West - who is running for Congress for Florida's 22nd Congressional District. SEE:

H/T to FDNY Deputy Chief Paul Mannix, President of Merit Matters

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Revisiting an Ironic, Earlier Comment on Another Blog;...

On a piece over at Cynical Nation titled, Obama and the pirates

(Posted by BNJ)

Barry said, “I don't have time to say much about this other than that I'm disappointed (though not surprised) that so many on the right can't bring themselves to celebrate this because their guy didn't get elected in November. And yes, much of the Left did the same thing for the past eight years, but that doesn't make it okay. So even if I never have occasion to do it again, I'm drinking a toast to Obama and dead pirates.”

In response, and remember, this was back in mid-April of 2009, I replied, “I feared we were getting another Jimmy Carter, but it seems we have another G W Bush - a dedicated, albeit cautious Keynesian, determined to keep us engaged in a military WoT.” (JMK)

Turns out that this certainly appears to have been merely “wishful thinking,” on my part.

Yes, getting the UAW to agree to major concessions was a PLUS, but putting them ahead of GM’s investors and first-line creditors, as was done with the government-overhaul was a HUGE NEGATIVE.

Moreover, the current administration is not only “Carteresque,” but “the Carter administration on steroids.”

Jimmy Carter’s foreign policies were an unmitigated disaster, especially in regards to Iran, where the ousting of the Shah led to the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the legitimizing of the scourge of today’s world “radicalized Islam,” by giving it the legitimacy of a home state.

His economic policies were a continuation of the Johnson-Nixon-Ford Keynesianism, only with an emphasis on even MORE reckless and irresponsible social spending.

Housing activists like Gail Cincotta and Wade Rathke (ACORN’s founder) found political allies in the Liberal Congress of that era, especially William Proxmire (D-WI) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA), who helped guide the horrific Community Reinvestment Act through Congress.

Among the worst abuses of the intentionally abusive CRA was that it had housing activists like Ms. Cincotta and Mr. Rathke overseeing how the banks doled out their loans!

The CRA was the first of many steps, and perhaps the BIGGEST, in transforming America’s banking system from one centered on making profits for their shareholders (a bank’s ONLY rightful purpose) to one of assisting in delivering a perceived “public good.”

Ironically enough, Barack Obama was a huge part of that movement. His first job out of law school was working as a lawyer for ACORN and taking on Citibank in 1996 for “not making enough loans to low-income people” (that is “people unable to pay them back).

Today, the banking industry is heavily government-controlled and risk-averse bureaucrats have foisted policies on banks that are crimping the number of loans such institutions make to Venture Capital investments (entities that might turn into the nest Intel or Microsoft) and into Federal Treasury Securities...right now U.S. banks are net BUYERS of such Treasury securities to the tune of some $185 BILLION annually! That’s BAD because is means A LOT LESS credit available for business loans and home mortgages.

Ultimately it means a much LOWER living standard for ALL Americans.

And THAT is the goal of the Liberals in this country...especially those in government.

What we’re looking at now is an economic tsunami whose winds haven’t even hit us YET.

Early next year the rest of the world’s buyers of U.S. debt are set to increase the costs of borrowing for Uncle Sam and that means the cost of servicing that debt will ultimately more than double over the next few years! What that’ll mean is higher interest rates and high inflation rates, along with prolonged high unemployment for as far as the eye can see.

We could, if we’re very unfortunate, see a return of STAGFLATION by 2010...which would almost certainly signal the end of Democratic dominance in Congress.

“But what if they’ve already locked us into Cap and Trade based treaties and a huge healthcare entitlement, by then,” many ask.

Well, it’ll be up to the next crew in D.C. to clean up that mess. Eradicating such treaties, or otherwise signaling our unilateral unwillingness to live up to them AND pulling, not only any new entitlements out by the roots, but perhaps dismantling most, if not ALL of the Great Society, by transforming them the way workfare transformed welfare.

The healthcare overhaul COULD be fine-tuned and tweaked in exactly that way.

Any newly expanded “public option” made restricted (say no more than 4 visits to a physician a year) and rationed (perhaps no more than $10,000 in care, or less, per year)...while encouraging private insurers to allow those able and willing to circumvent that rationing and restrictions via various forms of “gap insurance.”

That way, businesses and Municipalities would be freed from the burdens of providing all the free healthcare they do now AND, more importantly, the rationing and restrictions of the public option would be targeted to the poor and non-productive.

We’re heading for some very dark days economically because the media has assisted in exonerating government in a government-caused economic calamity.

Since the 1970s Liberals like Senators Proxmire and Kennedy helped housing activists force banks to make more loans to low income Americans. That’s BAD BUSINESS and it’s bad for America.

Traditional lending criteria (20% down, along with a reliance on one’s credit history, debt to income ration, etc) resulted in the SAME default rate among both black and white borrowers, proving that “credit-worthy blacks were NOT turned down by banks.”

But Moderate Republicans played a big part in this as well. Jack Kemp fought for “the ownership society” and G W Bush and most of those in his administration also bought into this, baling out banks after they were legislated into making more and more high-risk loans.

Keynesianism, specifically government meddling in the mortgage market is what caused the subprime mortgage mess and triggered the global credit crisis, and STILL the U.S. government has done NOTHING to correct the problems that created that mess. Subprime loans are still legal to make, Glass-Spiegel has not be re-instituted, the CRA hasn’t been reformed, credit default swaps and both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still very much involved in the mortgage market.

Worse yet, Cap and Trade promises to create a bubble similar to the housing and the tech bubble with energy!

Keynesian economic policy amounts to economic malfeasance.

And yet Keynesianism hasn’t been blamed for the mess it created, instead, it’s been anointed the cure!

As a result, we’ve followed up a Keynesian (big government) created problem with, not only MORE, but indeed hyper-Keynesianism.

That does not bode well for our future.

Michael Moore’s Officially a Bomb Factory...

Michael Moore’s latest offering (Capitalism: A Love Story) has bombed after languishing in theaters for nearly two months.

In its painfully short run of two months, the flick has grossed just $14.2 million, leaving eight million to cover production and advertising costs.

In short, the film has finished in the Red.

Moore scored big with Fahrenheit 9/11, with its $120 million domestic gross.

Since F-9/11 his film’s box office receipts have been dropping off precipitously.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

A Very Welcome Challenge to What I Posted About Wealth and Poverty....

I recently received an email and the permission to reprint that message (anonymously).

The email comes from a former professor (the one who defended a Kos Kid in a comments section a few posts back)...what follows is his message in response to my previous post on What Poverty IS...and What it is NOT, and my response to him;

His email;


Why do you continue to constantly do this?

Demagogue to the gullible like this?

I sometimes wonder if you just like being provocative. What you’re doing here is potentially very dangerous.

To start with, I find much of your argument disingenuous, especially the portion about our “dynamic economy” – the old “expanding pie” versus the “fixed pie” model.

While it’s true that the economy is somewhat dynamic and the money supply is somewhat elastic, your argument here is very much overblown. Even you’d acknowledge that there really is only a fixed amount of “hard assets” available at any given time, right?

And since there is only a fixed amount of currency available at any given time, it's then very true that “the more person A takes in, the less available for persons B, C, D, E, F, etc.”

So, in that sense, we really ARE dealing with a “zero sum game,” aren’t we? At least in terms of the currency available at any given time that can be used for income, we are.

With that in mind, I think you’d have to agree that we do need a referee (and only government can fit this bill) to step in from time to time to make sure that there is a fair distribution of that currency, so that a few avaricious people don’t glom all the “hard assets” (especially INCOME) for themselves.

And to claim, as you seem to, that “the poor CHOOSE free time over more productive pursuits” is not merely na├»vely simplistic, but grossly insensitive and offensive, as well and borders upon demonizing the less fortunate as parasites and pariahs.


My Response:

Well, first of all, currency or the money supply DOES indeed fluctuate both significantly and quite often (many times within the same year, actually), there’s THAT to indicate my position is not really “overblown, as you state.” (Here’s a chart of the fluctuations in the U.S. money supply between 1960 and 2007:

Moreover, currency and especially INCOME is NOT the sole, or even primary parameter of wealth. The truly wealthy or “super-rich” DO NOT rely upon income for the bulk of their wealth.

Investments grow the economy and in the process, create the vast majority of the new jobs and new opportunities for others. So, NO, we are NOT dealing with a “zero sum game” at all.

When the costs/risks get too high, investors simply stop investing and producers cut back on production and everyone suffers as the economy shrinks in response.

And yes, whether you find it “offensive” or not, specific behaviors and yes, CHOICES are what create BOTH wealth and poverty....and there are indeed myriad forms of wealth, one of which is free/“leisure time,” which producers sacrifice in order to produce, and non-producers maximize at their own peril.

How is telling the truth “dangerous”?

I do believe your argument in this case is inherently flawed by your apparent view that the market process (a/k/a “Capitalism”) is hopelessly and inherently unfair...I believe that the argument I’ve offered here shows that when the full scope and purview of what is called “wealth” is taken into consideration, the market process is NOT really “unfair” at all.


Saturday, November 21, 2009

What Poverty IS...And What it IS NOT....

Poverty is not merely a lack of money or other “hard assets, that is a symptom of the malady called poverty.

What poverty is, in essence, is the lack of marketable skills and the entrepreneurial drive to develop such skills and to “sell yourself” to help others in order to enrich yourself.

Poverty is most often the result of poor planning, poor impulse control and a lack of focus, discipline and, like wealth creation, is NEVER the result of “bad luck.”

To understand poverty, one must first understand wealth and what wealth is.

Wealth is NOT currency, or real property, assets, like stocks and bonds or even the sum total of those possessions, again, those are symptoms or “the trappings” of wealth, not wealth itself.

Wealth is, in essence, IMAGINATION – the creative expression that turns ideas into solutions to other people’s problems and in the process enriches the imaginer.

So, in turn, poverty is, in essence, a lack of imagination, perhaps even more primordially, a lack of the will to help others, even when that help might well enrich yourself.

Just as specific behaviors (self-discipline, time management, attention to detail focus and thrift) produce wealth, poverty is also created or caused by specific behaviors, most notably, poor impulse control, recklessness and irresponsibility and the general inability to delay gratification and plan for a better, easier tomorrow.

That old saying, “If you’re failing to plan, you’re planning to fail,” is very much true.

Measuring Wealth and Poverty

We can all see that poverty costs those afflicted in a myriad ways, what we often overlook is that wealth creation also costs the producer.

It costs that person in terms of time. Time with family and friends, time for leisure and enjoyment and often, it’s the most valuable time of all – that time when we are most vital and able to enjoy life to the fullest.

Income and personal assets (ie. stocks, bonds, pension funds, real property, etc.) are just two measures of wealth. Others, like free time, good health, a close and loving family are often overlooked as “intangible assets,” and yet they are often as valuable, or even more so than “hard assets, like cash and real property, to those who lack them, or sacrifice them in order to produce.

For instance, a “beach bum” or alcoholic/drug addict is generally far “richer” in terms of leisure time than the man who runs a business, or a physician or investment banker, although the latter are generally far “richer” in terms of “hard assets.”

Choices and Trade-Offs

In a very real sense, all of this, all of what we are and what we become, comes down to a series of choices and trade-offs.

The producer (the physician, investment banker and the businessman) trade giving up more of their leisure time for more hard assets, while the “beach bum” and the alcoholic/drug addict partier trade giving up developing their other skills in favor of more leisure time.

It can be argued that each individual in the above case made a conscious and deliberate choice to value one form of wealth over another – the producers valuing “hard assets” more, while the non-productive, more epicurean partiers appear to value leisure time far more and in a free society individuals are free to make such choices and deal with their individual consequences on their own terms.

Therefore the focus on “redistributing the wealth” fails precisely because it fails to look at the full and complete scope of what wealth is. With its narrow focus on redistributing hard assets, it unfairly does that WITHOUT concomitantly redistributing leisure time and the other “intangible” aspects of wealth.

A fair “redistribution” requires that the producers be given back something for their sacrifices in hard assets and the recipient non-producers be required to surrender some of their intangibles (ie. leisure time) in return.

Yes, it can be argued that what the producers produce cannot be replaced by those without their high level of advanced skills.

So what?

That merely dictates that a “fair redistribution” require that the non-productive be forced/coerced into developing their skills to the fullest to produce more, thus allowing the other producers to have more free time and the other “intangibles” included in the full panoply of “wealth.”

The “Zero Sum Game” Canard

Some will argue that “intangibles” can’t be measured and thus can’t realistically be “redistributed” either, but that is untrue.

If people don’t own their own labors, their own property, then they don’t own themselves or their time either and yes, it CAN be “redistributed” by the same activist that would “redistribute” property.

Much of the justification for “redistributing” hard assets is based on the canard of the “zero sum game.” In other words, “There is only so much wealth, in terms of stocks, bonds, cash and real property available at any given time and therefore, one man “earning/producing too much” assures that ten others will do without or have to accept a minimum of such hard assets as their reward.

In fact, that is NOT TRUE.

Wealth is created by ideas, by human imagination, and as such is unlimited. When one individual produces a tremendous amount of wealth, that production increases opportunities for other like-minded and entrepreneurial individuals. In short wealth creation generates MORE wealth creation, NOT a “shortage of wealth” for others.

What happens when “redistributive” efforts are put into effect is that producers produce less, in effect, reclaiming, on their own, more of the free/leisure time they gave up to produce more in the first place.

That has two disastrous unintended consequences; (1) it reduces the overall productivity of that economy, given that there’s nothing in place to force the non-productive and less productive to produce more and (2) that lessening in wealth creation results in significantly lowered tax revenues for government, in effect, hampering government’s ability to engage in more social assistance, in the form of various anti-poverty programs, etc.

But, given the fact that we don’t exist in a “zero sum game” economy, there’s no reason to redistribute wealth in the form of hard assets, given that such wealth creation generates higher government revenues, while also creating ever MORE opportunities for ever more wealth creation!

This, in essence, is the primary fatal flaw in contemporary American Liberalism.

The problem “we the people” face is that government and the “political class” generally refuses to acknowledge this basic truth, as they are more motivated by seeking power and control over others than in actually “doing good.”

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

What Global Homicide Rates Are Telling Us...


A quick look at the countries with the top 15 murder rates in the world today tells an interesting tale.

The world’s top 15 violent places are;

Colombia 61.1 per 100,000 people
El Salvador 56.4 per 100,000
Cote d'Ivoire 45.7 per 100,000
South Africa 39.5
Lesotho 37.3
Angola 36
Burundi 35.4
Congo, the Dem Rep of the 35.2
Sierra Leone 34

Jamaica 33.7
Venezuela 32.5
Brazil 30.8
Belize 30.1
Russian Federation 29.7
Central African Rep 29.1

OK, right off the bat, you can see that 7 of the top 10 and 8 of the 15 nations with the world’s highest murder rates are located in sub-Saharan Africa, a region beset by racial and tribal/ethnic violence.

The top two (Colombia and El Salvador), like numbers 11, 12 and 13 (Venezuela, Brazil and Belize) are all suffering through waves of violent Leftist guerilla terrorism and massive drug cartel wars!

In most of the rest of the cases, certainly in almost all those outside South America, the widespread violence is due to primarily to ethnic/racial strife.

In the Russian Federation, at least according to Amnesty International, “Racist attacks and killings of foreigners and ethnic minorities are reported with shocking regularity in Russia and disturbingly, their frequency seems to be increasing.(1) Victims whose cases have come to the attention of Amnesty International include students, asylum-seekers and refugees from Africa and Asia, as well as people from the south Caucasus, from South, Southeast and Central Asia, from the Middle East and from Latin America. However, citizens of the Russian Federation are no less at risk of physical attack. Anyone who does not look typically ethnic Russian, for example, individuals from ethnic groups of the North Caucasus, in particular Chechens, as well as members of the Jewish community, Roma and children of mixed parentage are at risk. Even ethnic Russians who are seen as sympathizing with foreigners or ethnic minority groups, for example, fans of rap or reggae music, members of other youth sub-cultures, and campaigners against racism, have also been targeted as they are perceived as "unpatriotic" or "traitors". Attacks have been reported in towns and cities across the Russian Federation.”

The countries with the lowest violent homocide rates also tell an interesting story.

Of the countries with the lowest 10 murder rates;

Qatar 0.8
Austria 0.7
Egypt 0.7
Fiji 0.7
United Arab Emirates 0.7
Hong Kong 0.6
Japan 0.5
Morocco 0.5
Singapore 0.5
Luxembourg 0.4

Well, clearly 4, or 40% of them are Middle Eastern, Muslim states and three others (Singapore, Hong Kong and Fiji) all employ equally draconian punishments for crime.

I guess draconian punishments really ARE viable deterrents to violent crime after all!

In fact I could only find three Muslim nations with murder rates higher than the United States’ 5.6 per 100,000. They were Indonesia (with the highest murder rate for a Muslim country at 8.9/100,000, Iraq with 6.7/100,000 and Albania with 6.6/100,000.

Another among those nations with the lowest murder rates in existence is also one that consistently ranks among the freest economies in the world – Hong Kong!

Another thing that the lowest 10 also have in common is a set of nearly homogeneous populations, which, of course, serves to limit that pesky “ethnic/racial violence.”

In other words, it would seem that a homogeneous population is generally a less violent one, as are nations that mete out draconian punishments for violent crimes...and economic Liberty and the prosperity it delivers also seems to reduce violence, as witnessed by Hong Kong’s infinitesimal 0.6/100,000 violent crime rate and its corresponding 6.0 Misery Index!

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Sometimes You Just HAVE to Ask – WTF?!....


Are you kidding me, or WHAT?!

Early Thursday morning, three University of Tennessee football players, all of them freshmen, two of them very highly recruited players wound up arrested in Knoxville Tennessee for...ARMED ROBBERY!

Apparently they thought it would be a good idea to walk over to another car, wave a gun in the faces of those folks and look to ROB THEM!

They were caught a very short time later, ID’d by the other vehicle’s passengers, fellow students at U of T and a pellet gun was found in their possession...along with some drugs, which a female passenger conveniently claimed were hers.


These are three guys getting a completely FREE RIDE through college...guys who want for NOTHING and at least two of whom probably WOULD HAVE been nearly guaranteed to have become instant millionaires, upon leaving that College for the pros!

These guys decide an ARMED ROBBERY is a good idea!

This is exactly the sought of incident that proves what I’ve said for over 25 years, “Poverty doesn’t CAUSE violence, in fact, violence, and the traits that lead to violence are what CAUSE poverty!”

The three Nu'Keese Richardson (above), Janzen Jackson, the two highly sought after recruits, and Mike Edwards, all 18 y/o, were each charged with three counts of attempted armed robbery in connection with the incident, which occurred at a gas station in an area known as "The Strip" at the edge of Tennessee's campus.

As of Friday, Richardson was being held Thursday afternoon on a $19,500 bond. Edwards was released on a $19,500 bond and Jackson was released on his own recognizance.

According to Don Bosch, Janzen Jackson’s attorney, "Mr. Jackson vehemently asserts his innocence, and we hope that this will become apparent in the next 24 to 48 hours." It was not immediately known if the other two players had contacted attorneys.

The incongruity of this....of three extremely privileged young men acting as though they have a reason for rage, is more than outrageous and beyond pathetic.
UPDATE (11-16-2009):

According to Associated Pres reports, two of the players (Richardson and Edwards) have been permanently dismissed from the University of Tennessee. The third is barred from all team actioviti8es pending the outcome of an investigation into his role in the incident.

“KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP)—Two of three Tennessee freshmen football players charged last week in an attempted armed robbery have been dismissed from the team.

“Clearly, their actions have no place in our program,” coach Lane Kiffin said Monday.

“Kiffin said wide receiver Nu’Keese Richardson, 18, and defensive back Mike Edwards, 18, were permanently dismissed from the team, while former starting safety Janzen Jackson, 18, will continue to be barred from team activities while Kiffin awaits more information in his case.”

Rolling the Dice With Terrorism......

By sending the case against Khalid Sheik Mohammed (pictured above) to trial in a U.S. District Court, in lower Manhattan no less, Eric Holder and Barack Obama have (1) made an outright acquittal of the "terrorist mastermind," far more likely, because the American criminal justice system's "rules of evidence" were not followed in the capture, interrogation and evidence gathering process, as they were carried out by Military NOT law enforcement authorities, thus none of the suspects were ever Mirandized and no warrants were ever procured...AND (2) it gives the jihadists the grand stage they've wanted all along. It's also likely that the government will forgo using classified evidence rather than risk exposing both the evidence itself and how that evidence may have been attained.

The 1993 trial over the first World Trade Center bombing was an unmitigated disaster, so much so, in fact, that James Fox, then Director of the FBI's NYC Office said, "America's criminal justice system is inadequate to the task of dealing with state sponsored terrorism."

Director Fox was, without question, right and that was the beginning of the shift away from viewing terrorism as a "law enforcement issue," and refocusing it as a military one.

Undoing that approach at this juncture is not only unwise and naive, it's recklessly and irresponsibly dangerous as well.

'Dangerous and Irresponsible'

Rudy Guiliani lays out the legal and security reasons why trying the architects of 9/11 in Manhattan is a "reckless an irresponsible decision."

SEE the Video:

'Dangerous and Irresponsible'

Rethinking Kelo?...

Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer and Stevens...have got to rank among the Worst SC Justices EVER...OK, throw Brennan, Marshall, Burger and Warren in there too...

The June 23, 2005 Liberal abomination called the Kelo Decision DID spark a nationwide wave of reining in the use of Eminent Domain, but at such a cost.

Private property rights ARE sacrosanct in least in America’s Constitution and for better or worse, we’re all bound by that document to “go down with the private property rights ship” should it ever prove non-seaworthy.

On that dark day back in 2005 five hooded, black robed “jurists” declared it OK for the town of New London Connecticut to steal the homes of dozens of its citizens to make way for a planned office park built by Phizer Pharmaceutical.

Ironically enough, the allegedly “Corporate-hating Left” wildly supported Kelo the way they mindlessly support virtually all government action no matter how destructive. But karma has appeared to have belatedly reared its head, as a scant four years after that decision that gave Susette Kelo's (pictured above) land away to "private developers" (yeah, private developers with deep government ties) for a project that was set to include a hotel and offices intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.’s nearby corporate facility, the pharmaceutical giant has announced it will close its research and development headquarters in New London, Connecticut.

So, while Susette Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city of New London and the state of Connecticut spent almost $80 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable" elements, it has all come to naught. Instead of a brand new gleaming office park, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.

In FACT, New London has LOST the property tax revenues they already had in hand!

Perhaps the BEST commentary on this was posted by Ace at Ace of Spades HQ (; “This cannot be emphasized enough.

“The people who run your city, the politicians who are full of bright ideas for improving your life by infringing on others' rights, and the black-robed genius who is tasked with interpreting our founding documents; NONE of these people are smarter than you.

“NONE of these people are gifted with superior insight on how better to run your life or use our native resources. But they believe that they are. So without the brake of morality or explicit law, these geniuses and pols and town busybodies will extend professional courtesy to each other as they go about dismantling your life for some dubious utopian idea.”

That’s 100% CORRECT!

If any of those folks were at all savvy about anything at all, they’d have realized there was absolutely no downside to letting those "private developers" negotiate buyouts with the owners of the homes they wanted.

Yeah, they MIGHT have had to pay through the nose to get those folks to move...and they would’ve simply charged more for their office space...and Phizer would’ve had to buck up a little more...and property values and perhaps property tax revenues would’ve gone up.

Instead, the whole affair is a net loss.

Think “the political class” will learn anything form this failure?

If you do...guess again.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Perhaps NOW Would Be a GOOD Time to Revisit THIS...

With all the fast and furious appointments of the early Obama administration, many have been overlooked and thus a lot of mischief is set to be unloosed on the American people without their understanding where any of it is coming from.

Earlier this year, Barack Obama tabbed Harold Koh (the Dean of Yale’s Law School) as his top lawyer - legal adviser for the State Department.

Sounds very much like a reasonable enough choice, right?

But Harold Koh had a bounty of incredible statements in his file that would almost certainly raise the eyebrows of the vast majority of Americans.

Perhaps the most incredible of all is Professor Koh’s stated belief that Muslim Sharia Law is not at all incompatible with the U.S. Constitution!

In a 2007 speech, Harold Koh stated, “In an appropriate case, he didn’t see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.”

An administration that appoints, as it top lawyer, it’s top legal analyst, a man who sees no innate incompatibility between Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution is not one that is concerned about either the safety of Americans or protecting America’s far-flung global interests.

Celebrating Incompetence!......

MSNBC may do a very poor job of delivering much in the way of news and coherent commentary (as I believe they do), but it cannot be denied that they do a splendid job of hiring the handicapped, so long as incompetence counts as a legitimate handicap.

In a recent example the always reliably, slow-witted Chris “Hardball” Matthews made a fool of both himself and the network he represents by musing on-air, whether it’s a crime for an American citizen to contact al Qaeda.

(A brief note on this thorny issue; Turns out that it IS a crime. That’s why the FISA Laws allowed the NSA to monitor American contacts TO “suspect foreign portals,” since way back in 1979. Although, I suspect that to Mr. Matthews, contacting, say Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan during WW II would’ve been “No big deal” either...or maybe it’s just those ideologies he approves of that are “OK” - perhaps then, collaborating the Soviets during the Cold War would’ve been fine with Chris Matthews.)

On the November 9th broadcast of "Hardball," Chris Mattheww was conducting one of his typically sweet-toned, pandering interviews with Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, in which he compared Nidal Hasan to Sirhan Sirhan (killer of Robert F. Kennedy) and, in the process, actually evinced some sympathy for Sirhan’s cause, saying, “Bobby Kennedy had made political statements saying we're going to sell arms, fighter planes directly to Israel, not under the table. We're going to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Those are the things that triggered his killing spree. He killed one person - Bobby Kennedy, horrifically. But did he become a different religious person because he committed the crime? And when did this happen?”

Yes, when indeed?

More importantly, when did Chris Matthews become SUCH an embarrassment to anyone associated with him?

And if you thought his bending over backwards to “understand” Sirhan Sirhan’s motivations was acrobatic, his contortions over Nidal Hasan’s possible motivations (other than that he was a jihadist terrorist, that is) were even more breathtaking; “See - we have a problem," Matthews began. "How do we know when someone like Hasan is going to make his move and do we know he's an Islamist until he's made his move? He makes a phone call or whatever, according to Reuters right now. Apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?' That's not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?"

That's a GREAT question, isn't it?! When you think about it, how could it be "a crime" to simply "dial up al Qaeda?" I mean what have THEY done to US?....OK, bad question, but IS IT an "actual crime?"

Wow! That's some deep philsophical stuff oozing out of Chris "hardballs" Matthews, isn't it?

Maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe he didn't mean "al Qaeda," as in the jihadist Islamic group we're AT WAR WITH, perhaps he really mean Al Kaida, that full-time plumber and part-time U.S. wiffle-ball champ from Sandusky, Illinois...I mean it really is "no crime" to call him!

OK, I’m not getting this at all.

MSNBC puts up a weekday evening commentary line-up that goes, Schultz, Matthews, Olberman, Maddow...and the result is not only “NO ratings,” BUT major, even massive humiliation for MSNBC and anyone even remotely associated with the ponderously idiotic ramblings of the likes of Matthews and Olberman – the current reining champs of gross stupidity.

I mean, seriously, guys, are you TRYING to lose?!

If you are, you’re doing a helluva job!

Continuing the Mythos....and the Pathology.....

The pathology misnamed “Political Correctness” wasn’t only evident in the reluctance of some authorities and even co-workers to confront a radical Muslim extremist (Malik Nidal Hasan), but in the way his being brought down was subsequently reported. And THAT has some very serious repercussions for all of us, going forward.

In the immediate aftermath of Major Hasan’s jihadist killing spree at Fort Hood, two civilian police officers immediately responded to the shooting, Sergeant Mark Todd (pictured above) and Kimberley Munley.

The very SAME pathology (that goes under the umbrella term “political correctness”) responsible for stifling the authorities dealing with Major Hasan ("If we'd acted on those emails (emails to a radical Imam) we'd have been crucified") was reflexively employed in the reporting of how Nidal Hasan was brought down, without, apparently even a second’s thought.

Lawrence Auster (A View From the Right has been all over this.

The second officer’s account, according to the NY Times goes, Sergeant Todd said he was slightly in front of Sergeant Munley on the hill. "Once we took fire, she broke right and I broke left," he said.

Sergeant Todd said he did not see Sergeant Munley get shot. He said he started to circle around the building, but then backtracked as panicked bystanders told him of the gunman's movements.

"As it unfolded, I went a different direction and he went a different direction, and we met up in the front of the building," he said.

Sergeant Todd said he then saw Sergeant Munley on the ground, wounded. He shouted again at the gunman to drop his weapon.

"Once I came around the front of the building, I caught his attention again, started shouting commands, and then he opened up a second time," Sergeant Todd said. "And that's when I returned fire, neutralized him and secured him."

Lawrence Auster’s analysis is unquestionably correct; “In any case, this is the first time that Sergeant Todd has spoken about what happened, and he settles the question of who stopped Hasan and the massacre, which in yesterday's account was still somewhat in doubt. Munley did not fire the shots that stopped Hasan. In fact, the Times now says that instead of firing at least six shots at Hasan, both before and after he wounded her, she fired at most one shot and perhaps none at all.

“It thus becomes clear that even in the midst of a mass murder brought about by the Army's politically correct cover-up of a Muslim jihadist, the Army, with Kimberly Munley's passive or active cooperation, was inventing out of thin air a politically correct feminist hero story. Once people commit themselves to diversity, every word out of their mouth becomes a lie.

“By the same token, as I indicated in yesterday's entry, it is to be doubted that the Times would have been so forthcoming about Todd's central role in the gun battle if he had been white.” Mark Todd is indeed black. And Lawrence Auster is almost certainly right about that.

“Even if the Times had let the truth out, it would not have been stated so clearly and emphatically as it is in this article.”

So, if you really want to know why we’re still DOOMED...this is it.

The same people charged with protecting Fort Hood, in fact, most of those charged with protecting this country remain infected with a deep-seated pathology, all too often euphemistically referred to as “political correctness.” They are so infected with this pathology that even in light of its massive failure (the jihadist attack on Fort Hood) they cannot help themselves but reflexively embrace a “diversity mythos” that says, in effect, “a 5’2” female police officer was able to neutralize the terrorist,” ("a petite, female is just as effective a law enforcer or 1st Responder as an imposing and physically fit male - such "qualifications" are over-rated") when nothing at all like that appears to have been the case.

It should be impossible that the denizens of this pathology still control the media and hold sway in most governmental institutions, and yet, they do.

It would be as though the same people who meddled in the mortgage markets, scheming to get banks to make loans to “subprime borrowers” (a/k/a “people who couldn’t pay them back”) by, among other things, getting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy/guarantee those loans and in the process sparking the global credit crisis and tanking the global economy would still be running our economy, or worse yet, charged to “fix it.”


Right, funny story about all that...."they" (that's Greenspan's protege's, Summers, Geithner and Rubin) are the ones currently charged with "fixing the economy," as well!

Enjoy the ride!

American Ideas Click Here!