Why I Cannot Stand Ron Paul

I have lost track of the number of times I’ve been at loggerheads with Ron Paul’s rabid supporters. It usually begins with their excited question: “so, do you support Ron Paul? Waddya think of Ron Paul? Will you vote for Ron Paul?” It can be a lot like talking to Hammy the Squirrel (who, by the way, I adore – I’m just using him for reference).

The cuteness of their exuberance always turns into a scene straight out of the Exorcist as soon as I tell them that I cannot stand Ron Paul because he has, in the past, espoused 9/11 “truth movement” ideas.

The Ron Paul supporters who are twoofers (the name that many have begun to use to describe “truthers”) get huffy and demand that you immediately give them evidence that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job. Of course, even if you give them any, it’s never enough. Popular Mechanics thoroughly debunked their ridiculous claims one by one in a book that was not funded in any way by the government, but it wasn’t enough. The Ron Paul supporters who aren’t get pissed and scream that he was never a twoofer and they will demand that you prove that he was.

See the video and all the goodies that Michelle Malkin has compiled here. He may not have come out as a twoofer or gone to any protests, but he doesn’t have to. The mere fact that he’s never come out against their outrageous ideas, comments and behavior is enough. This weekend, though, he all but put himself squarely in their camp.

He’s saying that US foreign policy contributed to 9/11.

That statement alone is enough for me to want that man out of Congress and as far away from the White House as we can get him. He worsens the situation by saying, “And you talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm, they say, yes, we don’t like American bombs to be falling on our country. We don’t like the intervention that we do in their nations,” and saying it is “dangerous” to promote the notion that terrorists attacked the US “because we’re free and prosperous.” In all of this he demonstrates a complete lack of any understanding about the dynamics in the Middle East and why al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Any lawmaker who is this inept needs to step away.

Before 9/11, how many Mideast countries did we try to conquer? How many did we bomb, and why? Reagan bombed Qaddafhi only after several Libyan-supported terrorist acts against Americans, including a plot to assassinate US diplomats in Paris and Rome, a string of kidnappings of US military and diplomatic targets (including CIA chief William Buckley), the hijacking of the Achille Lauro (with the murder of a disabled US tourist), the bombing of airports in Rome and Vienna, the bombing of a German discotheque frequented by US servicemen, and the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. Libya was also believed to have sponsored multiple deadly attacks carried out by Hezbollah out of Lebanon, including the infamous US embassy bombings in Beirut and Kuwait and the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. After that many innocent American lives had been lost, yes, we would have wanted to send a message that we weren’t going to sit on our laurels. When a bully refuses to back down you don’t sit there and give him a target to punch – you stand up and fight back until he begs you to stop and swears never to bother you again.

I hate to tell you this, Ron Paul-ians, but the bombings of Tripoli and Benghazi were not enough to come close to justifying any reason behind 9/11. Lemme back up a little bit and I’ll explain.

Osama bin Laden founded, financed and trained al Qaeda himself. The man was the uber-wealthy son of the Saudi bin Ladens – his wealth came from oil production. Now, if you follow HIS logic, then yes, the reason for the formation of al Qaeda was the belief that US foreign policy had harmed “innocent” Muslims in the Middle East. Then again, the man believed not only that the Jews were at the heart of every evil in the world, he also believed that all music and chilled water were evils straight from the pits of hell. Yeah…he wasn’t exactly running on all six cylinders.

Add to that the fact that he believed the best way to bring major nations down was to lure them into wars over territory in the Middle East and let them ruin each other and BAM! You have a bona fide hypocritical lunatic.

Exactly which US foreign policy was harmful to Muslims? I’ll tell you: democracy. He believed it to be just as evil as he believed the Jews were. It wasn’t Sharia, therefore it was sinful and harmful to “innocent” Muslims. See where this is going? The harm he saw us committing was one that included an end to beheading gay people, stoning heretics, and chopping the hands off of thieves. America is an example of how liberty can make life wonderful. That was the harm, and Ron Paul and ALL of his supporters have missed the point completely. They took one quote from a former CIA analyst and looked no further than that. Since bin Laden was killing Americans long before 9/11 as part of his jihad, nobody can claim that they’re all pissed over Iraq and Afghanistan. This has been going on much longer than that.

That Ron Paul does not understand the variables that go into this is frightening. We cannot allow him to take the candidacy. I see him as being just as dangerous as Barack Obama – the only difference is that Obama’s stupidity is deliberate. Paul’s is happy ignorance.

Breaking Down The “Arab Spring”

Liberals in the US have supported uprisings in Mideast nations – most famously Egypt and Libya – even to the point that The Big O sent military support. Our pilots flew bombing runs in Libya to help the rebels there by crippling Moammar Qaddafhi’s military. Last week Qaddafhi was killed, but it was claimed that he died in the crossfire when his motorcade when, in reality, he was brutalized before being killed by a mob – and his body paraded through the streets, the footage aired by Al Jazeera.

Not one of these liberals has stopped to think that what’s taking over might well be worse – and we’re finding that it’s highly likely that Muslim jihadists are going to step in and take power. Now there won’t be much standing in the way of a major war with Israel.

Sharia-quoting jihadists don’t care about diplomacy. We’re talking about the very same pack of animals that carried out 9/11 – they don’t want to talk about it. It’s a concept that I just haven’t been able to hammer home for my liberal friends. They don’t want to negotiate. They want us dead. We are the great satan, America, a nation full of all manner of debauchery, and – worst of all – a friend to Israel. There isn’t going to be a discussion. We have two choices in their minds: convert or die.

I have to ask, how on Earth do you negotiate with a group that doesn’t want to talk? If they wanted to talk, they’d have tried by now. They believe that they are commanded by Allah to kill all infidels. Since none of us are interested in converting, they are ready to kill us by any means necessary. The only thing they hate more than America is Israel.

The only thing standing between war and peace in that region were the governments that have just been forcibly removed. Egypt is now going through a massive civil war that has pitted jihadists against Christians, and the Christians are losing. Think the Saudi royal family can stop the Wahhabis from taking over? Think again. Syria and Lebanon have just been trying to stay off the radar; they’re just as dangerous, believe me. With jihadists in control of the region, war is inevitable. It will be brutal. And we will be called upon to help the Israelis, mark my words.

I knew when this began that it would go South in a hurry, and it is. I’m sorry Reagan didn’t take out Qaddafhi when he had the chance. If he had, things now might have been very different. I’m sorry that more attention wasn’t paid to Afghanistan after we helped fund and train their mujahideen to fight off the Soviets. I’m also sorry that we don’t have a president with enough testicular fortitude to send bombing runs against Iran and their nuclear facilities (peaceful purposes, my ass).

I can only hope that the coming conflict can be held off until we put someone with a spine in the Oval Office. If Obama is in control (and I fear he may be) when it does break out, he won’t know what to do. The so-called “Arab Spring” is anything but.

Libertarian Pacifism: A Pacifism by Any Other Name Wouldn’t Smell as Sweet

Note:  This post is not aimed at all Libertarians.  There are some Libertarians who are not pacifist.  I am only discussing those who advocate pacifism while hiding behind the Constitution.  I am in agreement with many who state that wars should be declared and stated with a clear purpose by our government; to do anything less and drag a war out longer than necessary is, in and of itself, immoral.  This post isn’t meant to be a discussion on war-gaming.  It is, instead, a philosophical post.

Ayn Rand correctly identified the source of all conflicts in the world when she said:

Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate. (The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars.)

As long as there are societies on earth who endorse collectivism or dictatorships in any form, whether secular or theocratic, then there will always be wars.  Collectivism is any system of governance defined as that which demands the sacrifice of the individual to the collective with altruism (or in some cases simply the psychosis of its dictator) as its justification. 

My inspiration for this post came after reading an article entitled Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.  Mr. DiLorenzo utilizes the term “Neo-con” quite a bit.  I want to state upfront that the proliferation of all these new terms, Neo-Con, Neo-Liberal, Neo-Keynesian, Neo-Communist, Neo-Fascist, are simply attempts at continued muddying of the real argument which is between collectivism vs. individualism.  That is the only descriptive consideration that matters when discussing man’s inalienable right to be free; the rest is simply meant to confuse people’s minds and complicate the issues.

Let’s be frank–there is no discernible difference between Libertarian pacifism and Left-Wing pacifism.  Pacifism is pacifism and the justifications for it no matter from which group it arises are equally misguided.  Ayn Rand had this to say about pacifism:

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

Leftists justify their pacifism usually by intoning their committment to peace.  Peace cannot be achieved by the absence of all conflict.  It can only be achieved by the destruction of all collectivism.  Human existence is defined by conflict; the hiring of one person over another who is better qualified, the victory of this hockey team over that hockey team, the victim of a robbery or rape who pulls his gun against his victimizer in order to defend the value which is his or her’s continued existence.  Those who wish to pretend that in order to live one’s life by trying to ignore conflict simply because they don’t like it–will never learn how to achieve the greatest value of all which is their life and by default their happiness. 

Pacifist Libertarians tend to justify their pacifism on the grounds that all cultures are equally valuable and have the right to exist on their own terms without interference from other cultures.  However, the notion of multiculturalism is equally flawed in its premises.  The idea that all cultures are equal in their value necessarily demands that you therefore believe all collectivist cultures have value.  You cannot claim, as many Libertarians do, to stand for individual freedom while at the same time trying to justify the existence of collectivist cultures; that is called “wanting to have your cake and eat it too.”  That is a demand reality imposes on any individual who wants to stand for individual freedom.

From the article Diversity and Multiculturalism:  The New Racism at The Ayn Rand Institute:

Advocates of “diversity” are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses, colored by race and gender. To the multiculturalist, race is what counts—for values, for thinking, for human identity in general. No wonder racism is increasing: color blindness is now considered evil, if not impossible. No wonder people don’t treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist, they aren’t.

Advocates of “diversity” claim it will teach students to tolerate and celebrate their differences. But the “differences” they have in mind are racial differences, which means we’re being urged to glorify race, which means we’re being asked to institutionalize separatism. “Racial identity” erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common. If that were true—if “racial identity” determined one’s values and thinking methods—there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races.

Some ask, “What about America’s melting-pot?  Isn’t that multiculturalism?”  No.  It’s not.  America was devised by its Founders to elevate the individual over the government.  All other nations throughout history elevated the government over the individual.  Freedom of the individual over the government provides a country where all men, of all cultures, backgrounds, and religions come to be free “as individuals” within the American culture of individual freedom.  Can they uphold their roots and honor and celebrate them?  Absolutely.  But, America is not defined by those various cultural roots–she is defined by the individual which is, in and of itself, a “culture.”

I will agree with Mr. DiLorenzo’s statements, as well as Ms. Rand’s statements, that many times war is used to justify the theft of liberty by a nation against its own people.  He says:

Of course, all of this high-handed talk about the Republican Party supposedly being “the party of great moral ideas” is also a convenient smokescreen for the economic greed that is its real motivation, and has been ever since the party first gained power. As Rothbard further explained: “On the economic level, the Republicans [in 1860] adopted the Whig program of statism and big government: protective tariffs, subsidies to big business, strong central government, large-scale public works, and cheap credit spurred by government.” It hasn’t changed much since.

I am in complete agreement with this assessment; both parties are guilty of crony capitalism which is the politically correct term for Fascism.  The only difference is–the Democrats are more open about it while the Republicans like to pretend they are not engaged in it.  Presidents Wilson, FDR and George W. Bush, to name a few, were all guilty of growing government under their administrations during a time of war.  I have no argument with that assertion.  What I do challenge is the notion that a  nation’s citizens cannot demand limited government at home, which necessarily entails separation of the state and economics for the same reasons and same purpose we have separation of church and state, while at the same time protecting itself from threats over-seas.  Many Libertarians say that’s what they want too but then reveal themselves by saying the phrase “protecting itself from threats over-seas” means “bring the troops home from everywhere and cease and desist active conflict”.  Yes.  That’s called “pacifism”.  If you are not actively fighting but instead you are sitting on your weapons–that is pacifism.  If your enemy has already declared war (which the Islamists have) and you are not acknowledging the need to fight back actively–that is pacifism.  If you are not fighting–you are being “passive.”     

What complicates America’s situation is–we are not living in a fully free society under true laissez-fair capitalism.  That is the reason we keep growing government every time we find it necessary to wage a battle against collectivist threats from elsewhere.  I submit, it most certainly is possible to have and maintain limited government and fight necessary wars against collectivists who threaten their free-state neighbors.  The pacifist Libertarians promote the false premise that war must necessarily equal big-government.  These are mutually exclusive concepts; they are not dependent on each other for their existence–necessarily.  A free-nation can remain an economically free nation under laissez-faire capitalism and fight a war to defend itself; the keyword is defend —in other words–not subjugate–which is what tyrannical nations feel it necessary to do against their neighbors when losing their grip on power.  The promotion of the idea that a free nation engaged in a war to defend itself will necessarily result in the growth of its government–is simply a false premise.  Whether that free nation’s leaders grow government or not is another matter entirely and those issues can be dealt with apart from the issue of war itself.

Another aspect that is problematic for America is that we have spread ourselves too thin.  I am in complete agreement with most Libertarians who assert we have too many troops stationed in too many areas of the world where we should no longer be; the Middle East is not one of them, however.  There is no discernible difference between Adolph Hitler, a secular collectivist, and the collectivist theocratic tyrants of the Middle East.  Hitler was driven by national socialism and his irrational hatred for the Jews.  The collectivist theocrats of the Middle East are driven, not only for their hatred of Israel (take note also a free-society–though with a similarly mixed economy like the U.S.), but also by the notion they are doing the will of their God by fighting the infidels for the purpose of creating the conditions of the return of the Twelfth Imam.  Libertarians often state that the Islamists hate us because we are “occupying their land”–but, they rarely, if ever, address the theocratic reasons the Islamists give us in their own words as to why they are fighting us.  Usually the Libertarian will just say, “Those are just words” or “That’s just an excuse”.  Ironically, those are the same excuses the Left-Wing pacifists give in regards to their reasons for upholding pacifist ideas.

All collectivist societies need war to uphold their control on their populations.  That is why it is so imperative that America beat back the march towards statism in our own country and restore true laissez-fair capitalism as opposed to the mixed disaster we currently employ.  If America’s leaders are indeed using war as an excuse to uphold crony capitalism then that is an issue we as citizens need to confront them with; it doesn’t necessarily translate into “therefore, we can’t fight necessary wars anymore.”  From Ayn Rand:

Observe that the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones. For instance, World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia, who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by the alliance of Nazi Germany with Soviet Russia and their joint attack on Poland.

By no means am I implying that it is the duty of America to transform all of the collectivist societies of the world into bastions of free-market capitalism–no matter how appealing that notion may be.  In fact, that is the only way there ever will be peace in the world–the supremacy of free capitalist societies upholding freedom of the individual.  What I am saying, however, is that it is the duty of the American government, indeed it is the one primary duty of any government of a free-society, to protect its citizens from collectivist tyrants who now need to turn their attention to warring with the free-societies around them in order to maintain their power and hold over their own citizens.  By no means am I even suggesting that the citizens of our country who do have problems with armed conflict from a moral or religious perspective should not be allowed to reserve their tax dollars from being used for that purpose just as those who don’t approve of abortion shouldn’t be forced to have their tax dollars used for that purpose.  However, we do not have that ideal system at the moment and that is a discussion for another time.

Pacifism is driven by guilt over the necessity of justifiable war.  It is an unearned guilt.  Many people are driven in their objection to war by the deaths of “innocent” people.  The truth of the matter is, any “innocent” deaths created in the Middle East by America and it’s allies–i.e. other free-societies–are not on the heads of America and its allies.  The deaths of those people are on the heads of the tyrannical collectivists who enslaved their people to begin with.  A free-nation, just as a free-individual, has the right to protect itself from the force of others who would impose their tyrannical will.  The death of innocent people in a war is no different than that of a woman stepping between you and the mugger you were aiming your gun at and who happened to get shot in the cross-fire.  The mugger’s death is called justice.  The woman’s death is called an “accident” and the guilt of that accidental death is not on the head of the one defending himself but instead lies with the mugger. Whether tyrannical force stems from a tyrannical dictator against it’s more free neighbors or from a mugger in Central Park against a jogger–is irrelevant.  The morality and ethics of the two situations are the same; and it always, without exception, boils down to the individual over the collective, and since capitalism is the only economic system which upholds the freedom of the individual it is only capitalism that can save the world from the constant threat of war.  From Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand:

     Observe the nature of today’s alleged peace movements.  Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind, they keep screaming that the nuclear-weapons race should be stopped, that armed force should be abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations, and that war should be outlawed in the name of humanity.  Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships; the political views of their members range through all shades of the statist spectrum, from welfare statism to socialism to fascism to communism.  This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against armed adversaries, but not against the disarmed.

It is those who, like our friends Cindy Sheehan and Sean Penn, uphold collectivist economics, socialism, communism, or fascism while at the same time preaching peace.  They hold the incorrect premise that we have wars because various populations are poor or subjugated by the more free societies.  Free societies under laissez-fair capitalism have no “need” for war since their citizens and government have plenty of creative fuel on which to draw derived from the very freedom of its citizens.  It is Cindy and Sean who are the hypocrites.  It is they who want to “have their cake and eat it too.”  Reality, from a philosophical perspective, cannot and will not ever allow opposing ideas to occupy the same philosophical space.  They want peace–but, they promote tyranny; and it will always be the reality of that dichotomy that will not let them, in the end, have their way.  It is they who are promoting tyranny.  It is they who stand with the likes of Hugo Chavez.  It is they who, by virtue of what they advocate, are actually continuing that which they say they hate the most–war.

Oh Really????

Despite the fact that Saturday Night Live tends to focus an overwhelming majority of their political potshots on Republicans, I still enjoy the show from time-to-time.  For those of you unfamiliar with SNL – The “Weekend Update” segment of the show occasionally features a series called “Oh Really?’ where the “anchors” choose a person(s) who has done something boneheaded without any thought of the ramifications of their actions.  The mocking of the bonehead in question is merciless and hilarious.

I couldn’t get this out of my head as I read this article posted on wcbstv.com

In a swift about face from her views as New York’s senator, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now hammering Israel over its treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.

As First Lady, Clinton raised eyebrows when she kissed Suha Arafat.

Since she was then seeking a Senate seat the resulting brouhaha caused her to “re-think” her positions.

“I’m a very strong supporter of Israel,” Clinton said back in February 2000.

On Thursday, as Secretary of State she had yet another about face in the form of angry messages demanding Israel speed up aid to Gaza. Jewish leaders are furious.

And then comes this reaction to Hillary’s about-face –

“I am very surprised, frankly, at this statement from the United States government and from the secretary of state,” said Mortimer Zuckerman, publisher of the New York Daily News and member of the NYC Jewish Community Relations Council.

“I liked her a lot more as a senator from New York,” Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, said. “Now, I wonder as I used to wonder who the real Hillary Clinton is.”

OH REALLY?????

So you elect Democrats who are merely paying lip-service to American Jews with their “support” of Israel and then expect that these createns will hold true to their word?  You elect a guy who diminishes the Iranian threat and supports measures to stifle the war on terror, then expect he will stare down Hamas and support the state of Israel?

OH REALLY?????

I have frequently mentioned Mark Davis here before.  He is our local conservative talkshow host on WBAP 820 AM and is a sometimes-guest fill-in for Rush Limbaugh.  Mark has often wondered how American Jews have become such a reliable constituency for the Democrats.  He believes, as do I, that those Jewish voters have a “cavalier” attitude towards Israel.  In other words – these Jewish voters have decided that their domestic political interests outweigh any allegiance they may have towards the state of Israel and their heritage.  Davis believes that this is their right and their prerogative.  I agree with that.

But, when I hear of American Jews suddenly disenchanted with the anti-Israeli actions and rhetoric coming from the Democrats – I am dumbfounded to the point of hysterical laughter.  What planet must you be on to believe that the Democrats will ultimately stand behind Israel?  Their neophyte President aligned himself with anti-Semites and doesn’t have any record on anything of national significance – much less foreign policy.  Yet a big majority of Jewish voters took a gamble.  And now they will lose out –

Clinton’s decision to hammer Israel comes as the Clintons and President Barack Obama are planning to give the Palestinians $900 million toward the rebuilding of Gaza in the wake of the Israeli offensive that was sparked by Hamas rocket fire.

The majority of American Jews voted for him.  Now they’re stuck with him.  And let me add yet another apology to Steve regarding this election.  Steve was beside himself that Hillary would be the next Secretary of State.  I responded with hope that she would temper Obama’s foreign policy.  I was wrong.  Hillary Clinton is as morally bankrupt as the rest of her party.  She will toe the Obama line evidently. Democrats have historically shown a propensity to change positions as often as most people change their underwear.  And Hillary’s husband was the poster child for such maddening fickleness.

So yeah – “really.”  I doubt this will change any hearts amongst the Jewish Dems.  And I’m sure that the Democrats and Obama will temper rhetoric sufficiently to curb some of the criticism.  After all – they need the money and votes that come with the Jewish community in America.  Thank God Netanyahu’s rise to power coincided with this election.  The Israeli people will need his strength and courage to offset the damage that will be done by Obama’s policy towards Israel.  I truly believe providence is at work.

Fifteen Minutes of Peace

News has now come across the wires that Barack Obama has given his first interview as the President. Instead of giving it to a US station, however, he gave it to Al-Arabiya. His message? It was to the Sharia-loving Muslim nations:

AMERICA IS NOT YOUR ENEMY.

Really? When did this happen?

I have no doubt that there are people in Sharia nations that actually don’t hate us. Unfortunately, I do doubt that there’s enough of those people to make a real difference. It only takes one to strap a bomb to his body and walk into a crowded mall. It takes one to build, place and remote-detonate a charge in an underground parking garage. It only took a handful to hijack four commercial jetliners and crash them into three of the most famous buildings in America, killing thousands.

That minority in those Sharia nations that doesn’t hate us? They haven’t been able to stop the extremists. Why? Because their governments support the terrorists and their missions in any way they can. They provide money, shelter, and equipment to get the job done. If their country doesn’t, then Osama will. And there’s always another non-Sharia country out there willing to give these predatory ingrates the benefit of the doubt.

In reading some of the comments on local news sites, I’m reading things written by people who are either completely daft or deliberately ignorant. They say it’s all Bush’s fault, that US-Muslim relations suffered because of the policies that led to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hate to tell you this, folks, but it started WAY before that. Ever hear of the Barbary Wars? When America was still a young nation, just after the Revolutionary War, Muslim pirates were raiding settlements up and down the New England coast. Our government appeased them: they paid the ransom demanded by the Sharia governments for a time. Then along came Thomas Jefferson, and he changed everything. He asked the emissary of Tripoli why their people were committing these crimes, and the emissary told him, “it is the right of all good Musselmen (Muslim men) to take what they wish from infidels and force the infidel into submission.” Jefferson bought a copy of the Qur’an and read it, then took the fight to them. We won twice.

More recently, in the mid-1970’s Muslims started becoming openly hostile to Americans again. Iranians raided the US Embassy in Tehran and took the Americans inside hostage, holding them for 444 days. What did Jimmy Carter do? He negotiated. He placated them. After that the Muslims thought we were pushovers. They bombed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. They drove a truck laden with explosives into the Marine barracks in Beirut. Reagan bombed their turbans off, and we saw a lull in the action.

Then came Bill Clinton. Saddam stopped allowing weapons inspectors into Iraq, and the bombings resumed. The Khobar Towers, the World Trade Center, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole…nothing was done about these attacks. Clinton ordered a single building to be bombed in the Mideast, and the Muslims claimed afterward that it was a pharmaceutical factory (and presented evidence to prove it). Clinton had Osama in the crosshairs and his inept Secretary of Defense gave the order NOT to shoot. The Sudanese government offered Clinton help in capturing Osama and giving intel on militant Muslim organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, but Clinton refused the offers.

Along comes Bush, and eight months into his first term they hit the World Trade Center again. This time, the smiling Osama bin Laden gets his wish–the towers fall, the Pentagon is hit, and we’re shaking our heads wondering how it happened. To this day we have people claiming Bush didn’t do enough to stop it. These are the same people who decry the US PATRIOT Act as unconstitutional and wail for us to close Guantanamo Bay.

The lesson I’d have thought we’d have learned by now is that the more you placate an extremist, the more time and resources he has to figure out how to kill as many of us as he can. They don’t dislike Americans because of Iraq or Afghanistan; hell, we helped ’em win their war for independence from the Soviets. They don’t dislike us because of Guantanamo bay. They dislike Americans because we’re infidels, we are an open ally of Israel, and we do not obey Sharia law. According to their religion, they’re supposed to kill us for those reasons. We have two options here: submit or die. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like either of those.

Obama was quoted saying thus: “…the U.S. has made mistakes in the past, but the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.”

I’d like to know which alternate reality he was living in 20 or 30 years ago. I have no interest in restoring that hell. We’re not the ones carrying out suicide bombings, so I don’t see how the mistakes were ours. If you appease them now, you may win your fifteen minutes of peace, but they’ll only come back with the same murderous bloodlust, ready to kill you as soon as look at you.

I know. I’m just being Islamophobic.

Two Guantanamo Inmates Show up on Al-Queda Video

abu-al-hareth-muhammad-al-oufi

abu-sufyan

I wonder if President Obama has been briefed on this yet.  This story has been mentioned on Drudge and isn’t actually gracing the headlines today in a way that it should particularly since Obama has just signed an executive order closing down the prison that used to house these two. 

Well, after it’s closed down, we now know what we can expect.

Who’s Stopping Him From Getting the Hell Out of Here, Anyway?

Obviously, this Kevin Sites “journalist” had nothing negative to write on the war in Iraq this week since even liberals now have to admit the success of the troop surge and the massive decline in violence.  It kills ’em, doesn’t it?  This week, he chooses to showcase an Arab with a chip on his shoulder about the FBI investigating him after having good reason to do so.

The Arab in question is 35-year old Hasan Elahi who was investigated by the FBI after the agency was given tip about a storage shed he had rented which was believed to have been filled with explosives and emptied right after 9/11. 

After being investigated, Elahi was cleared of suspicion by the FBI.  Now; of course, he has a chip on his shoulder about it and has decided to videotape every single moment of his life and share it with us all on the web.  So; in other words, he’s violating his own “right to privacy” now.

In being interviewed by Kevin Sites, Elahi said:

We’re in this mentality where anyone who looks a little bit different is automatically a suspect.

NO!  The FBI was given a tip about a storage shed he had rented and merely followed through on it! 

You know when Ann Coulter talked about the Jersey Girls and the old Democratic trick of using “victims” as spokespeople?  Someone now who was appalled to be a suspect now feels compelled to share every moment of his life with us on a website?  Do the words “attention whore” come to anyone else’s mind?

I’m not sure if he’s checked the statistics but 100% of attacks overseas and on our own soil were committed by Arabs.  100% of the men who committed 9/11 were Arab men.  If 100% of the people killed overseas and in the World Trade Center on September 11th were all Arabs, perhaps I wouldn’t feel the same way.  But all people are falling victim to this lunacy.  All people are suffering because of a certain colored skin that manages to remain at 100% when it comes to calculating those involved in attacks with bombs strapped to their chest and simultaneously shouting “Allah Akbar!”  If it were up to me, more of them would be investigated while standing in line at airports but they are not.

While I completely agree with the notion that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, the fact becomes less vivid every single day when someone like this chooses to showcase his “peace” by attacking the United States government because it’s doing everything in its power to protect 300 million lives! 

Moreover; his claim of being looked at because of the way he looks is preposterous in his specific case!  The FBI were given a tip!  What did he expect them to do with it?

If overfed Polish boys were guilty of the same thing and someone had reason to believe I was a threat, I would expect nothing but the same thing that happened to Elahi. 

Taking into account the fact that 100% of Democrats’ hope that the U.S. would sustain an embarrassing loss in Iraq have diminished, I see now that certain liberal journalists have shifted the attention somewhere else.

Kevin “Drama-Queen” Sites; the magnificient journalist that he is, begins the article (which includes a video) by asking:

What would you do if you were suspected of a crime that could send you to a jail cell in Guantanamo Bay for untold years?

Well, I’d like to end this post by asking three things:

  1. Why in the hell was he allowed to stay in the United States when it was even suspected that he had explosives removed from a storage shed after 9/11!?
  2. If he doesn’t understand that there are 299,999,999 other people residing in this country that need protection from people that look like him, why doesn’t he use his P/R to attack the crazy lunatics that have brought this kind of embarrassment onto him?  No, somehow the U.S. Government is who he has the problem with.  If you ask me, the U.S. Government might need to take one more look!
  3. If he truly doesn’t understand why we have to be protected, why the hell doesn’t he just leave?

The sad fact is he was suspected to have had explosives stored in a rented shed AFTER 9/11 and he was still allowed to stay in the country during the investigation.  The moral of the story here isn’t that his life was terribly interrupted, rather that the Patriot Act isn’t harsh enough.

Freeing A Thug

Yemen has released the mastermind behind the USS Cole attack in 2000.

Al-Badawi — who had escaped prison last year — was freed after turning himself in two weeks ago, renouncing terrorism and pledging allegiance to Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, according to news reports.

Yeah.  That makes me feel better.  The guy has escaped twice from an obviously-incompetent Yemeni penal system.  And now everything is ok because he pledged his allegiance to Yemen’s president.  I’m sure the thug is rehabilitated now.

If you haven’t guessed by now, US officials aren’t exactly pleased about this.  Add to this, the voice of the former commander of the USS Cole.

“In the war on terrorism, actions speak stronger than words, and this act by the Yemeni government is a clear demonstration that they are neither a reliable nor trustworthy partner in the war on terrorism,” said Cmdr. Kirk Lippold.

For all of the outrage, this one will go away quietly.  Yemen has probably done just enough to be considered an “ally” in the war on terror.  I’m keen to agree with Rudy Giuliani who proposes that we withhold $20 million in aid to Yemen over this travesty.  Yemen isn’t a big enough player, but this is a true slap in the face.  I’m tired of the two-faced “allies” in the Middle East.

France Coming Around

So who are these people?  Every conservative loves poking fun at the cowardly, dismal French, but new French President, Nicolas Sarkozy seems to have turned around French foreign policy.  France no longer seems dedicated to a foreign policy built around antagonizing the US – they are actually starting to appear constructive.  Two items stuck out today.

First, Mssr. Sarkozy gave a major foreign policy speech in which he labeled a nuclear Iran as unacceptable.  He even held out the possibility that Western nations must be prepared to act militarily against Iran if the mullahs don’t abandon their pursuit of nukes. 

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Monday a diplomatic push by the world’s powers to rein in Tehran’s nuclear program was the only alternative to “an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.”

But Sarkozy didn’t stop there.  He went further by slamming Russia’s resurgent imperialism.

Sarkozy criticized Russia for its dealings on the international stage. “Russia is imposing its return on the world scene by using its assets, notably oil and gas, with a certain brutality,” he said.

“When one is a great power, one should not be brutal.”

Energy disputes between Russia and neighbors such as Belarus and Ukraine have raised doubts in Europe about Moscow’s reliability as a gas exporter. It supplies Europe, via its neighbors, with around a quarter of its gas demands.

That’s certainly a far cry from the cynical, fruitless pronouncements that we were accustomed to hearing from his predecessor, Jacques Chirac.  And while Sarkozy reserved the right to disagree with America on the international stage, he has certainly had warm words for us folks across the Atlantic.  He chose the US as his first major vacation destination of his presidency – even taking time for lunch with President Bush in Maine during his stay.

Second, consider the visit to Iraq by Sarkozy’s foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner.  While his recent statements included a few backhanded slaps at what France regards as US mistakes, even Kouchner made remarks that were also a far cry from the days of Chirac.

France can help by working with the United Nations and the European Union in the cause of peace. France supports the international initiatives taken in recent months to set in motion a political and international process to address the crisis. The United Nations took a step in the right direction on Aug. 10 when it approved Resolution 1770 calling for the organization to take a broader role in Iraq. We must now work to make that move effective.

Whereas Chirac was willing to turn his back on the Iraqis out of disdain for President Bush, the new French administration has decided to take an active role in the nation despite its disagreement with the US over their invasion of Iraq.  Kouchner says –

 In my conversations there, I perceived a deep need among many Iraqis for recognition and for new ties with France and Europe. The Iraqis have been isolated for too long and feel abandoned by the international community. After years of debating the American presence in Iraq, the time has come for us to turn our attention to the Iraqis themselves.

Exactly.  And even though the rhetoric out of Paris is not exactly the type of cheerleading that we received from Tony Blair and other coalition members, it represent a step in the right direction by the French.  After years of bitter isolationism and attempts to undermine US efforts on the world stage by Chirac, France is starting to make some sense.  These guys are almost starting to seem cute and cuddly again.