SAMUEL L. JACKSON, YOU NEED SOME ROYALTIES HERE!

Life perverts art.

Samuel L. Jackson starred in a 2000 movie, "Rules of Engagement."  In it, he played Marine Col. Terry Childers, who was accused of ordering a massacre of civilians who were guilty of nothing more than demonstrating outside a US Embassy in some Muslim hellhole.  Col. Childers was defended by Tommy Lee Jones in his court-martial for warcrimes.

Well, it turns out that those peaceful civilian demonstrators actually had been willing fronts for a platoon of heavily armed terrorists, who ferociously fired their heavy weapons at the Embassy from their midst BEFORE Col. Childers gave the order to return fire...And for political reasons, the US government was COVERING UP the existence of the terrorists (even burned a key piece of videotape evidence), and leaving Col. Childers to twist in the wind...

Cut to 2012:  Today, the Obama regime isn't DENYING the existence of a civilian demonstration in Libya...IT IS FABRICATING ONE, for the sole reason to provide a lame excuse for its lack of defensive preparedness.  Too bad there wasn't a "trigger-happy" Col. Childers there in Benghazi, maybe those victims of the terror attack would be alive today...

The Fatal Racism and Arrogance of Barack and Hillary

Civilized vs. Barbaric:  Who is the Subject here, 

and Who is the Object?

I saw from very close up the face of an axolotl immobile next to the glass. No transition and no surprise, I saw my face against the glass, I saw it on the outside of the tank, I saw it on the other side of the glass. Then my face drew back and I understood.—Julio Cortazar, “Axolotl”

“Some days you eat the bear, some days the bear eats you.”—Anon.

Ever known a person who pursued A Single Goal for one year?  Suppressed all other goals to achieve The One?  Risked his career and livelihood? Did he risk his life to accomplish it?  Face prison?

How about five years?  Ten?

Ever known someone who relentlessly pursued The Goal for twenty years, and all that time risked his career and faced death or prison? If you had, what conclusions would you draw about the character of that person?  About his determination?  His patience?  Confidence?  Perhaps his…fanaticism?

What if you knew for a fact he had murdered people to get close to his Goal?

OK, what if he had pursued that Goal…for eighty years?  And today, this sweet September day 2012, he is exactly one-eighth of an inch from accomplishing The Goal?  Do you think he would consider giving up the plan?  Would it be rational to imagine that?

Consider the Muslim Brotherhood.  They were formed in 1928 with the specific objective of spreading shariah around the globe, ultimately, but starting in Egypt.  Since that time, they’ve opened branches all over the world, recruited millions of members, raised billions of dollars, plotted and executed strikes, coups and assassinations, published newspapers, broadcast radio and TV programs, ran stealth and open candidates for office, all to restore the shariah.  They’ve murdered one Prime Minister and one President of Egypt (so far), and they were a valuable ally of Adolph Hitler (the notorious Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was of course a leading MB official).

Today they control the government of Egypt, via President Mohammed Morsi.  Let’s take a peek at Pres. Morsi’s bio in Wikipedia:

He received a Bachelor's and Master's Degree in engineering from Cairo University in 1975 and 1978, respectively. He then received his PhD in engineering from the University of Southern California in the U.S. in 1982. His doctoral thesis was titled "High-Temperature Electrical Conductivity and Defect Structure of Donor-Doped A123."  He was an Assistant Professor at California State University, Northridge, from 1982 to 1985. In 1985, he returned to Egypt to teach at Zagazig University where he was a professor until 2010.

Can anyone deny this is quite impressive?  Wasn’t engineering considered quite a “hard science” back in the 1970s (still is, in fact), and USC a tough school?  How does the smarts of a Ph.D. in engineering who went on to teach for 25 years match up to the smarts of, ohhhh, I don’t know…a community organizer?

But Pres. Morsi isn’t just a man of the academy, let’s move on:

Morsi was first elected to parliament in 2000. He served as a Member of Parliament from 2000 to 2005 as an independent candidate because the Brotherhood was technically barred from running candidates for office under Mubarak.

OK, so the man was first elected to Parliament under a dictatorship while technically disclaiming his party affiliation (a common trick for the MB over the years, of course).  Served in Parliament as the dictatorship aged and mellowed…and then got elected as President 12 years later.  And what was the first major official act of this brainy, ambitious, deceptive, patient, newly-minted Chief Executive who could summon a mob of a million with one phone call?:

On August 12, 2012, Morsi asked Mohamad Hussein Tantawi, head of the country's armed forces, and Sami Anan, the Army chief of staff, to resign. He also announced that the constitutional amendments passed by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) restricting the president's powers would be annulled. Morsi's spokesman, Yasser Ali, announced that both Tantawi and Anan would remain advisers to the president. Morsi named Abdul Fattah el-Sisi, currently serving as chief of military intelligence, as Egypt's new defense minister. The New York Times described the move as an "upheaval" and a "stunning purge."

Stunning, maybe, but surely unsurprising.  Unless you imagined that someone who had pursued a particular goal for many, many years would abandon it just as he closed his hand over it.  Is that logical reasoning?

Is that even sane?

Yet the New York Times, and Hillary Clinton, and even the amazingly “bright” Barack Obama pretend to be surprised by the enormous “protesting”/burning/stonehurling mobs that somehow feel free and confident to fill the streets of Morsi’s capital city, and assault sovereign US territory therein.  And worse than surprised:  they are afraid, they are threatened, they are…reacting to the mobs.

Key Question:  Who is the subject here, and who is the object? Who is adding independent variables, and who has been pathetically reduced to a dependent variable?

Who is independently planning, and executing their plan, and adjusting it, and forcing a reaction, and moving on to the next phase…and who is surprised, and confused, fearful and threatened, and is blindly stumbling from foolish reaction to even more foolish reaction?

Another question:  Can a President who controls a zealous mass movement on the streets and easily dispenses with a huge 60-year-old military apparatus find it difficult to protect an embassy from widely-telegraphed street protests?  “It’s amazing what you can’t do…if you don’t really want to do it.”

We all like to imagine that we are the subject, and the rest of the world is the object.  We act upon the world, and the world reacts to us.  Here in America, where we’ve had so much unbelievable success in such a short history, that tendency is especially strong.

But there are other cultural or intellectual forces in the world, and they think they are the subject…and they therefore see us as an object to study, to manipulate, to probe, and to exploit.  Or even destroy.  Think Nazism.  Think Communism.  Think Islam.

Shariah Islam very emphatically does not see itself as an object that reacts to America.  
Noooooo, it sees itself as a The Ultimate Earthly Subject, that views everything outside of it as one unitary unclean Object (“Dar al-Harb”, the realm of war) that must be cleansed.  And the only acceptable form of cleansing is conquering and the rigid imposition of Islamic law thereupon. And this view has produced a set of nearly-scientific tested principles, rules, and laws that, after being applied for ~1,300 years, have now placed it in control of about 20% of the humans on earth.  Is that so unimpressive?  Is that history not worthy of respect?  “Respect” in the sense of how a hunter must respect a bear?

This self-assured “Islam is the Subject and the rest of the earth is the Object” worldview is not obscure, or unstudied, or even any way in doubt.  We all know it, and accept it.

But what Barack, and Hillary, and the New York Times cannot bring themselves to admit is that those who freely espouse this hideous worldview actually mean it.  Is that denial really respectful?  Isn’t it appallingly condescending…arrogant…obtuse…dare I say, racist?  “Oh, you plucky little Muslim man, how good for you that you’ve now come to power…Now you can put away all your silly plans about spreading jihad and beating women in public for wearing shorts.” Yes, by any liberal definition that attitude is indeed racist.  RACIST!

Which brings me back to my first example:  Why would you feel that someone who has sacrificed and risked their entire life for a particular goal, until he is at last perfectly positioned to accomplish it…Why would you conclude “he doesn’t really mean it!”?

They said the same thing when Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran in 1979.  If they had Wikipedia back then, maybe the geniuses in the State Department would have noted that Khomeini had been dedicated to destroying the Pahlavi regime since the 1930’s, and had issued his first Islamic death warrant in 1942.  In other words, he had dedicated his entire life to installing Islamic law over Iran. ”Does he really mean it?” You damn well better believe he means it!

The Muslim Brotherhood struggled furiously for 83 years before they took over just one government.  Now they essentially control what they call “al Maghreb” (North Africa west of Egypt), “al-Misr” (Egypt), and they are fighting furiously for “al-Sham” (Syria).  They are allied with Turkey and Iran, two large, powerful Islamist states.  In one day they purged the Egyptian military that had run the country for 60 straight years. They fire missiles every day into the monstrously Allah-offending state of Israel.

Obama and Hillary say the Muslim Brotherhood’s actions are not as a result of them continuing to faithfully execute a 1,300 year old playbook; no, what really motivates them is a weird 13 minute film that most of them haven’t seen.  Why?  “Ohhh, because they told us that’s why they burned down our embassy!”  Really?  And when will the great day come when some Muslim will not be able to point to some filthy kaffir out in the wide world who is doing something that offends a Muslim?  Can these brilliant liberals really not recognize a laughable pretext when they see one?

No, that thought process is not intelligent, it’s not sophisticated, and it’s really not respectful to other human beings and the independent actions they undertake to accomplish their goals.  Ultimately, given the weight of the evidence to contradict it, that thought process isn’t even sane.