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.

My Take on the Heroic Michele Bachmann

I was surprised to see the brilliant writer "Spengler"/David Goldman, criticize Rep. Michele Bachmann at his PJM site.  FWIW, I addressed the following response to him:

Mr. Goldman, with all due respect, I fear you are being a little harsh on Rep. Bachmann & her 4 House colleagues.  Their letter was sent June 13, a few days before the Egyptian elections in which the Muslim Brotherhood was expected to win.  Huma's inchoate connections to the MB wd clearly be more critical by degrees of magnitude if Morsi became President of one of the most influential Arab states.  If the MB was still hounded & officially powerless, as they were until 20 months ago, there wd be less urgency to this situation.  But there we are.

Bachmann & Co. (BTW, Rep. Gohmert was a long-time jurist) have a solemn responsibility, which they have discharged to the best of their abilities.  We may quibble about the political fine-tuning and timing, but there can be no doubt they did what they had to do.  You suggested they "wait until they have a smoking gun before they call for an investigation."  Did you really mean that?

The real fault lies with the increasingly--yes even MORE so--erratic Sen McCain and his acolytes, and those afraid to offend the explosive 75-year-old.  Had they shown the same seriousness and responsibility as Bachmann & Co., and seconded the call for the investigation, there wd have been no controversy.  Those clueless turncoats created this problem--it has been observed that John McCain has shown a political obsession over the years, NOT to actually become President, but to effectively PREVENT ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN from becoming President.  If he had not turned his self-sabotaging efforts against Bachmann & Co., rest assured it wd be something else.  But the institutional GOP has revealed itself to be frightfully weak/naive/unserious about national security, as has been decisively proven by Mr Andrew McCarthy, and others.

Keep Digging Deeper, Barack.

And we all know how notoriously sympathetic 

these ACORN troops are to entrepreneurs

Well, poor little President Obama has had to endure the unkindest cut of all the past 10 days:  the insinuation that HE, of all people, is insufficiently appreciative of entrepreneurs!  Really, the gall of Mitt Romney and those waaaascawwy Wepubwicans...!

So the President who's never had a real job in his life took the stage yesterday in Oakland, California to clarify JUST HOW MUCH HE LOVES THOSE SMALL BUSINESS FOLKS...and this is how he did it:

“We built this country together — individual entrepreneurs taking advantage of opportunities and putting their sweat and tears into it, and all of us making investments in things like public schools and public colleges and universities, the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s how we sent a man to the moon."

OK, soooooo...on the private small business side of the ledger we have...:
1)  "individual entrepreneurs taking advantage of opportunities."

...While on the benevolent big government side of the ledger we have:

2)  "public schools
3)  "public colleges and universities"
4)  "the Hoover Dam"
5)  "the Golden Gate Bridge”
6)  "we sent a man to the moon"

Does anyone else find that list a little...unbalanced?  A little short on one side?  A little...ASKEEEWWWW?


Huh, it almost seems like President Obama seeks to aggrandize government projects, even as he protests how much he appreciates the private sector?


They say the first step to getting out of a hole is to stop digging.  But how can you stop digging when you've convinced yourself you're digging the graves of the capitalists?


UPDATE--UPDATE--UPDATE--UPDATE


At almost the same time as Obama was sinking, errr, defending himself, Mitt Romney was getting interviewed by CNBC's Larry Kudlow on this very same topic.  And Mitt put out his own off-the-cuff list of examples:
"It’s a very strange and in some respects foreign to the American experience type of philosophy. We have always been a nation that has celebrated success of various kinds. The kid that gets the honor roll, the individual worker that gets a promotion, the person that gets a better job. And in fact, the person that builds a business."
So, Mitt puts out 4 examples...and not 1 big government "success story."  
I also loved Mitt's line, "It’s a very strange and in some respects foreign to the American experience type of philosophy."  Reminds me of the perspicacious blogger who wrote in 2008: "Planet Obama is going to look a very alien place indeed to American voters over the next 9 months. Planet Obama will not be a place that non-Daily Kos Americans will even want to visit, let alone make their home."

Look Who's Talking: Obama the Felon

 "Hey, did you hear that Mormon cracker is a FELON?!"

Now, I'm not an attorney in Hawaii, but it sure seems that Obama's activities as a "Choom-Gangster" would have made him a REPEAT FELON, as his own campaign likes to accuse.  I mean, unless he NEVER passed along some weed to a fellow Choom-Gangster while on school grounds, or in a park...:

[from NORML]

Possession with Intent to Distribute

Distribution any amount of marijuana within 750 feet of school grounds or a park, or on or within 10 feet of a parked school vehicle is a class C felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and/or $10,000 fine.

See:

• Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 706-640 Web Search
• Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 706-660 Web Search
• Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 712-1249.6 Web Search

Promoting a controlled substance through a minor

Any person who uses an individual under the age of 18 to facilitate the distribution of a controlled substance is guilty of a class B felony punishable by B felony punishable by 10 years in prison and/or $25,000 fine, unless the offense occurred on or within school grounds, school vehicles, or a public park, in which case it is a class A felony punishable by 20 years in prison and/or $50,000 fine.

See:

• Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 706-640 Web Search
• Hawaii Rev. Stat. §§ 706-659 to 660 Web Search
• Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 712-1249.7 Web Search 

Top 10 Reasons Obama can be Confident Bill Clinton is SINCERELY Trying to Help His Re-Election Campaign:

Mr. Sincerity Team Player 

10) Because Clinton’s 24-karat blinding sincerity has never been questioned.

9) Because those grumbling Jewish liberal donors could never raise any doubts in Clinton’s mind.

8) Because Clinton knew those comments by Jeremiah Wright about Hillary in 2008 were really constructive criticisms.

7) Because the last time Bill Clinton came into office, he did such a swell job helping the Dems retain both houses of Congress.

6) Because Obama’s warmth, charm and common-touch remind Clinton of himself.

5) Because Clinton really prefers that hard-left Obamunist class warfare stuff, not the pro-growth, pro-business CDM approach on which he based his whole career.

4) Because Clinton has forgotten all about being called “RACIST!” in South Carolina in the 2008 campaign.

3) Because Bill Clinton just didn’t understand that arguing Mitt Romney had “a sterling record” in the private sector sure sounded like an endorsement.

 2) Because Clinton knows that Hillary would have a much better chance to be elected President following 2 terms of Obama.

1) Because when Bill Clinton comes onto a project, it’s NEVER all about him.

ADDRESSING THE KIMBERLIN PROBLEM AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL

 

 Raided for Blogging? 

 Dear Congressman X:

I am writing to seek your help with a recent threat to First Amendment freedoms in our country.

As you know, there has been an explosion of internet “blogs” in our country, in the past 10+ years. A blog is an internet website at which an author can post comments, photos, excerpts from other works, pretty much anything you can imagine. Some blogs are read by many thousands of people; others may be read by no-one but the writer.

I am specifically writing to call your attention to a very dangerous tactic which has been designed to chill the free speech of bloggers: “SWATting,” in which a disguised caller reports to the police some violent emergency, like a shooting or kidnapping that is supposedly happening at the real-world residence of a blogger. The police naturally rush out a SWAT team, and the resulting interaction at the blogger-target’s house is of course incredibly dangerous and harrowing for all concerned.

Two popular bloggers have been “SWATted” in this manner in the past year. Curiously enough, both have published criticisms of a Mr. Brett Kimberlin on their blogs. Mr. Kimberlin is a convicted bomber and perjurer, who also was sentenced to 4 years Federal prison for falsely impersonating a Department of Defense official (4 counts) and for unlawful possession of an official insignia of the Department of Defense and a Presidential seal (4 counts). (See United States v. Kimberlin, 781 F. 2d 1247 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 1985). His convictions for impersonation are of particular interest with regard to the “SWATting” problem, obviously.

Mr. Kimberlin’s 50 year prison sentence was cut short for reasons of “gain time,” so he only served a total 17 years (includinga parole revocation), and was released in 2001. Since then, he has somehow managed to land a role as a director for 2 tax-exempt 501(c)(3) political activist groups, the “Velvet Revolution” organization, and the “Justice Through Music Project.”

In addition to the SWATting issue, the aforesaid Brett Kimberlin has filed apparently false and frivolous petitions for “peace orders” (the equivalent of injunctions or restraining orders) in the Maryland courts, with the intent to silence the blogging of a well-known attorney, Mr. Aaron Walker, who has done no more than call attention to Mr. Kimberlin’s criminal past. Congressman, how on earth can the factual recitation of the facts of a criminal conviction be subject to a gag order? How can this be consistent with the First Amendment to the US Constitution?

You may have heard by now that Sen. Saxby Chambliss from Georgia, and Cong. Marchant from Texas have both sought for Federal law enforcement agencies to investigate these issues. I hope you will join them in this effort.