#1
Because, these who were willing to look - unlike the estimable author, know that in Dar using "humanitarian" as a cover for terrorist activities (like Paleo "ambulances") is considered a super-smart stratagem?
[Wash Times] This summer, President Obama was often golfing. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were promising to let the world be. The end of summer seemed sleepy, the world relatively calm.
The summer of 1914 in Europe also seemed quiet. But on July 28, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip with help from his accomplices, fellow Serbian separatists. That isolated act sparked World War I.
In the summer of 1939, most observers thought Adolf Hitler was finally through with his serial bullying. Appeasement supposedly had satiated his once enormous territorial appetites. But on Sept. 1, Nazi Germany unexpectedly invaded Poland and touched off World War II, which consumed some 60 million lives.
Wars often seem to come out of nowhere, as unlikely events ignite long-simmering disputes into global conflagrations.
The instigators often are weaker attackers who foolishly assume that more powerful nations wish peace at any cost, and so will not react to opportunistic aggression.
Unfortunately, our late-summer calm of 2016 has masked a lot of festering tensions that are now coming to a head -- largely due to disengagement by a supposedly tired United States.
#1
Human nature is unchanging and remains irrational. Evil is eternal. Unfortunately, appeasement is often seen by thugs not as magnanimity to be reciprocated but as timidity to be exploited.
This is the giant blind spot in the brain of the NPR-listening pseudointellectual class. They don't understand this basic proven truth that VDH can lay out in three simple sentences.
They really think they can buy the world a Coke.
This is what happens when you want a narrative to be true so badly that you ignore reality. This is what happens when you are taught Zinn/Chomsky history instead of real history. This is what happens when a nation has been too wealthy for too long and lots of its citizens never really struggled or had to deal with adversity and their view of human nature is based on living in philosophically insular enclaves like college campuses or tony, chic urban neighborhoods, doing jobs that aren't really productive or necessary but exist due to said affluence.
When the bad times come for those types, and the thugs foreign OR domestic) are standing before them with a gun, they really think that they can say, "No, you don't understand, I was against the Iraq War, and I voted for Obama. and I hate Christians, and I believe in diversity!", and the thugs will say, "Oh, okay, I'll just leave now". There is literally no understanding that the thugs won't even spare the breath to laugh before they blow the squishy leftist's brains all over the wall behind her.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/22/2016 7:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I've been noticing the old LOVE not war crap again.
What anyone that spouts such drek never seems to realize is that Love requires two to agree. I can love someone completely but if they have nothing but contempt and disdain for me the future is not bright.
They never seem to realize that "the enemy gets a vote". If they vote for war you're going to be at war.
h/t Instapundit
People are losing it over Donald Trump. The people I’m talking about are mostly liberals and Democrats who are watching with horror as the election they happily thought Hillary Clinton had put away in August has become a squeaker in September. Their attitude is that any word uttered about the election that doesn’t serve as an open denunciation of Trump is an implicit endorsement of Trump.
Let someone mention the bad behavior of the Clinton Foundation and the response is likely to be a shriek of outrage that you didn’t say something worse about the Trump Foundation. Say that Hillary is a liar, which she is, and immediately you are told Trump is a WORSE LIAR!!!!
I’m enjoying this meltdown. I’m sorry if that’s mean. I can’t help myself. For months last year when Republicans and conservatives were raising alarm bells about his rise, the general response from Democrats and liberals was a certain measure of unholy glee at what they perceived to be the collapse and self-destruction of the GOP. IMO, both wings of the Beltway party are deplorable
h/t Instapundit
I was a Democrat all my life. I came to Washington to serve President John Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy. When the president was murdered and his brother struck off on his own, I joined his Senate campaign and staff as his legislative assistant and speechwriter, until his presidential campaign ended with his own assassination. I ran on a (losing) Democratic ticket in the New York state elections of 1970. When I was working to enact my own program of police reform in the 1980s and 1990s, then Governor Bill Clinton was chairman of my National Committee for the Police Corps.
This year, I will vote to elect Donald Trump as president of the United States.
So profound a change, and a decent respect for old friendships, requires me to deliver a public accounting for this decision.
BLUF: [Wash Times] First, he should emphasize his pragmatic vision for turning America around: moving to pro-growth economics, restoring law and order, rebuilding the military and a strong national defense, reigniting America’s influence and prestige internationally, and defeating the corrupt, rigged system (as embodied by Mrs. Clinton).
As a successful presidential candidate, he must offer voters a positive, compelling reason to vote for him, rather than just against his opponent. That’s why it’s critical for Mr. Trump to focus on his restorative agenda for the country.
Second, as a compliment to his optimistic vision, he must smash Mrs. Clinton, both as a failed "leader" pushing failed policies and a destructive leftist ideology and as a deeply corrupt individual who cannot -- must not -- be trusted with the presidency.
She will try to swarm him with policy details to try to demonstrate that he’s unprepared for the highest office in the land. She’ll try to sit above the fray, winking that she’s "been there, done that." Well, yes. But the question is not whether she was in the game. It’s how she played it -- and what results she produced. For her, the result was evermore power and a net worth of over $125 million. For the country, the result is that we are less wealthy, less prosperous, less safe, less secure, less powerful.
Mr. Trump doesn’t have to show an encyclopedic knowledge of every policy nuance. He simply has to point to the wreckage of the Obama economy and foreign policy and say: "We tried it your way."
Mic drop.
Third, he should "gaslight" her (hat tip to Alfred Hitchcock) by remaining totally cool and unflappable while calmly pushing on her vulnerabilities, from her disgraceful lack of integrity to her hypocrisy concerning women to standing by silently if she’s seized by one of her interminable coughing attacks.
This must be done with the greatest care, taking the Reagan approach of regarding her more in sorrow than in anger: "There you go again." And he should call her Mrs. Clinton in order to link her to the deeply flawed boy who brought her to the dance.
For all of the talk about Mr. Trump’s alleged "thin skin," she is extraordinarily prickly. She has never faced a tough election fight or been questioned aggressively or criticized to her face. If Mr. Trump can get under her thin skin, he could provoke a caustic response that will reveal the cosseted elitist behind the frozen smile. Witness candidate Barack Obama’s calmly delivered 2008 crack, "You’re likeable enough, Hillary." The steam came out of her ears for days.
Finally, Mr. Trump must be a happy warrior. Most voters want to believe that he’s the guy not just to fix the country -- but to restore their optimism with it. They want to know that he will fight the war for America’s future not as a burden but as a joyful privilege. If he can exuberantly convey that America can be saved -- and that she is worth saving -- he will not just win the debate but perhaps the election.
Into the ring they go. And in this ultimate reality show, we’ll all be watching what happens live.
the Hillary camp are afraid the Hilbot will break down by the end of the debate -- if it has too much water, it will need a maintenance break -- too little water and it overheats
Posted by: lord garth ||
09/22/2016 8:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I had a debate with an old friend the other day and his defense of her actions in Libya got down to "the French tricked her into destabalizing Libya." His defense of her vote in favor of the Iraq war got down to W tricked her into voting for his war. Which leads me to the obvious conclusion that she's fairly easily tricked isn't she. Two main things on her resume and she botched them because she was tricked. Not really Presidential.
I choose the devil I don't know to the one I'm certain is a devil.
#6
She is power hungry and that blinds her to just about everything else except money. She'd throw us all under the bus for a buck of less. I've noticed she lies a lot too (sarcasm).
[CJ] Former NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly, and the cops who made up his superlative anti-terror unit, can stand a little taller in the wake of the weekend bombings in New York City and New Jersey. While much remains to be learned about the incidents, this much is clear: Kelly's view of Islamist terrorism as a multi-state threat, and thus a legitimate subject for sophisticated law-enforcement attention, has been vindicated.
Not that Kelly and his crew really need vindication--at least in the eyes of people who take the Islamist threat to America seriously. Unhappily, that group doesn't include New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, who did his level best to hobble the NYPD's anti-terror effort by disbanding a key component of it upon taking office. Also absent is the Associated Press, which won a Pulitzer Prize in 2012 for exposing Kelly & Co.'s anti-terror tactics--paying particular attention to the commissioner's conviction that New Jersey is a fertile breeding ground for wannabe jihadists.
Exhibit A in that respect, of course, remains the 1993 terror bombing of the World Trade Center. Six people were killed and more than 1,000 injured in a Jersey-based scheme masterminded by Omar Abdel-Rahman, the so-called Blind Sheikh. Several of the 16 terror plots derailed wholly or in part by Kelly's gumshoes also had Jersey components. Now comes Ahmad Khan Rahami of Elizabeth, New Jersey. The naturalized American citizen born in Afghanistan was arrested Monday and charged with leaving homemade bombs like Easter eggs all over the Garden State and Manhattan.
Given what’s known, there's little reason to assume that the Kelly surveillance operation would have identified and nabbed Rahami before the fact. And, it will be all well and good if it turns out that the de Blasio NYPD is working hand-in-glove with the FBI these days. But such cooperation wasn't always routine, which was the root of Kelly's concern post 9/11. In part, the enmity was rooted in the traditional tensions between the feds and local police agencies. At the same time, it wasn't unreasonable to question the FBI--an agency that had failed to anticipate 9/11, badly fumbled its probe of the 2001 anthrax attacks, and truly embarrassed itself with its inept response to the 1996 Olympic bombings in Atlanta.
Skipping down to the closing para:
Fast-forward to the weekend. The speed with which Rahami found himself in handcuffs suggests that not all of the NYPD’s teeth were pulled. On the other hand, the suspect doesn’t appear to have presented much of a challenge to law enforcement. Leaving a fingerprint on a cell phone and clumsily falling victim to surveillance video—not to mention falling asleep amid a manhunt in the doorway of a Linden, New Jersey bar—suggests a very short career in terrorism. Still, the entire episode underscores yet again the pressing need for sophisticated preemptive-intelligence collection. That was Kelly’s goal. He was more than a little good at it, and New York and New Jersey were safer because of it.
[CJ] Three days after a militant's bomb shattered a pleasant Chelsea evening, New York City mayor Bill de Blasio joined London mayor Sadiq Kahn and Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo in calling for "policies that embrace diversity and promote inclusion." They dismissed any connection between Muslim refugees and terror. "Militant violence is vanishingly rare," they wrote. Such a denial of plain facts is rightly called "Orwellian."
If militant violence is vanishing, then it must have once been more common, and is now almost gone. But the opposite is true. In just the last year, a Muslim couple attacked a Southern California community center, killing and wounding dozens of people; a jihadi stalked and massacred 49 people at a Florida gay nightclub; a Somali immigrant on his way to buy an iPhone stabbed nine people in a Minnesota shopping mall while making references to Allah and asking potential victims if they were Muslim; and an Afghan native planted a number of bombs in the New York City area, apparently with the intention of murdering as many people as possible.
One could make an argument that such attacks don't happen often, or that people are more likely to be eaten by sharks than attacked by Muslim immigrants, but it’s ridiculous to insist that radical Islamist violence is on a downswing. True, jihadis have failed to pull off another massive, coordinated operation on the scale of the 9/11 attacks--but not for lack of trying. De Blasio seems to be saying that, because the NYPD and the FBI have foiled between 15 and 20 plots directed at New York City by Islamist terrorists, we must acknowledge that militant violence is no longer a threat. The mayor wants to give credit to attempted murderers, as though they renounced violence instead of being prevented from committing it.
Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo will have to face her own critics at home for cosigning the claim that militant violence has virtually vanished from the streets of France. Surely there are victims of the Bastille Day truck attack in Nice--the lucky ones who weren’t killed or severely maimed--whose bones are still wrapped in casts or pinned together, who might raise an eyebrow at the idea that what happened to them was a vaporous, practically non-existent event. If not, she might hear a contrary opinion from the families of the 90 victims of the November 2015 Bataclan concert hall attacks, or the survivors of the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
To compound the Orwellian nature of this joint, denialist editorial by the mayors of New York, London, and Paris, the "vanishingly rare" line was excised from the online version of the New York Times. At some point between the overnight print run and midafternoon the following day, someone decided that the phrase was off-message and appended an editor’s note to the piece: "An earlier version of this article included a phrase about the incidence of terrorism perpetuated by militant immigrants. Because of a miscommunication, the phrase, which was added by an editor, was published without final approval of the authors."
Times readers can come to their own conclusions about the plausibility of that official explanation. If you have a hard-copy of the paper at home, clip the piece out and save it. One day--perhaps soon--we will be attacked again. It may serve as a valuable reminder of how fatuously blind our leaders were in the face of a real and dangerous threat.
#4
One day--perhaps soon--we will be attacked again. It may serve as a valuable reminder of how fatuously blind our leaders were in the face of a real and dangerous threat.
And a reminder as well as how *passive* we were in the face of their blind "leadership". We all put up with this shit. We all pretended this was ok.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
... and why he's lying about it.
Mayor of Charlotte, NC Jennifer Roberts no doubt has similar concerns.
