Monday, November 30, 2015

A Once in a Century Opportunity

Hundred year tides don't appear in cycles of a century.  They're just very rare, occurring when a powerful storm coincides with the regular high tides of the autumn equinox.  I submit we're in such a moment, politically, today.
Because Hillary Clinton is seeking to succeed a relatively unpopular two term incumbent in a slack economy, the deck is stacked against her.  That's the normal ebb and flow of politics, a typical tide.  But the political storm that threatens to break next year, in conjunction with this tide, is quite untypical.   It's practically perfect.  Josh Kraushaar of National Journal has outlined the shape of the race, and listed most of the Republican advantages.
It starts with the candidates.  Hillary will be the worst politician nominated by a major party since the 19th century.  She is mistrusted and disliked.  She has no natural political skills, and her age and baggage weigh her down.  Add a sluggish economy, a nation convinced it is on the wrong path, national and homeland security anxieties, uncontrolled illegal immigration, an NRA on the warpath, and the Democrats, the party of government, arguing for more of it at a time when the government is held in almost universal ill repute, and you've got the storm.   It will turn a spring flood into a tide the likes of which we haven't seen in a hundred years.
And let us never forget the moment when the tide began to turn.  The implementation of Obamacare in October of 2013 was when everything changed.  A President and his party were caught in a blatant, premeditated lie.  Despite their repeated promises, you couldn't keep your doctor, and you couldn't keep your health insurance, and it didn't save everybody money.  It was not just an unmitigated mess; it was a program and a policy sold to the American people by a president lying through his teeth.  Republicans will be sure not to allow the voters to forget these damning facts.

'The change in the global population over the next few years is unprecedented'

The world's demographics are making an "unprecedented shift," and it will have an enormous impact on the world.
That's not a new discovery, but the subject is being explored in detail by HSBC economist James Pomeroy in an immense report sent to clients this week.
The note explores some of the massive changes coming to the global population over not just the next 50 or 100 years, but the next 10. Unlike many economic forecasts, predictions of what the size of the world's workforce will be like in a decade are pretty predictable, since the future workers have already been born.
Here's a snippet from the report (emphasis ours):
Demographics have long been a key determinant of potential growth rates, but the change in the global population over the next few years is unprecedented. Japan's population started to shrink in the mid-1990s and Germany's started shrinking around the year 2000, but the world's most populous country, China, is now seeing its working-age population shrink for the first time.

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Congress Votes to Raid Fed’s Slush Fund to Pay for Highways

In its never-ending quest to spend money it doesn’t have, but not wanting to raise taxes, especially during the current election cycle, on Thursday, November 5 Congress passed a $325-billion, six-year transportation bill that is to be financed by selling off some of the country’s strategic petroleum reserves and raiding the Federal Reserve.

In its editorial complaint about the bill, the Washington Post said that the bill “takes money out of one government pocket — the Fed — and puts it into another — the highway program.” The implication is that Congress should use “real” money, taken by force from the American taxpayer, whether he likes it or not, instead of using “paper” money created by the Fed out of nothing.

It’s hardly a distinction. The Fed has, for the last 102 years, been a gigantic money printing press that has morphed — via “mission creep” — into the government’s largest and most invasive federal agency, with its actions affecting every financial transaction undertaken by every American every time he or she spends a dollar. Sold initially back in 1913 as the “lender of last resort” for banks that got themselves into trouble, the Fed has since the Great Depression become Congress’ “lender of first resort” when taxpayers refused to be mulcted further directly through tax increases.

As a result, the Fed has been financing congressional deficit spending for years, indirectly taxing those taxpayers through inflation — the gradual incremental loss of purchasing power of their money.

The usual apologists for the Fed showed up in print shortly after the bills were passed by Congress (which are waiting now for conference to iron out differences before being sent to the president) to explain, as best they could, why using the Fed’s capital to pay for highways was a bad idea. First up was former chairman of the Fed, Ben Bernanke, who now holds forth at the liberal Brookings Institute as a distinguished fellow. Writing in his Brookings blog, Bernanke did his best to come up with reasons why this taking of funds from the Fed’s capital account is a bad idea: “It’s not good optics or good precedent for Congress to be seen as raiding the supposedly independent central bank to pay for spending.”


In all the reporting, analysis and dissection of the events in Paris in which jihadists murdered innocent people, then pulled the plug on their suicide vests and blew themselves up, I have yet to hear anyone truly look deep enough into the motivation of the young people who did this horrific deed.

We’ve heard talk of terrorism, of building a caliphate, of the defeat of Western civilization and expansive clichés of what went wrong with our worldwide intelligence services, the new strategies of warfare in the digital age and hundreds of other glib explanations and proposals for defeating the forces of jihad.

But no one, it seems, ever got to the real nub, the act itself, the heart of the issue: Why did these young people, and hundreds before them, weaponize their bodies and destroy their lives after randomly massacring innocent people while shouting “Allahu Akbar” as if the act itself were an approved religious practice as interpreted in the Koran?

Let’s hold on answering that question and juxtapose it with heartbreaking images of vast numbers of Muslim refugees, holding their beloved small children, fleeing the horror of war, enduring danger, hardship and starvation to build a better life for their families. Many of these people are surely devout believers in their religion, willing to risk life and limb to escape possible certain death in their home countries.

Freedom of Speech Doesn’t Mean “Free” Speech

The phrases “free speech” and “freedom of speech” are being used over and over as if they were interchangeable.  Yet they mean utterly different things.

The actual phrase “freedom of speech” is used in the First Amendment of the Constitution. See for yourself (with emphasis added):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is always important to remember that the Constitution of the United States is not a law written by the government to control and limit the activities of the citizens. That is exactly backwards. The Constitution was authorized and approved by the early American revolutionaries to limit and control the activities of the government itself. The First Amendment made clear that Congress cannot abridge the freedom of speech. Yet over and over again, it’s interpreted to be freedom from interference and abridgment of speech by someone who’s not in the government and does not represent the government.

Syrian Refugees Don’t Pose a Serious Security Threat

So long as the Syrian civil war grinds on and the Islamic State continues expanding its footprint, desperate refugees will keep flowing from places like Syria. Unfortunately, addressing the root causes of either the Syrian conflict or the rise of ISIS is beyond the scope of what the United States and its allies can reasonably do. Calls on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to negotiate with rebel fighters have proven wholly ineffective to date, while greater military involvement in Syria is neither wise nor justified on U.S. national-security grounds.

But as horrifying as it has been, the refugee crisis offers the outlines of a new strategy—one both morally superior to the current do-little approach and practically superior to additional military intervention. In short, the United States and its European allies should plan to take in all refugees fleeing violence in Syria, with the help of other willing nations around the world.

Proposals by American hawks such as Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain to use U.S. ground troops to confront ISIS or remove Assad from power are clearly misguided. After all, the United States simply does not have enough of a national-security interest in either goal. Beyond this, Russia’s new military campaign in Syria now makes U.S. intervention far more complicated and hazardous—by adding heightened U.S.-Russian hostilities to the list of potential consequences. And finally, escalating the U.S. military campaign is unlikely to make things better. Though it would probably, in the short run, alter the balance of which groups suffer the most casualties, the central lesson from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is that even an extended U.S. military presence cannot promise an end to conflict. Though U.S. military action can topple governments, destroy buildings, and kill people, it cannot defeat ideas or prevent the spread of extremism and the mobilization of extremist groups. Indeed, the Islamic State might not exist today had it not been for the invasion of Iraq and the radical weakening of the Iraqi state that followed. Fourteen years after the invasion of Afghanistan and 12 years after the invasion of Iraq, neither nation is a safe place to live—both are themselves producing refugees in large numbers.

Medicare Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Means the System Needs Reform

An office manager in Louisiana who billed Medicare for services that weren't needed or even provided was recently sentenced to four years in prison and ordered to pay $14.1 million in restitution. Twelve other defendants are awaiting sentencing for their roles in the $50 million scheme to defraud Medicare. The next day, a Detroit-area physician was sentenced to six years in prison and ordered to pay $2 million in restitution for his role in a $4.2 million Medicare fraud scheme.
Medicare is rife with fraud, and every year, billions of dollars are improperly paid out by the federal government's giant health care bureaucracy. According to the government's latest estimates, Medicare fee-for-service (parts A and B) made $46 billion in improper payments last year. And Medicare Advantage (Part C) and Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage (Part D) combined for another $15 billion in improper payments. Even more disturbing is the possibility that these numbers underestimate the annual losses to taxpayers from fraud and bureaucratic bungling. According to the work of Harvard University's Malcolm Sparrow, fraud could account for as much as 20 percent of total federal health care spending, which would be considerably higher than what the government's figures indicate.

Surviving an imminent ice age

Solar observers predict a “Little Ice Age (LIA)” to arrive before 2100.  While expert economists confirm that a modestly warmer climate benefits both health and human prosperity, a colder climate generally spells more sickness and poses real danger to agricultural yields—with consequent famines and mass starvation.  These calamities can be overcome – through adequate and timely preparation of energy supplies, water projects, and croplands.

There is some urgency in preparing now for the possibility of such a cold period, similar to the LIA that prevailed off and on during 1400-1800 AD.  It is likely then that tropical regions will end up as the major sources of food and be called upon to supply the rest of the world.

Short-term energy (till 2100):

No foreseeable problem; known reserves of fossil fuels appear to be adequate – even with a world population peaking at around 9 billion

Long-term energy (till 3000 AD and beyond):

No real problem, if nuclear technology is encouraged to commercialize the use of inert Uranium-238 and Thorium through “breeder reactors” -- especially Molten-Salt-cooled fast-neutron Reactors (MSR) and perhaps hybrid fusion-fission. Pure fusion reactors, if perfected, could provide a useful back-up technology

Is America on Its Way to Fascism?

In his 1954 book entitled Today's Isms: Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Capitalism, Dr. William Ebenstein cogently describes the various "isms" that continue to convulse the world.

As personal liberty is eroded in this country and Americans are uninformed about the "violence and terror of totalitarian communism and fascism," a reflection of Ebenstein's ideas is very much warranted.

When countering whether fascism is a threat to democratic nations, Ebenstein maintains that "the danger in a democracy like the United States is not outright fascism ... but the insidious and unnoticed corroding of democratic habits[.]"  Consider the burgeoning growth of intolerance against dissenting ideas that permeates so many American universities.

Ebenstein maintains that "the danger of not recognizing this pre-fascist attitude is that, should it become full fledged fascism (as it well might in an economic depression or in some other disaster of the sort that periodically shakes men's faith in democracy) recognition of it as a threat may come too late for those whose earlier judgment was too lenient."  That so many people cannot see the inherent danger of a Bernie Sanders is disturbing.  Matthew Vadum has written:

Communism is a political movement whose adherents believe that markets are fundamentally unjust [.] Suffice it to say that socialists and communists all want government or the collective to be master. In ideological terms, there is no bright  line or safe harbor that neatly separates socialism from communism.

Monday, November 23, 2015

The media has no idea how to deal with Donald Trump's constant lying

Donald Trump's interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week (above) is a great distillation of why covering the Republican frontrunner is proving so difficult for mainstream press outlets.
On the one hand, he demands coverage. He's leading the race everywhere: nationally, in Iowa, in New Hampshire, in South Carolina. And with the exception of a brief surge for Ben Carson that's quickly dissipating, Trump has been leading consistently for more than three months. So outlets like ABC and shows like This Week would, naturally, like the longstanding GOP frontrunner to appear on their programs from time to time. It doesn't hurt that Trump is ratings gold compared with the likes of Jeb Bush or past frontrunners such as Mitt Romney, either.
But Trump also has a tendency to use his appearances on TV news to spout flagrant lies about a variety of topics. His statements aren't false the way that, say, Marco Rubio's claim that he can cut taxes by $12 trillion and still balance the budget is false. False claims of that variety are a long and distinguished tradition in American electoral politics, and it's an established policy on programs like This Week to not challenge them too aggressively. 

These candidates are getting rich running for president

Ben Carson fashions himself a political novice, but he’s an expert at one crucial political skill: cashing in on public exposure.
Carson, perhaps more than any other presidential candidate, is profiting handsomely from the fame he has gained as a popular upstart contender for the Republican nomination. And unlike most candidates who put their business interests on hold while campaigning, Carson has continued to earn lavish speaking fees as a candidate, while also raking in book royalties and income from other sources.
Right behind Carson in the presidential windfall sweepstakes is Donald Trump, whose new book, "Crippled America," has sold more than 50,000 copies in less than one month, according to Nielsen Bookscan and other sources. Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have also penned timely books that are selling well as they ride the coattails of the campaign.
Hillary Clinton’s two books, by contrast, have generated little new interest this year, perhaps because she's already sold nearly 1.7 million copies, combined, and everybody who wants to know about her already does. New books by Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina and Bernie Sanders haven’t really caught on, either. And a few of the candidates, including Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich and Martin O’Malley appear to have done little so far to profit from the visibility brought by the campaign—though there will be opportunities to do that later, of course.

Obama’s Love for Jihadis and Hate for Christians

Obama recently lashed out against the idea of giving preference to Christian refugees, describing it as “shameful”: “That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion,” loftily added the American president.

Accordingly, the administration is still determined to accept 10,000 more Syrian refugees, almost all of whom will be Muslim, despite the fact that some are ISIS operatives, while many share the ISIS worldview (as explained below).

Yet right as Obama was grandstanding about “who we are,” statistics were released indicating that “the current [refugee] system overwhelmingly favors Muslim refugees. Of the 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States so far, only 53 are Christians while 2,098 are Muslim.”
Aside from the obvious—or to use Obama’s own word, “shameful”—pro-Muslim, anti-Christian bias evident in these statistics, there are a number of other troubling factors as well.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Inspector General: DHS Risks National Security

The Department of Homeland Security is risking national security by illegally maintaining 136 "sensitive but unclassified," "Secret," and "Top Secret" systems with "expired authorities to operate", according to an audit released Thursday by the office of the inspector general. Because these databases do not have current "authorities to operate (ATOs)", DHS "cannot ensure that its systems are properly secured to protect sensitive information stored and processed in them," the inspector general said. Maybe the department should change its name to the Department of Homeland Insecurity.

The release of the audit confirms and underscores what many have long suspected: by creating databases which house information on the communications, activities, relationships, browsing histories, and other personal information of American citizens and businesses, government agencies create a security risk where there is a single point for hackers — private and government — to focus. As this writer said about China's hacking of the databases at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM):

It's a little like the trick-or-treating strategy employed by street bullies: Rather than do the hard work of going door-to-door collecting the loot, let someone else do it for you and then simply steal it from them. With U.S. government three-letter agencies conducting intrusive surveillance on the American people, the shortest path to that data is to hack those databases and steal it. And it appears this is exactly what China is doing. This is precisely what groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have warned about as part of their opposition to the blanket surveillance conducted by these overreaching agencies.

Advocates losing ground in GMO fight

Public health and environmental groups appear to be losing the fight to keep food with genetically modified ingredients off the dinner table.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) handed the biotechnology industry another win this week when it deemed a genetically engineered Atlantic salmon safe to eat and denied a petition from the Center for Food Safety to issue mandatory labeling rules.

The actions come about four months after the House passed hotly contested legislation to keep states from issuing mandatory labeling laws for foods that contain genetically modified organisms, or GMOs and now the Senate is weighing its own options on the issue.

The industry-backed Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food (CFSAF), which has spent millions on efforts to block the mandatory labeling of GMOs, called consumers the big winners.

“Common sense and science prevailed when the House passed a uniform, national labeling standard bill,” CFSAF Spokeswoman Claire Parker said. “And other recent decisions, such as the approval of GE salmon, demonstrate that biotechnology is proven and holds great promise for ensuring consumer access to safe, affordable food.” 

Anti-GMO groups vehemently refute any claims they’re losing ground in the battle to keep genetically engineered foods out of the consumer space.

On the Lack of Courage in Regulators

I’m embedding the text of a short but must-read speech by Robert Jenkins, a former banker, hedge fund manager, and regulator (Bank of England) who is now a Senior Fellow at Better Markets. If nothing else, be sure to look at the partial list of bank misconduct and activities currently under investigation.

Jenkins points out that regulatory reform has fallen short on multiple fronts, and perhaps the most important is courage. Readers may understandably object to him giving lip service to the idea that Bernanke acted courageously during the crisis (serving the needs of banks via unconventional means is not tantamount to courage), but he is a Serious Person, and making a case against Bernanke would detract from his bigger message about the lack of guts post-crisis.

Now there have been exceptions, like Benjamin Lawsky, Sheila Bair, Gary Gensler, Kara Stein, and in a more insider capacity, Danny Tarullo. Contrast their examples with the typical cronyism and lame rationalizations for inaction, particularly by the Department of Justice and the SEC. It’s not obvious how to reverse the corrosion of our collective values. But it is important to remember than norms can shift much faster than most people think possible, with, for instance, the 1950s followed by the radicalism and shifts in social values of the 1960s, which conservative elements are still fighting to roll back.

Hillary’s Accomplishments

The recent Democratic debates showed what was being hidden by the press for months – Hillary Clinton is running against an inept candidate and an arm-waving socialist more interested in revolution in America than winning the nomination of the party he somewhat inhabits. More than ever we must focus on the accomplishments of Ms. Clinton during her long public life.

This really came to the fore because of Carly Fiorina. Ms. Fiorina finally has received notice as a candidate and her comments about Hillary gained parallel fame. Fiorina has said that "Like Hillary Clinton, I too have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles around the globe. But unlike Hillary Clinton, I know that flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.” This caused Ms. Clinton to send copies of her recent memoir Hard Choices to all the Republican candidates except Jim Gilmore as a means supposedly to educate them on her accomplishments. I have read the book and thus could speak to those accomplishments, but better yet why should we take my word or her word or any Republican’s word. Politico solicited the thoughts of 20 prominent Democrats as to Hillary’s accomplishments; thus, we have their thoughts on what they believe she has accomplished.

In the comments from these Democrats, many of them Clinton allies, the responses fall in to three categories. The first is some actual programs she participated in that have become laws whether you agree with them or not. The second is stated accomplishments which are totally debatable as to their benefit. The third is statements which are vapid.

Force against ISIS Is the Wrong Tactic

The tragic acts of terrorism committed in Paris on Friday have led to renewed calls for a more aggressive campaign against ISIS. Such calls are understandable given the shock and horror which always follows such barbarism. But simple revenge risks repeating the strategic mistakes of the last decade.

As we learned from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, military victory is easy. Securing the peace can be almost impossible. If we truly want to defeat ISIS, we must focus not on military victory, but on what comes after ISIS. Without resolution of the diplomatic and political conflicts which have allowed ISIS to bloom, what replaces it could be just as bad—or worse.

The events in Paris, the deadliest terrorist attacks in the West since 2004’s Madrid train bombing, were horrifying. In a free society, we can reduce the likelihood of such attacks, but we can never achieve absolute safety. In light of such an attack, fear is unavoidable and calls to respond with overwhelming force are inevitable.

Grandstanding politicians fan fear, but don't know what they are talking about

The threats appeared around the same time a fake Syrian passport surfaced near the body one of the suicide bombers who blew himself up outside the soccer stadium in Paris. This discovery has prompted 31 governors to say they do not want Syrian refugees to be located into their states. The House of Representatives also passed legislation aiming to block the arrival of Syrian refugees without more stringent vetting.

Which brings us to the question of whether banning Syrian refugees is all that an effective way to protect Americans against terrorism. Earlier in the week, I wrote that not one single act of terrorism in the United States has been caused by a refugee. Let's just say that my claim got some pushback.

So let's delve further into the data. Surprisingly, there is very little scholarly research on how refugees and terrorism might be related. The most relevant study is "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Refugees, Humanitarian Aid, and Terrorism," published in the journal Conflict Management and Peace Science in 2013. In that article, two political scientists—Seung-Whan Choi of the University of Illinois and Idean Salehyan of the University of North Texas—look at terrorism data from 154 countries between 1970 and 2007. They found "evidence that countries with many refugees are more likely to experience both domestic and international terrorism."

Alarming? Maybe not.

Of Paris and (Would-Be) Presidents

Last week’s ter­ror­ist at­tacks in Par­is amoun­ted to a 9/11 event for the French and, for Amer­ic­ans, a vivid memory of that hor­rif­ic day 14 years ago. It also re­minds us that we could very well have an­oth­er—ex­perts say it’s al­most in­ev­it­able. So, what ef­fect will the tragedy in Par­is have on the U.S. pres­id­en­tial cam­paign and next year’s elec­tion? The short an­swer: Ask me again in 50 weeks.
But let’s parse the pos­sib­il­it­ies. While Don­ald Trump’s blunt­ness—“I would bomb the shit out of them”—eli­cited some huzzahs, it seems likely that the mas­sacres in Par­is will in­ject a de­gree of ser­i­ous­ness in­to the cam­paign that hasn’t been evid­ent dur­ing the past five months.
But how ser­i­ous, and how long might it last? Which can­did­ates, and which party, might this help or hurt? These are tough­er calls. They’re al­most like a Rorschach test: What you see de­pends on who you are and what you already be­lieve.
Think about Hil­lary Clin­ton. Some would con­clude that she’ll be helped polit­ic­ally be­cause of her cre­den­tial as a former sec­ret­ary of State. Un­less, that is, she is seen as an ar­chi­tect of a policy that has demon­strably not worked.

Hillary Clinton’s hard left past and present.

Hillary Clinton has been likened to Eva Peron, but it’s a bad analogy. Evita was worshipped by the “shirtless ones,” the working class, while Hillary’s charms elude most outside of an elite cohort of left-liberal, baby-boom feminists — the type who thought Anita Hill should be canonized and Thelma and Louise was the best movie since Easy Rider. Hillary reckons herself the next Eleanor Roosevelt. But, standing well to the left of her husband and enjoying an independent power base within his coalition, Hillary is best thought of as the Winnie Mandela of American politics. She has likened the American family to slavery, thinks kids should be able to sue their parents to resolve family arguments, and during her tenure as a foundation officer gave away millions (much of it in no-strings-attached grants) to the left — including sizable sums to hard-left organizers. She is going to cause her husband no end of political embarrassment between now and November — and who knows how long afterward.

By the morning of June 5, four top Clinton campaign aides — David Wilhelm, George Stephanopoulos, Eli Segal, and Stanley Greenberg — had had enough of Susan Thomases and Harold Ickes, two ultra-liberal campaign aides who had fastened themselves to Hillary. According to a Clinton insider, the four had concluded that “Susan Thomases is running this campaign with Harold Ickes through Hillary,” and gave Bill Clinton this ultimatum: “Either [Thomases] goes, or we’re all going and she can run the campaign.” Ever the Conciliator-in-Chief, Clinton managed to avert a mass resignation by the top echelon of his campaign staff. “They papered all this over for the time being, but it won’t last,” says the insider.

ISIS Renamed 'Climate Change'

The recent ISIS-inspired attacks in Paris, which the naïve may have hoped would awaken the left to the seriousness of the global Islamic threat, have, predictably, had exactly the opposite effect. The West’s mainstream political establishments, faced with yet another stark reminder that many Muslims are eager to engage in a war to the death for Allah, have joined hands in the fight -- not to defeat Islamic fanaticism, but to improve the rhetorical efforts to bury any connection between the world’s hordes of jihadists and the faith in whose name they are acting.

Thus today, when the need to name, expose, and combat Islamic radicalism seems more urgent than ever, John Kerry, François Hollande, and our other progressive betters are attempting to banish the word “Islamic” from future public discussion of the threat of radical Is… um, radical stuff. They have determined that we should henceforth refer to the artists formerly known as Islamic State by the name “Daesh.”

This rebranding, in traditional propaganda style, has been issued with its own press releases from the Ministry of Truth (i.e., the mainstream media). One version is delivered to us under the headline:

If You Hear President Obama and John Kerry call ISIS “Daesh,” Here’s Why.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Muslim Immigration.

This is an expert speaking.  The fact is that our president is either wittingly or unwittingly aiding and abetting this horrific movement despite any words he spews forth.  His actions speak far louder than his words.  Quote: ""We went to school on that attack," Hayden, the former director of the CIA and the National Security Agency, said on "Newsmax Prime." He was being interviewed by hosts J.D. Hayworth, John Bachman and Miranda Khan. "We had great fear that we would see copycat versions of that attack — and now, I fear that our fears have been realized, and we're seeing that carried out tonight in Paris," Hayden said. "It shows the fragility of free societies. It shows the great danger that international terrorism presents to all of us."  Hayden sized up the Paris attacks quickly: "This is probably a jihadist attack. It's certainly a terrorist attack.  "If you ask me on a forced-choice test to pick a group, I'd say ISIS," he added, referring to the Islamic State. "But we don't know any of that for sure yet.  "We're going to have to wait and see the evidence as it comes in so that we can form a rational response to a very irrational act," Hayden said.

Think about this real hard.  President Obama wants to bring un-vetted Syrians into our country and then provide them with all kinds of taxpayer funded free goodies.  Read the list carefully.   Now consider what he is willing to do for non-citizens but unwilling to work to support these unfortunate Americans.  Veterans who are homeless and in need of government promised healthcare.  There are more children in poverty today than ever in history.  There are today more Americans out of work/unable to find work in more than 35 years (yet he wants to give refugees job training and help them find jobs).  The welfare roles are the highest in history.  Food stamps are doled out at record setting pace.  It is clear to anyone who can read that Obama cares far more about Muslim refugees than he does American citizens.  And, he plans to force us to pay for his unethical, even illegal, and extraordinary foolishness in bringing in these people who his own senior intelligence officials tell him will be peppered with Muslim terrorists because it will be impossible to properly vet them.  More back ground and why we should be concerned with Obama's efforts which have received much Democrat/progressive support, including Hillary Clinton.  Recent polling establishes that 77% of Americans do not want the Syrian refugees to be admitted.   Arrogant Obama does not care what his experts have to say, what the courts have ruled, what studies reveal or what American citizens want.  Worse yet consider how many Syrians sympathize with the terrorists.

Obama has been busy recruiting Muslims to the US.  Check out these numbers and the associated discussion that shows reported numbers are well shy of the real numbers.  Quote: "For example, the Obama Administration announced it began accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees October 1 of this year. However, The New York Times reported that 30,000 more will be granted access next year, in addition to the roughly 70,000 refugees already entering America every fiscal year.  Fox News also reported that the numbers of refugees and asylum seekers entering the U.S. specifically from Muslim majority countries is roughly 750,000 since 2009."  And, "Add to this number, those who’ve arrived under the “refugee resettlement program,” roughly 51,000, and the total appears to increase to 800,000. (Of these, according to the U.S. State Department, the greatest number arrived in Texas, California, and New York.)  Yet– these numbers mostly only account for the “head of household.” One “refugee” can actually equate to nine people.  As both Front Page Magazine and American Thinker have pointed out, each head of household is allowed to bring up to eight family members– a fact of which the Obama Administration and Johnson are both well aware.
In actuality, 10,000 refugees can equate to roughly 90,000; 30,000 to 270,000; 70,000 to 630,000; and 800,000 to 7.2 million.  In sum, the numbers more realistically reflect refugees numbering in the millions– who have entered the U.S. from Muslim majority countries since 2009. Definitely not 750,000 or even 10,000. But millions."  Still don't think Obama is not trying his best to sabotage our country?
Refugees were at least in part the perpetrators of the Paris terrorist attack.  Yet our president thinks nothing of the possibility of willfully inviting into our country such human dregs.  What is he thinking?  Based on past performance I think I know.  Quote: "One of the alleged attackers reportedly used a Syrian passport to enter Europe and travel across the country under the shelter of asylum, according to multiple reports. The individual reportedly entered Europe among a wave of refugees in Greece before traveling to France. “The bomber falsely declared himself to be a Syrian named Ahmad al Muhammad, born on September 10, 1990, and was allowed to enter Greece on October 3,” according to a French lawmaker who spoke to CNN."

WOW!!!  This Muslim Pop Star says a mouthful and does she ever tell the truth.   History being what it is her life may be in danger.

What's the cost of all of this Obama scheme?  Quote: "It costs U.S. taxpayers nearly $65,000 to resettle one Middle Eastern refugee over the first five years, which is 12 times what it would cost to care for that same refugee in a neighboring country in the region, according to a new study.  The Center for Immigration Studies cites “heavy welfare use” as the main reason why refugees are so costly to resettle. This flies in the face of oft-quoted comments by U.S. mayors who claim refugees add to their tax base and promote economic growth, making for a more “culturally diverse” and “economically resilient” city.  The CIS study indicates they are more of a drain on the economy than a boost.  The $64,370 cost to U.S. taxpayers over five years is a “conservative estimate” presented in a new study released by CIS’ chief researcher and statistician."

If you have been following the illegal immigration and the unthinkable load of Muslim refugees being actively recruited by the Obama administration you are fully aware of the devastation this will bring to our country.  Check out the Pew Research numbers and commentary. Quote: "What immigration does profoundly effect is the labor market. As Passel explains, “It makes a difference in the growth in the labor force.” This is why NumbersUSA continues to fight for sensible immigration levels, because greatly expanding the size of the labor market through immigration drives down wages and drives up unemployment. Immigration is a plus for America as long as levels are moderate and consistent with the interest of U.S. citizens and legal residents already here. A U.S. immigration system that successfully assimilates the foreign-born into American society makes numbers a priority. As Roy Beck said in a USA Today story on the Pew report, If you want to have a good situation for immigrants, there's a threshold that you’ve got to keep it below.”   

It is beyond me why anybody believes that Muslims are peace loving nice guys and that we should welcome them with open arms into our country.  Take a peek at what this Muslim religious leader has to say.  Quote: "A video recently surfaced of an interview with a so-called “moderate” Muslim cleric on a Norwegian TV show. The video has gone viral because it shows an Islamic leader in the West being honest about what Islam teaches when it comes to non-Muslims."  Get that?  He is a moderate....  And, "In response to questions about Muslim violence against non-Muslims, Mullah Krekar tells Norwegian TV that not only is it okay for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, it’s actually required by Qu’ranic law. Further the imam says that “Muslims have the right to Kill anyone who does not respect Islam.”  Yet our president and the liberals/progressives love them, just like they love the black lives matter crowd.  Both are anarchists and communist leaning, if not committed communists whether they know it or not. What does that make the liberal left/Democrats?

This Muslim makes their intent very clear in this piece.   This is the reality despite what Progressive elitists/leftists want us to believe.  Quote: "Islam is a religion of violence: Or, why abstract theology actually matters."

This will be a consequence of embracing liberal/Democrat/progressivism/Obama's immigration policy and why his efforts absolutely must be halted.  Europeans are now clamoring for guns to protect themselves and their families from hoards of illegal/Muslim immigrants.   

If you still don't think Muslims are a problem for us, check this out.  And, you can be sure that our liberal/progressive government and media will act like the same type media in Germany.  Quote: "Then there is the coverup of these atrocities by the German government and media.  "Mainstream media coverage of this is scarce, because it embarrasses the government of Hessen and it embarrasses Berlin," said Benesch."   This is another example...

Muslims demonstrate that they have absolutely no respect for anyone who differs from them/adhere to their way of thinking.  Come to think of it that also a characteristic of leftist/progressives in our country.  This item makes the point regarding Muslims.

Regarding Obama's seriously flawed immigration policies, consider this shocking fact.  Quote: "As if the President Obama’s sweeping amnesty measures haven’t compromised national security enough, the administration let 1,519 “inadmissible” foreigners embroiled in terrorism into the U.S. last year because the crimes were committed “while under duress.”   I consider this treason - he knowingly granted amnesty to known terrorists because "he" thinks they "only" did it because they were under duress.  Meanwhile he deports 27 Christian Iraqis seeking asylum from murderous Muslims because "he" doesn't think they deserve amnesty.  What a guy...    And if that is not enough, he and the liberal left are ignoring evidence of just how bad these policies are.  Here is what the people in Europe have learned from their experience.  And  believe me they are not happy.    This makes matters worse, much worse.  The government admits there is no way they can vet any of these people Obama is bringing into our country.   In other words Obama does not care if terrorists are among those he brings in. 

Think the justice system is following the Constitution or making current Obama driven politically correct decisions?  Both Judge Napolitano's and Megyn Kelley's comment are right on target.  Quote: "Noting that the Muslim drivers knew full well what their job would entail before they even took the jobs, Napolitano went on to point out that Obama’s regime was more interested in making a point in favor of Muslims than in making a point in favor of religious liberty.  For her part, host Megyn Kelly reminded her audience that the argument used against Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis–the woman who didn’t want to give out gay marriage licenses–is suddenly not being used against these Muslim truck drivers. Kelly said that critics told Davis “If you can’t do the job, don’t take the job” or resign, and she noted that the same argument should be used against these Muslim truck drivers but isn’t."

I have mentioned this before but it is well worth repeating after the mainstream media lambasted presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson for his comments about Islam and the instructions contained in their holy books.  Quote: He explained that the word "Taqiyya, in Islam, is sacred lying.  Muslims are allowed, according to Islamic doctrine, to lie to protect themselves or their ideology from being harmed by those who believe differently."  The fact is that Carson was right and the media wrong. But they don't care about facts. They are just doing their "self-appointed" duty to protect their agenda by deception, lying, propagandizing rather than informing the public with real facts.  Obama, the media and the whole range of Muslim apologists across our land are either on purpose or out of ignorance applying the word "taquyya" to their own leftist/progressive agenda - protect Islam but kill Christianity (which by the way DOES NOT condone lying).  

This is off topic but follows up on the previous item. The basic point is that the political left whether intentional or not applies the Islamic word "taqiyya," as a tool their progressive left/liberal/Democrat arsenal to promote their agenda on a whole range of fronts.  Anyone who does not see that is ignoring the evidence right before their eyes.  This is but one example of how the left uses the word "taqiyya" to serve their interests.   And, here is one of their leading purveyors applying the technique.  She attacked the questioner and offered a non-answer (taqiyya) and dissembled in response to a legitimate question to protect one of the left's sacred cows.  I could offer up many more examples just as blatant but you get the point.

If you think Obama is not trying to transform our country then you are not paying attention.  This piece gives you a glimpse of what he is creating.  Muslims making demands will become the norm.  Quote: "Muslim immigrants represent the fastest growing population of immigrants in the United States. Between 2010 and 2013, Obama’s administration brought in nearly 300,000 Muslims. A number that is far more than the number of immigrants who came legally from Mexico and Central America during that same period.  And Obama is planning to bring hundreds of thousands more to this country in the near future.  Obama has already made it clear that Muslims have preferred status here in the U.S., as evidenced by the recent ‘Clock boy’ incident and his refusal to name Islamic terror attacks what they are.  Even the Department of Education is catering more and more toward Islam while continuing to marginalize Christianity.

This is what will eventually reach our shores if Obama is not stopped and if people roll over every time Muslims seek to gain control of our culture by demanding we give in to theirs.  If you do not want our children to suffer this fate you have to become proactive.  By believing that someone else will do it guarantees the Muslims will eventually be successful.

Do you need more convincing that Muslims intend to take over?  Just consider this Muslim declaration to Germans.
What do you think about this scheme pulled off by an illegal and his young looking male lover?

And, Finally.   Purveyors of political correctness know no bounds.  They simply cannot control their PC efforts which do nothing but demean our language and certainly do nothing to advance our culture.

George Burns

The UN

We have in the past addressed the problems with the UN and its global control ambitions.  While this is not specifically about the UN the last paragraph ties together prior dialogue to the idiocy of UN pontifications. 

Yes indeed.  The UN has big plans.   I ask you how does the UN think it can pay for a massive effort such as this? 

Here is more on the UN.  It is a must read for anyone wanting to know how the UN is slowly but insidiously grasping control of the lives of innocent people across the world.  People in the Western World will suffer the most from the ultimate consequences wrought by unelected bureaucrats at the UN because third world nations are already where the UN wants us to be.  This is not fantasy nor is it a conspiracy theory.  It is real.  Tom DeWeese is a long time expert in this area and his words are to be trusted.  Quote: "The UN just wrapped up yet another international meeting attended by thousands of delegates and world leaders. This time they introduced and unanimously approved the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This is the 17 Goal reboot of Agenda 21 with plans to fully enforce it by 2030. Many people ask me who writes these Agendas and who attends these meetings. And especially people ask how they wield so much power and influence over our government. It’s a vast matrix composed of both private Non-governmental Organizations (NGO) groups and representatives of the UN and representatives of a large number of US federal agencies – all working together behind the scenes, quietly making policy for the rest of us."
This item reinforces the notion that both the Republican and Democrat presidents/elitists commit despicable acts/cut secret deals.  This item may surprise some but it did not surprise me.  It is truly time for a clean sweep of the progressive political, academic, crony capitalist, financiers and independently wealthy elites from their total control over matters that affect us all.  It will not happen until we all collectively express our views, demonstrate, raise our voices, write letters to the editor, attend town hall meeting,  write letters to elected representatives, etc., etc, etc,.  Dishonesty, conniving, self-serving, power seeking, greed, lies and criminality run rampant in the halls of power.

Quote: "Let’s consider the Paris Climate Summit (COP21), scheduled to start on November 30 in Paris. No less than 120 nations will be represented by their heads of state, including Obama. Somewhere between 20 and 40 thousand credentialed representatives are going to attend.  That gives you some idea of the importance of the event. This is a big deal. Very big. As the Scientific American states in “Paris Attack Will Not Halt Global Climate Talks”“The two weeks of talks begin Nov. 30 and will take place at Le Bourget airfield on the outskirts of Paris. They are expected to culminate in a new international agreement to lower greenhouse gas emissions and possibly put in place a system by which nearly 200 countries can regularly enact new and stronger climate targets.”  The Paris summit is the most ambitious effort yet to impose the pseudoscience of global warming on the planet. Lower CO2 emissions, carbon taxes, cap and trade, the whole works. Result? Reduce energy output and supplies for all nations, deepening poverty, increasing chaos."

This piece takes a look at the individual vs the collective.  Leftist propaganda seeks to subjugate the individual and extoll the collective.  Wiping out the importance of individuals has long been a goal of purveyors of collectivism at the UN.  It is easier to control compliant masses.  

Some Things to Think About (our President).

This is a must read.  It regards the Obama administration's disturbing partial list of potential terrorists as documented in official government documents.  Anyone with common sense will arrive at the conclusion that our far left wing government must think most Americans are potential terrorists.  And a sane person would also conclude that most if not all the 72 groups identified in this list do not belong there.  Each group is linked to the document in which it is listed.  Actual terrorist groups are also identified.  A scan of the documents suggests, at least to me, there must be flawed reasoning behind some of its criteria.  Likewise, in my view at least some of the resource organizations the government used to identify potential terrorists themselves qualify as  'Hate" groups and likely deserve membership as potential terrorists.  The Southern Poverty Law Center for example.  My brief foray into this matter left me with the distinct feeling that power elitists/bureaucracies in our government are suffering from paranoia and are afraid of losing their control over us, that we are enemies of the government rather that the citizens it is suppose to serve.  Among a number of factors causing me to have this feeling are the huge number of weapons and stocks of ammunition purchased by the government while simultaneously pursuing incessant efforts to disarm law abiding citizens. It has purchased those weapons/ammunition over the past several years to arm federal bureaucracies, even those having no law enforcement responsibilities.  In addition the government has purchased massive amounts of preserved (survival) food supplies (for what purpose?) and without much fanfare Obama has undertaken initiatives which trend towards federalizing local police forces (again for what purpose?).  I ask you, do these actions depict a federal government looking after our interests or its self serving interests in maintaining its own power and control over the rest of us?  Here is just one example of government bureaucracies buying weapons and you think the EPA needs to be armed?  If they do, why.

Obama's buddy, Bill Ayres of Weather Underground infamy, tells black lives matter crowd to fan the flames.  He is Obama's friend and like Obama an enemy of our country.  Quote: "Bill Ayers, the former colleague of President Obama who co-founded the domestic terrorist group Weather Underground, acknowledged in a radio interview the revolutionary ideology driving the Black Lives Matter movement.  “I have been very energetic in my support of Black Lives Matter,” Ayers told host Eugene Puryear of the online radio show “Liberation Radio,” produced by an activist group called the Party for Socialism and Liberation. The interview with Ayers, a retired professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, took place Friday. In a September interview with the Yale campus paper, Ayers boast of his influence on the 2008 election of Obama and described himself as “a First Amendment fundamentalist that is also a socialist, anarchist and communist.” 

The man and a large swath of his fellow leftist travelers are deceivers, or illogical, or irrational, or ignorant of obvious facts or all of the above.  You decide.  Quote: "But the willful convenience of the left to refuse to label ISIS what it is — Islamic — causes fundamental problems with strategy. We have heard now from a President of the United States who treats ISIS as just another fringe group bitterly clinging to their guns and religion, though which religion he dares not say. To him, there is nothing that can be done. The academic elitist in Barack Obama believes ISIS is just four hundred years behind Christianity and will grow up. In the mean time, a left that thinks ISIS is not Islamic and boys can declare themselves to be girls is incapable of addressing the threat in a rational way because they fail to understand the enemy."   More.

And here's one more item in follow up the previous one. Quote: "At the G-20 Summit in Turkey on Monday, Obama was put on the defensive by reporters questioning his strategy against ISIS and his unwillingness to alter it in the wake of the Paris attack.
Obama declared ISIS “does not represent Islam; it is not representative in any way of the attitudes of the overwhelming majority of Muslims.”  Savage said “even the liberal progressive reporters sat with their mouths agape as they listened to the rubbish” coming from Obama."

Quote: "In a clear display of his disdain for the office of the President and the united States as a whole, Barack Hussein Obama, in detailing his lack of strategy for dealing with the Islamic State, said that he was not interested in "pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning."  His remarks come just days after the Muslim jihadi attacks on Paris, France that left over one hundred people dead and hundreds more injured at the hands of what the Islamic State has taken responsibility for.  Obama has sent thousands of US forces to advise and train Iraqi troops, something that obviously didn't work after years of that being conducted in Iraq by US troops and clearly demonstrated in the fall of Ramadi to Islamic State forces, which led to the Islamic State acquiring weapons, military vehicles and tanks as those Iraqis who were trained fled the scene as cowards. Each of these troops have been sent to Iraq without any Congressional authority being given to do so, something that isdemanded by the Constitution. The President doesn't have the authority under our Constitution to willy nilly move troops around and put them in situations like that, but a spineless Congress continues to allow."

This piece deals with the legal issues created by irresponsible, even illegal, activities perpetrated by the Obama administration.  Quote: "It was our great Founding Father and third American president, Thomas Jefferson, who declared that when the people fear the government there is tyranny, but when the government fears the people there is liberty. Jefferson also advocated a revolution perhaps every generation, simply to clean house of the political cockroaches that he believed would likely infest our nation’s capital, as he had an excellent understanding of human behavior and the powers that corrupt. Jefferson, like many of his peers, was a “Renaissance man,” schooled and steeped in philosophy and other intellectual pursuits."

But that is not the liberal way.  Quote: "Interpol: Allowing Citizens To Carry Guns In Public Is Most Effective Way To Prevent Terror Attacks.

One more item about Hillary.  Referring to the seven accomplishments mentioned on her website, "The very fact that Hillary Clinton considers those things to be “accomplishments” that she should be applauded for as opposed to things that should evoke eye-rolling and “Is she serious?” comments tells you a lot about why she shouldn’t be President.  Of course, the real problem Hillary has isn’t that she doesn’t have achievements; it’s just that they’re not exploits that anyone would want to base a run at the Presidency on.

Obama, the tyrant.  That label follows because of his multiple unconstitutional executive actions. Two quotes: "Yet the Department of Justice has refused to indict even IRS official Lois Lerner, who invoked her Fifth Amendment right to silence to avoid incriminating herself in testimony before Congress."  And, "Unfortunately, the failure to prosecute anyone responsible for abusing the IRS’s authority reflects the Obama administration’s broader contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law."

Is it cognitive dissonance or what?  From the beginning of his tenure in office he has supported Islam in all manner of ways.  Either he is ignorant of the dangers of Islamic terrorism or he abides with it.  It cant be much else given his demonstrated record of defending the terrorists while willing to label others as terrorists.  Quote: "Obama has never, not once, mentioned Islam as being in the business of terrorism, despite their founder Muhammad being known for engaging in terror and the 1,400 year track record of Islam being one of terror. In fact, I don't think he is capable of uttering the words "Islamic terrorism," and he certainly does not believe the world is at war with his beloved Islam. Yet, it has been his administration training, arming and funding these savages."

Our president has a real grip on this ISIS thing.  The day before the Paris attacks, he declared that we have ISIS under control.  What a bunch of crock.   Quote: "Seated somewhere in a parallel universe the day before the attacks, President Obama told ABC News he believed ISIS was contained and controlled. Granted, that was prior to the Paris attacks, but it was as if he was completely unaware of the group’s expansion worldwide with recent ISIS-related bombings in Beirut, the downed Russian passenger jet in Sinai, recent beheadings of women and a child in Afghanistan, and massacres in Pakistan, Iraq and Syria."   In truth, no matter what he says to the contrary, he is a radical Muslim enabler.  He was caught with his pants down with the terror inflicted in Paris.  He tries his best to minimize our understanding of the horrific movement he refuses to call out what it is, radical Islam terrorism.

The logic of liberals is totally illogical.  Quote: "On the day ISIS related terrorists spread out across Paris and killed more than one hundred people, Barack Obama claimed ISIS was “contained.” After the attacks, liberals actually tried to argue that the attacks in Paris showed how successful Barack Obama had been because ISIS was having to lash out to get attention. Yes, liberals actually argued this."

Notwithstanding continuing support by Obama and other powerful elitists for the global warming scam, more and more people are starting to understand that it is a hoax designed to destroy capitalism, redistribute global wealth (socialism/communism) and transfer control of nation state sovereignty to the United Nations.  At it's core it is a movement to install a one world government.  Global warming is merely the stalking horse which serves to frighten people with outlandish claims of global destruction if not brought under control, by them of course. They assure us that it we do not follow their prescription/cure dire consequences will follow.  Hand the reigns of our lives to them and they will keep us all safe and sound. Yeh,right!   
While it will not happen, irresponsible, lawless, egotistical, tyrannical President Obama should be impeached.

Could this be a view of our future?  A look at the Sweden experiment.

This is more about the abysmal Obama's tenure.   I can only conclude that given all the damaging things he has done to this point and continues to do is no accident.  He is by design destroying the fiscal, civil and moral foundation of our country.  The liberal/progressive left both Republicans and Democrats, the media, elitists across the spectrum are in league with him.  You may disagree but the evidence is unquestionably strong in support of that statement.  Let me know if you disagree.

And then there is Hillary who seeks to replace Obama.  Referring to seven accomplishments mentioned on her website, "The very fact that Hillary Clinton considers those things to be “accomplishments” that she should be applauded for as opposed to things that should evoke eye-rolling and “Is she serious?” comments tells you a lot about why she shouldn’t be President.  Of course, the real problem Hillary has isn’t that she doesn’t have achievements; it’s just that they’re not exploits that anyone would want to base a run at the Presidency on.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

FBI Has Nearly 1,000 Active ISIS Probes Inside U.S.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has nearly 1,000 active probes involving the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) inside the United States, dozens of law enforcement officials disclose in a letter to President Obama.

The officials are elected sheriffs in Colorado making a case against the administration’s plan to transfer terrorists held at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to facilities in the state. Forty-one of Colorado’s elected sheriffs fired off the letter after two federal prisons in Florence (Supermax and the U.S. Penitentiary) along with a state complex near Canon City were reviewed by the Pentagon for the potential transfer. The plan is part of the president’s longtime promise to close the top-security compound at the U.S. Naval base in southeast Cuba.

The big question is what will the government do with the remaining captives, indisputably the world’s most dangerous terrorists? Just a few weeks ago Obama’s Defense Secretary said that around half of the remaining 112 prisoners at Gitmo must be locked up “indefinitely.” They include 9/11 masterminds Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi as well as Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the Al-Qaeda terrorist charged with orchestrating the 2000 attack on the Navy destroyer USS Cole.

We Need To Care Less

It’s hard to look at the terrorist attack in Paris and not feel awful. It’s also hard to not feel rage. In fact, unless you’re a progressive (seriously, look at how they complained they weren’t getting enough attention for their fraud crusade while people were being slaughtered), revenge is a natural human emotion. We don’t act on it as a society anymore, but we should.

After we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, our country went all out for war. They hit us; we were going to hit them back until they begged for mercy. Germany, which had declared war on us but hadn’t attacked anything, found itself on the business end of the American ire as well, as did Italy, the little brother in the Axis Powers. They would all be completely destroyed and nearly wiped from the map by the end of World War II.

We don’t fight like that anymore. We won’t allow the military to do its job. I just got done watching Real Time with Bill Maher and hearing him whine to a bunch of liberals and his typical token polite conservative about how we can’t bomb these ISIS mongrels out of existence because they’d simply blend in to the general population. I have one word to say to that: Dresden.