Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Israeli PM Netanyahu Addresses Congress On Obama's Plan That Would Allow Iran's March To A Nuclear Arsenal

This was without doubt the most important speech PM Netanyahu has ever given and likely will ever give on a matter of our national security. Netanyahu's purpose was to educate Americans about the danger of Iran and to explain why Iran cannot be allowed to continue its efforts to build a nuclear arsenal. The threat Iran poses is not just to Israel, but to our country as well.

Did PM Netanyahu succeed? Time will tell. Unfortunately, many Democrat Congressmen and women boycotted the speech, making this issue of national defense a partisan political issue. And equally unfortunately, the major networks boycotted the speech, refusing to carry it. If the speech is to have its effect, it will have to break through a Democrat wall of silence.

PM Netanyahu gave a good summary of the Iranian theocracy's incredible record of bloodshed, aggression, conquest and terror. Not since its inception in 1979 has the theocracy moderated its actions, nor changed its targeting of Israel, Jews and Americans. And indeed, even as Iran develops its nuclear arsenal, it also is developing Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM). The only purpose of ICBM's is to reach out and touch countries at great distance, including the U.S., with nuclear weapons.

When Obama ran for President in 2008, he stated that under no circumstances would he allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons. Iran had to stop enriching uranium. And yet now, President Obama is negotiating a deal that would leave Iran with its nuclear program intact and, as it is currently constituted, a nuclear arsenal inevitable. It's insane. In trying to justify this plan, Susan Rice claimed that its impossible to stop Iran's nuclear enrichment. That is just ridiculous.

If Iran truly needs nuclear power for peaceful purpose -- which, given their oil and gas supplies, they do not -- then there are certainly reactor types that can provide it without also providing the enriched uranium and plutonium used for nuclear weapons. But what Iran has, between its reactors and heavy water plant, is a factory for producing nuclear bombs.

We were well on the way to breaking the Iranian economy with international sanctions when Iran held out the possibility of a deal to Obama and he bit like a trout on a worm. He dispensed with much of the international sanctions regime as he had dreams of doing a deal with the mad mullahs. The outlines of that deal are now clear. Iran get's to continue its march to a nuclear weapon while Obama claims some sort of hollow diplomatic victory. For the sake of our national security, Obama must never be allowed to complete this deal.

Let's hope that the Prime Minister's speech has its desired effect. The lives of our children and their children depend on it.


The Genius Of Obama In Uniting Israel & The Sunni Arab States

Try for a moment to imagine any scenario where a U.S. President has united Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt in mutual accord? Try to imagine a scenario where Saudi Arabian newspaper columnists are penning their full throated support and hope for the success of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu? That is the stuff of which Nobel Peace Prize's are made. And Obama has accomplished it.

This is the concluding paragraph of an article penned by Dr. Ahmad Al-Faraj yesterday, appearing in the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah:

Since Obama is the godfather of the prefabricated revolutions in the Arab world, and since he is the ally of political Islam, [which is] the caring mother of [all] the terrorist organizations, and since he is working to sign an agreement with Iran that will come at the expense of the U.S.'s longtime allies in the Gulf, I am very glad of Netanyahu's firm stance and [his decision] to speak against the nuclear agreement at the American Congress despite the Obama administration's anger and fury. I believe that Netanyahu's conduct will serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more than the foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents. Do you agree with me?

Obama, with his insane policy of trying to deal with the mad mullahs and bless off on their nuclear program has managed to do the impossible. If they give out Nobel Peace Prize's for wholly unintended consequences, Obama should be a shoe-in. And extra points to the Saudi columnist for recognizing Obama's place in the pantheon of U.S. Presidents.


Stonewalling & A Government Unafraid

In 2012, Landmark Legal Foundation submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to EPA. By law, EPA was required to timely respond. They didn't, and indeed, they seem to have purposely clouded their actions so that, even at this date, it is not clear whether the EPA ever fully responded to the request and whether they destroyed evidence. The Landmark Legal Foundation brought suit against EPA for these failures, and in a depressingly useless 25 page opinion issued yesterday, Judge Royce Lamberth castigated the EPA, found misconduct, yet held no one, including the EPA itself, liable. There are no criminal or professional referrals. Indeed, the Judge even bemoaned the fact that the EPA would very likely continue its pattern of misconduct despite the findings in the case.

This is par for the course in our country today. No one is held liable. There are no consequences for those in government.

- The travesty of the IRS investigation has been going on for two years now. The IRS may well have tipped the balance in the 2012 election. We now know that people have been lying about the availability of documentary evidence, and yet no one is being held accountable.

- In Benghazi, the government refused for years to provide relevant information. They claimed to have conducted an internal investigation -- a whitewash that deliberately excluded the upper echelons of the State Dept. -- and reassigned a few people.

- After years of stonewalling on the Fast and Furious documents, the Obama administration claimed executive privilege, turning discovery into a snails pace.

- We have Obamacare today because the DOJ prosecuted Sen Ted Stevens of Alaska under false pretenses. Stevens lost his re-election bid but the DOJ attorneys, whose "egregious" acts included hiding evidence from the defense. To date, those in charge of the prosecution in the upper levels of the DOJ have not been held liable.

- In 2007 we suffered the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. While it's causes were firmly rooted in government, at least some aspects of our economic system were criminally corrupted, in particular the bond rating companies that gave AAA status to subprime loans. Yet not a single individual has been held liable for any of that, and with Dodd Frank, many of the practices that led to our economic crisis are being repeated.

As Hillary famously asked about Benghazi, "what difference does it make?"

Well, to answer, it's the difference between liberty and tyranny. It is the difference between repeating catastrophic errors and or correcting for them. But, because the DOJ and the MSM are, today, largely arms of the Democrat Party, and because Congress is largely supine, none of this will be addressed. It will not change. Judge Lamberth can shake his fist at the EPA all he wants. Until there are heads on pikes, it is useless. And until then, our government will become ever more corrupt.

Update: The NYT has broken a story apparently leaked from the Benghazi Select Committee being chaired by Congressman Trey Gowdy. One of the mysteries surrounding the Benghazi intestigations has been why so little correspondence was produced from then Sec. of State Hillary Clinton. Today we learn, because Hillary, in a clear violation of protocol and almost certainly the law, routed all her correspondence while Sec. of State through a personal e-mail account, one that she set up on the day of her confirmation hearings for Sec. of State. I really want to hear her under oath asking "What difference does it make?" The likelihood that she'll be held to account for this . . . I won't recommend holding your breath.


Monday, March 2, 2015

Wolf Bites

Semper speed dial: If You Want Something Done, Ask A Marine

More Mysterious Than The Setting Of The Sun: CNN’S ‘Religion Expert’ Has Absolutely No Idea Why ISIS Is Targeting Christians

Given The Track Record Of The Blue Urban Governing Model, Who Could Have Seen This Coming: Chicago Nears Fiscal Freefall

Measured Against What Moral Code?: Can Atheists Be Moral Too

I Called This In 2008: Dodd-Frank institutionalized bailouts and bad banking practices

A Timely Public Service Announcement: Don't Drink

When Cops Go Bad: Video Exonerates Man Set Up By Louisiana Police

Stand At Attention & Salute: National Commando Day


Sunday, March 1, 2015

Netenyahu To Speak As Obama and The Mad Mullahs Slouch Towards Bethleham

Barack Obama intends the centerpiece of his foreign policy legacy to be a de facto alliance with Iran–a stroke so brilliant that only he could think of it. The U.S. will set Iran up as the dominant regional power in the Middle East, in part by allowing it to develop the nuclear capability for which its rulers have long yearned, and in exchange, Iran will keep the peace and subdue troublesome upstarts like ISIS. To someone who grew up thinking that the call to prayer from a minaret is one of the most beautiful sounds on Earth, this might make some kind of sense. To those of us forced to live in the real world, it is bonkers.

John Hinderaker, Powerline, The Mullahs: Still Crazy After All These Years

The left has continuously and catastophicly misjudged Iran's theocracy since 1979, when Jimmy Carter made Iran's theorcratic revolution possible. Carter wholly misunderstood the ideology and threat of Ayatollah Khomeini, allowing him back into Iran to take over the revolution under the belief that Khomeini was rational and could be swayed by American economic benefits. We are still paying for Carter's catastophic naivety today, as Iran remains the single most destabilizing influence, not just in the Middle East, but the world. You can read the roll-up of Iran's actions here. Since I wrote that in 2008, little has changed other than Iran's machinations are starting to pay off. The theocracy is playing an ever-more dominant role in Iraq, and the Shia rebels they were backing in Yemen have forced that country's leadership to flee. The rebels now control the capital.

Now things portend to get much worse. Obama too misjudges Iran, seeing them as a ratonal actor that can be a "partner for peace" in the Middle East and that can be entrusted with nuclear weapons. To call Obama's plans "bonkers," as John Hinderaker does in the quote at the top of this post, is to understate the existential danger of Obama's plan by an infinite order of magnitude. While Israel of course sees this Obama madness as the greatest of dangers, it is certainly not just Israel in the Iranian sites. If anyone in this country does not see the same existential danger to America and Western civilization as a whole, they are suicidally delusional. Yet if nothing is done to derail this insanity, the Obama deal, a deal of Chamberlainesque proportions, will be done.

Enter PM Bibi Netanyahu, who will speak to Congress this week. Obama is pulling out all the stops to delegitimize Netanyahu and his speech, for it really is only the Israeli PM and his ability to sway American public opinion that can stop Obama's suicidal march. As Caroline Glick writes:

Netanyahu is not coming to Washington next Tuesday to warn Congress against Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, because he seeks a fight with Obama. Netanyahu has devoted the last six years to avoiding a fight with Obama, often at great cost to Israel’s national security and to his own political position.

Netanyahu is coming to Washington next week because Obama has left him no choice. And all decent people of good will should support him, and those who do not, and those who are silent, should be called out for their treachery and cowardice.

Treachery and cowardice indeed. Unfortunately, such people rarely pay the price their acts so justly deserve. As it is, Obama and the entire left, whose hands are bloodied from throwing away our victory in Iraq for the benefit of their domestic political narrative, will pay no price except perhaps in the history books, assuming our nation survives to write them.

I'll shift gears here and close this post with the single most prophetic and troubling poem ever written. It's by William Butler Yeats, who penned it in 1921, in the wake of the horrific destruction wrought in World War I. And when one thinks of the world today, it is far too easy to think that it could have been penned to describe our reality.

The Second Coming
by William Butler Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Update: This from the sidebar and headline on Drudge at the moment:

Netanyahu takes off on 'historic' US mission...
Tickets in High Demand Despite Dems' Boycott...
White House Offers Rebuttal Before Speech...
Collision Course 6 Years in Making...
KRISTOL: Vindication for Zionism...
Kerry asks for benefit of doubt on Iran...
Palestinian activist: Boycott of Israeli products begins...



Egypt Designates Hamas A Terrorist Organization

A tiny bit of good news for the forces of civilization. An Egyptian Court has declared Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood offshoot currently in control of the Gaza strip, a "terrorist organization." This from al-Jazeera:

A judicial source told AFP news agency that the court issued the verdict on Saturday, a ruling seen as keeping with a systematic crackdown on Islamist groups by President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. . . .

Egyptian authorities have accused Hamas of aiding armed groups, who have waged a string of deadly attacks on security forces in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula.

In January, an Egyptian court also declared Hamas' armed wing al-Qassam Brigades a "terrorist" group. . . .

Armed groups in Sinai have killed scores of policemen and soldiers since Morsi's overthrow, vowing revenge for a crackdown on his supporters that has left more than 1,400 people dead. Most of the attacks however have been claimed by the armed group Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, which has pledged its allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

There has been no word yet on whether Egypt acknowledges Hamas to be associated with Islam (sarcasm).

The Obama administration has been at odds with Egypt's current administration under President al Sisi since it came to power in a coup in 2013, overthrowing a Muslim Brotherhood administration and Obama ally that was intent on making Egypt into a permanent theocracy. In striking comparison to Obama, President al Sisi is the only politician on a national stage who has had the courage to openly charge that Islamic teachings motivate and cause terrorism. He did so at the same time he challenged the supreme religious council in Egypt to address and correct these teachings.


Saturday, February 28, 2015

Wolf Bites

Standing Athwart (AP) History: College Board AP U.S. History Standards Would Teach US History Through The Lens Of the Oppressed versus the Oppressor

Obama, Reid & Pelosi Makes Four: Bush Defends His Support For Immigration & Common Core

Go Green, Rev Your SUV: Carbon Dioxide Greening The Planet

The Left's Continued Drive To Do Away With The Judeo-Christian Religion: South Carolina college scrutinized for 'biblical' stance on homosexuality

Ummm, No, Don't Think So: Megan McCardle Thinks It's Time To Give Jonathan Gruber A Break

That Was Fast: A Brief History Of The Speed of Light

Pondering The Unponderable: The Mechanics Of An 800kt Nuclear Explosion Over Manhattan

Doesn't She Look Good In Her DNA?: Constructing A Face From A DNA Sample


Straying Off The Left's Plantation On Islamic Terrorism

Tulsi Gabbard is a thirty-three year old combat veteran and a Democrat Representative for Hawaii. She is also in the midst of learning a harsh lesson in Democrat politics. One does not stray off the Democrat's plantation.

Rep. Gabbard's sin is to be harshly critical of President Obama's refusal to admit that the atrocities being committed around the world by soldiers of Allah for the glory of Islam are in any way associated with Islam. Ms. Gabbard, calling the President's refusal to make the association "mind boggling," has opined:

Every soldier knows this simple fact: If you don't know your enemy, you will not be able to defeat him. . . Our leaders must clearly identify the enemy as Islamist extremists, understand the ideology that is motivating them and attracting new recruits, and focus on defeating that enemy both militarily and ideologically.

She could not be more correct. She is sounding a theme made on this blog for a decade now. And yet, for making that point repeatedly in the wake of the most recent ISIS atrocities and the like, Rep. Gabbard is now suffering the consequences of speaking against the party line:

Her comments have stunned political experts in her home state.

“It is very, very unusual for a junior member in the president's own party to criticize him,” said Colin Moore, assistant professor at the University of Hawaii Department of Political Science. “Especially for someone considered a rising star in the party. This is a serious gamble for her.”

Michael W. Perry, of Hawaii's most popular KSSK Radio's "Perry & Price Show," said that "while Gabbard is correct in her 'emperor has no clothes' moment, she may have lost her future seat on Hawaii's political bench." He said she's committed "a mortal sin" by challenging Obama, and "now the knives are out."

For now, she's taking her hits in the media.

The editorial board of the online political news journal Civil Beat, owned by eBay Founder Pierre Omiydar, said "the bright-red Right" is promoting her criticism but she is not "presenting serious policy arguments."

"One wonders where Gabbard is going with this. Sure, the Iraq war veteran and rising political star is achieving national prominence in a high-profile discussion. But at what cost?" the editorial board wrote, saying her comments could be dismissed "as pandering from a young pol with lofty ambitions."

Bob Jones, columnist for the Oahu-based Midweek, wrote a scathing piece suggesting Gabbard should be challenged in 2016. "I take serious issue when somebody who's done a little non-fighting time in Iraq, and is not a Middle East or Islamic scholar, claims to know better than our President and Secretary of State how to fathom the motivations of terrorists, or how to refer to them beyond the term that best describes them -- terrorists," Jones said.

Right, because the Obama foreign policy as regards Islam and the Middle East has been such a ringing success that it shoudl be beyond debate. What an idiot Mr. Jones is.

As to Ms. Gabbard, a free range intellectually honest democrat is so rare to spot in the wild, really. Haven't seen any since the days of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Zell Miller. Well, maybe Manchin. Jury is still out on him. But one that looks good on a beach in Hawaii . . . that's unique.


Friday, February 27, 2015

Obama's Suicidal Complicity In Iranian Nukes

Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents - Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. . . . There can be little doubt that their destabilizing foreign policies are a threat to the interests of the United States, to the interests of every country in the Middle East, and to the interests of all countries within the range of the ballistic missiles Iran is developing.

Sec of Defense Robert Gates, 2007

As bad as the news is today in the domestic arena (FCC, Illegal Immigration, IRS, HHS), the actions of the Obama regime in the international arena are orders of magnitude worse. For while all the destruction Obama has wrought in the domestic arena can, theoretically, be fixed, the same is not true of his duplicitous and suicidal dealings with Iran, where the stakes are so high and so time sensitive that to get it wrong is to court apocalyptic disaster.

Iran is the penultimate rogue state. I won't recount all the facts, you can read them here. Suffice it to say that Iran, a theocracy being run as a violent, crony capitalist police state, is as dangerous to the world as a rabid dog is to everyone within range of its fangs. Its leaders are every bit as irrational, triumphalist, expansionist and evil as was Hitler. To allow the mad mullahs to obtain a nuclear arsenal is beyond unthinkable. A nuclear armed Iran presents an immediate existential threat to Israel as well as to all of Western civilization. Moreover, Iran's drive for a nuclear aresenal is already setting off nuclear proliferation in other Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia, the nation whose toxic brand of Islam, Wahhabism, is the core ideology at the heart of ISIS, al Qaeda and virtually all Sunni Islamic inspired terrorism of our era. Imagine if you will, nuclear weapons diffuse throughout the deeply unstable Middle East. The hands of the doomsday clock will soom be spinning at the speed of a fan, and death on a massive scale virtually inevitable.

None of this is new. It is why, for years, our nation has tried to end Iran's nuclear program, and do it short of war. It is why there have been six U.N. Security Council Resolutions demanding an end to Iran's nuclear enrichment program. One would think that Obama and the left, who worship at the altar of international law, would demand that Iran do just that, end the program. That is the only viable option.

But Obama has, with the surety of Neville Chamberlain vis a vis Hitler in 1937, believed from the start that Iran's theorcracy are rational actors, people with whom he can negotiate. He sees the mad mullahs as potential partners in Middle East peace. And to that end, he has dismantled the crushing regime of economic sanctions the Bush regime built, block by block, in an effort to stop Iran's enrichment program short of war. And now, Obama is negotiating a deal with Iran that will allow their enrichment program not merely to continue, but "will put Iran on a glide path to the acquisition of nuclear weapons over a period of years."

Charles Krauthammer sounds the warning bells today:

The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling. Iran was being granted the “right to enrich.” It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed . . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

Bad enough. Then it got worse:

News leaked Monday of the “sunset clause.” President Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. After which, the mullahs can crank up their nuclear program at will and produce as much enriched uranium as they want. Sanctions lifted. Restrictions gone. Nuclear development legitimized. Iran would re-enter the international community, as Obama suggested in an interview last December, as “a very successful regional power.” A few years — probably around ten — of good behavior and Iran would be home free. The agreement thus would provide a predictable path to an Iranian bomb. Indeed, a flourishing path, with trade resumed, oil pumping, and foreign investment pouring into a restored economy.

Meanwhile, Iran’s intercontinental-ballistic-missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It’s not even part of these negotiations. Why is Iran building them? You don’t build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. Nor does Iran need an ICBM to hit Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Intercontinental missiles are for reaching, well, other continents. North America, for example.

Such an agreement also means the end of nonproliferation. When a rogue state defies the world, continues illegal enrichment, and then gets the world to bless an eventual unrestricted industrial-level enrichment program, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead. And regional hyperproliferation becomes inevitable as Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and others seek shelter in going nuclear themselves.

Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? . . .

The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. . . .

Do read the entire article. Krauthammer goes on to prudently recommend we reimpose sanctions on the mad mullahs and demand they stop enrichment. If we do not, if we allow Obama to complete this madness, we sign the death warrant of Western Civilization.


Thursday, February 26, 2015

Daily Wolf Bites

Ah, Schadenfreude: White Liberals Are Learning That No Amount Of Privilege-Checking Can Save Them From The Folly They Have Unleashed/

Human nature being what it is . . .: South Korea decriminalizes adultery, condom shares soar...

Well, Every Plantation Must Have An Overseer: Legendary black media exec unloads on president...'Uses' Sharpton to 'control the negroes'

They're more likely to find Klingons on Uranus: The Plan To Find Aliens On Europa

Stand and speak: Van Der Luen's 'The Dick Dialogues'

The Picture of the Day: Caption This


The "Do You Think Obama Love's This Country" Got'cha Question -- It's A Left / Right Issue

I attended the dinner in New York City last week during which Rudy Giuliani — an unexpected last-minute crasher — claimed President Obama “doesn’t love America.” The people there reacted the way you would when an angry uncle explodes at the Thanksgiving dinner table: with embarrassed silence. I had been told the dinner was off-the-record, so I didn’t write up his comments, but by midnight, the story was everywhere.

John Fund, National Review, 22 Feb. 2015

The left likes to sneer at “love of country” comments and, indeed, uses them to marginalize people who make them as tea party nutters. Their criticism rests on two unspoken propositions -- "How DARE You?" and "look at how stupid and unsophisticated this idiot is." This articulation of contempt does impact on those low information types in the middle, unfortunately. Proof of that is how quickly the left was to question Republican presidential candidates on whether they agreed with Guiliani. Dana Milbank at WaPo is making a cottage industry out of asking Got'cha questions of this type to Scott Walker than labeling him unfit for failing to answer.

Let me answer the question. One cannot be a leftie and love any country within Western civiization, all being based on the Judeo-Christian ethic and capitalism in its varied forms. Period. Lefties look to the history of their country and see it as either intrinsicaly evil as a whole or at least at its foundational level, because it was, ostensibly, founded on oppression and exploitation.

So how does a sophisticated leftie define love of country? It is not based on the past, it is based on a vision of the future. What the left has is a utopian “social justice” vision (Marx 2.0) for ______ (insert name of Western country here) that they love, and of course they love being in a society where they can gain the power to move it in that direction. Indeed, it’s their raison d’etre.

When a non-leftist like Guiliani says that he loves his country, he is basing that on it’s imperfect history, looking back realisticly and saying that the good has far outweighed the bad, and there is intense pride in being a part of it, warts and all. Questionable incidents are teaching points, not unforgivable sins that forever stain and corrupt.

Want an example, look to the U.S. Constitution. Most on the right revere the Constitution as being greatest foundation for liberty in the history of man. It was imperfect at the time, and in light of slavery and other ills, aspirational, but without the Constitution, we never would have joined and then advanced to correct those ills. That is not the way the left sees it. The battle cry of the race hustlers is the unforgivable sin of slavery and agreement to the Three/Fifths Compromise. The battle cry of the modern feminist movement is to see the Constitution as merely another document ensconcing patriarchy. How many on the left would like to see the Constitution done away with as being anachronistic and an impediment to progress? And don't forget a few years ago, when Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg recommended that any nation drafting a new Constitution not look to the U.S.

Unfortunately, few on the right pose their love of country comments in full historical context, and no one on the left is ever asked a love of country question posed in the proper context, such as “Looking back on all of our history, all that has happened, do you love this country? Actually that last bit would really trip up most leftists, since they don’t know their county’s history beyond the grossly superficial — just enough to chant slogans. Obama is the poster child of this group.


The Validity Of Feminism & Camile Pagalia

A few notes on feminism before getting to Ms. Camile Pagalia, a "feminist" college professor and author. The left's claim of a "war on women" was always the purest of horse manure, as is the left's caricature of conservative men seeking to keep women barefoot and walking between the kitchen and the bedroom. I know of no conservative who does not unreservedly support equal treatment and equal opportunity for women. If simple equality were the goal of modern feminism, than this would be a non-issue.

But modern feminism, of the women's studies variety found in virtually every university, is something else entirely. For them, all of society is founded on "patriarchy," gender roles are evil incarnate, and every act of sex is rape. (Or at least sex with a male is. If the Vagina Monologues is to be believed, an act of lebian statutory rape is redemption.) The most recent cause celebres for modern feminism, at least when not pushing the campus rape epidemic or 72 cents on the dollar canards, appear to have been manspreading and men who happen to interrupt a woman during a conversation. True subjegation of women, as in the Middle East, or true sexual harrassment of women by anyone on the left is studiously ignored.

And in many ways, modern feminism has come full circle, taking society back to the point of devaluing women and encouraging women's sexual objectification to a degree beyond that of a fourteen year old boys most rabid fantasies. Modern feminists have killed chivalry and they deny the reality of genetics, all the while seeking special considerations for women. Modern feminism has far more to do with Stalinism than enlightenment and equality.

As regards genetics, they do happen to be real. In one respect, modern feminists deny that. The seminal example is the call to open the combat arms of our military -- and in particular, the infantry and special ops -- to women. Women have no place in those units. The military is not a social justice organization. To open those units up to women is to, of necessity, lower the physical standards as a general matter, let alone the impact on unit cohesion.

In another respect, modern feminist don't merely acknowledge the genetic differnce, they define "equal rights" within the context. That is in regards to sex. In order for a woman to have a "consequence free" sex life like a male's, she needs access to birth control. Modern feminists see government paying for that birth control as a "right" they deserve. And indeed, to take it a step further, and most importantly, modern feminists invariably seek to exclude parents from any influence on their daughters when it comes sex and birth control. It is, in my view, the single most toxic impact modern feminism has had on society.

Such is my take, and it is why I happen to have great respect for Camile Pagalia, a classical feminist who is quite willing to take on "modern feminism." This from a recent interview were she comments on modern feminism as well as "post struturalism," the most recent variant of "post modernism."

In your view, what’s wrong with American feminism today, and what can it do to improve?

After the great victory won by my insurgent, pro-sex, pro-fashion wing of feminism in the 1990s, American and British feminism has amazingly collapsed backward again into whining, narcissistic victimology. As in the hoary old days of Gloria Steinem and her Stalinist cohorts, we are endlessly subjected to the hackneyed scenario of history as a toxic wasteland of vicious male oppression and gruesome female suffering. College campuses are hysterically portrayed as rape extravaganzas where women are helpless fluffs with no control over their own choices and behavior. I am an equal opportunity feminist: that is, I call for the removal of all barriers to women's advance in the professional and political realms. However, I oppose special protections for women, which I reject as demeaning and infantilizing. My principal demand (as I have been repeating for nearly 25 years) is for colleges to confine themselves to education and to cease their tyrannical surveillance of students' social lives. If a real crime is committed, it must be reported to the police. College officials and committees have neither the expertise nor the legal right to be conducting investigations into he said/she said campus dating fiascos. Too many of today's young feminists seem to want hovering, paternalistic authority figures to protect and soothe them, an attitude I regard as servile, reactionary and glaringly bourgeois. The world can never be made totally safe for anyone, male or female: there will always be sociopaths and psychotics impervious to social controls. I call my system "street-smart feminism": there is no substitute for wary vigilance and personal responsibility.

Briefly put, what is post-structuralism and what is your opinion of it?

Post-structuralism is a system of literary and social analysis that flared up and vanished in France in the 1960s but that became anachronistically entrenched in British and American academe from the 1970s on. Based on the outmoded linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure and promoted by the idolized Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, and Michel Foucault, it absurdly asserts that we experience or process reality only through language and that, because language is inherently unstable, nothing can be known. By undermining meaning, history and personal will, post-structuralism has done incalculable damage to education and contemporary thought. It is a laborious, circuitously self-referential gimmick that always ends up with the same monotonous result. I spent six months writing a long attack on academic post-structuralism for the classics journal Arion in 1991, "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders: Academe in the Hour of the Wolf" (reprinted in my first essay collection, Sex, Art, and American Culture). Post-structuralism has destroyed two generations of graduate students, who were forced to mouth its ugly jargon and empty platitudes for their foolish faculty elders. And the end result is that humanities departments everywhere, having abandoned their proper mission of defending and celebrating art, have become humiliatingly marginalized in both reputation and impact.

Read the whole interview.


Wednesday, February 25, 2015

The Justice Department's Race Hustling Division.

From Jason Riley at the WSJ, discussing the nexus between the Justice Dept., race hustlers and suits brought against police departments for "patterns and practices" of discrimination:

Attorney General Holder accuses Americans of being afraid to talk honestly about race relations, then uses his office to scapegoat police departments for black pathology. The conversation that Mr. Holder wants to have about race assumes facts not in evidence. It is also the wrong message to send to the young black men responsible for so much violent crime. These lawsuits make excuses for behavior that ought to be condemned and distract from a much more consequential debate about black cultural attitudes toward work, marriage, parenting and the rule of law. What ails these black communities are the Michael Browns, not the Darren Wilsons. And Mr. Holder’s war on cops won’t change that.

Amen. The Justice Dept. under Obama has become a political arm of the left. When I think back on all the flack Alberto Gonzalez took for hiring a few conservatives, and then look at the uber-radicals that Holder has packed the Justice Department with -- and in particular the Office of Civil Rights (a misnomer) -- it boggles the mind.


Immigration, Liberty, & An Existential Constitutional Crisis

"This meeting can do nothing more to save the country."

Samuel Adams, Dec. 16, 1773

When Samuel Adams said the quote above, he was in a meeting with several thousand other colonists. He had just been informed that the colony's Royal Governor would not allow the East India Company's tea to be returned to Britain. That tea had been shipped on consignment to America and subject to a tax not approved by the colonists. It was the final straw in a Constitutional crisis started by the British themselves in 1761 when they attempted to limit the rights of British citizens living in the American colonies. With Adams's pronouncement, the Revolution was inevitable.

The American Revolution was fought over British liberty. When Americans cried out, "No Taxation Without Representation," they were not innovating new rights. They were demanding the King honor a right of British citizens that dated back to 1215 A.D. and the Magna Carta. After the war, what America produced was a Constitution and Bill of Rights that, but with few changes, memorialized British liberties. Those liberties were neither conservative nor liberal. Rather, they were a series of systems very carefully designed to insure that the will of the people was paramount, that the will of the majority did not become itself a lawless tyranny, and that the powers of government be limited lest it too become a tyranny. To that end, the system the Founders designed very carefully diffused power over the three branches of government.

And for much of the last two and a quarter centuries, the system has worked brilliantly, albeit imperfectly. Policy disputes come and go. So long as they are resolved within the framework of our systems, than all is well. But the system has broken down now, in three very critical ways, two of which pose a long term threat to our liberties and one of which presents an immediate, catastrophic threat. All ultimately revolve around the most fundamental aspect of our system, Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution -- that the sole right to pass laws resides in our elected members of Congress.

One break is in the regulatory bureaucracy, addressed here and, most recently, here as regards the FCC plan to take control of the Internet. The second break is our Court system, addressed here. Both of those breaks can be corrected by Congress if and when they find the will to do so.

The most immediate, dangerous and quite likely existential threat to our system of government comes now from our President. For the first time in our Republic's history, we have a President legislating unilaterally. That is the very definition of tyranny.

The President is charged with the duty of executing the laws of our nation. As regards illegal aliens, the laws require that they be deported. How to effect that is legitimately within Presidential discretion. It is Constitutionally problematic that our President should choose to ignore those laws, claiming the right to do as being within his "discretion." But then Obama goes beyond that. He is in the process of affirmatively granting these illegals "the ability to obtain Social Security numbers, work authorization permits, and the ability to travel.” That's not discretion, that's legislation that can only be lawfully passed by the elected representatives of the people. Obama's actions are a direct threat to our system of liberties.

There is no question why the President is doing what he is -- for immediate political gain. The thought is that these five million plus new immigrants will be left wing voters who will, for a generation or more, alter the political balance of power in this country. I oppose that policy on political grounds, but that is for reasoned debate.

But the President's actions take this orders of magnitude outside the realm of a policy argument. This is a fundamental challenge to our system of government that needs to be fought on every level and by every means. If the President's action is allowed to stand, it marks the date of the end our nation as one based on the Constitution and rule of law. Any politician who does not oppose this action is quite simply a traitor to this nation. And if the legislature cannot stop this action, then we must hope that the Courts finally do their job of protecting the sanctity of the system. For if not, than, truly, we "can do nothing more to save the country."

Update: John Hinderaker at Powerline has some very tongue in cheek proposals for amendments to the Constitution in order to clarify, for the Obama administration, the scope and limits of their powers. The irony is that his proposals are quotes from the Constitution.


The Nature of Anti-Semitism (Updated)

Anti-semitism is a dark stain on the Western soul. It dates back well over a millenium, and has been the cause of countless acts of unforgivable carnage. And for my entire life, I've never understood it. But now, thanks to Robert Avrech, the Emmy Award winning writer and blogger at Seraphic Secret, I finally do.

What I never understood was that anti-Semitism in the West has distinct causes occurring in different historical period. The first period stretches from about 800 A.D. to 1800 A.D. The Jews were in a diaspora, congregating as minorities in close, tight knit communities much of the world over. It was how they survived as a distinct culture. But, it also made them suspect in their home countries, and in an era of tribalism, it was inevitable that Jews would be suspect and scapegoated. The vestiges of tribalism still no doubt undergird some of the modern anti-semitism that we still see.

Between 800 A.D. and 1,500 A.D., Christians were under religious edict not to loan money at interest. Jews became the proto-bankers and money lenders for Europe. Every Royal Court, duchy, and even the Vatican had their Court Jew to handle their finances. These Jews became wealthy and powerful, and thus a very visible object of envy for some. And lastly, there was a very practical reason for anti-semitism during this period. Those who borrowed money did so willingly, those who had to repay their loans were not so willing.

At the end of the 18th century, socialism was born in the French Revolution, and with it, the modern era of anti-semitism. Socialism's greatest enemy is religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity, both of which are wholly entwined in the foundations, culture and law of Western Civilization. The two provide the moral and ethical codes that govern our world. Socialism would change that.

The goal of socialism is to deconstruct traditional Western society and remake it under the auspices of an omnipotent government that would use its police powers to create a new order of ostensible social and economic equality. Socialists want to replace God with government as the source of morality. Thus Judaism and Christianity are under constant and unrelenting attack from the left. Within this context, anti-Semetism in the modern era is simply the grafting on of a new motivation for an old, tribal hatred.

Then, of course, there is Islam. In the last half century, rabid Wahhibis and Khomeinists, who view all religions other than their own as blasphemy, have brought their own genocidal anti-Semitism to the mix. The left, happy to find another group equally dedicated to deconstructing Western civilization and driving out the Judeo-Christian religions, have happily welcomed the Islamists.

Now, to me at least, I can understand the genesis of anti-Semitism and why it is still with us today. It makes anti-Semitism no less evil, but understanding the motivations of those who profess this evil allows them to be more successfully challenged.