Democrats and their own version of the Civil War. Obamas vs the Clintons.

Isn’t it strange when Hillary did the roll out there seemed to be somewhat of a cooler reception?  There are two reasons for it in my opinion.

First, Hillary sucks.  There is no other way to put it.  She is a horrible, corrupt, manipulating, politically heartless person, who lost her soul and her way a long time ago.  She is, sadly, the end result of decades of trying to ride someone coattails, and making Faustian bargains with anyone in order to maintain power and control.  Don’t get me wrong, she’s smart.  She just sold whatever ethical core she had a long time ago and everyone who isn’t in on that same bargain knows it to be true.  You can see she’s not genuine anymore, long ago loosing her personality to the manufactured persona of “Hillary Clinton the master of all things.” Truth is she’s just a human like the rest of us, and frankly less talented than many.

For years in the nineties (jeez a long time ago) I followed the stories of the Clintons in the White House.  The lies, the coverups, the affairs.  Dealing with Bill (first coattails) had to be a full time job for Hillary.  Lately, some of the old rumors are being told again in a couple of books. The  Washington Times has one article on them.

Just as Hillary Rodham Clinton is preparing to launch her presidential campaign, a new behind-the-scenes book about life at the White House is providing a fresh look at her bitter fights with husband-President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, including a bloody clash in the first couple’s bedroom.

“There was blood all over the president and first lady’s bed,” writes former White House reporter Kate Anderson Brower. “A member of the residence staff got a frantic call from the maid who found the mess. Someone needed to come quickly and inspect the damage. The blood was Bill Clinton‘s. The president had to get several stitches to his head.”

“The Residence: Inside the Private World of The White House,” is due out Tuesday from publisher Harper, but excerpts began making the rounds Monday. Ms. Brower is a former reporter for Bloomberg News.

Stories circulated after the 1998 fight in the White House that Mrs. Clinton had brained her husband with a lamp in a fury over the revelations of his sexual affair with Miss Lewinsky, a White House intern. But according to the book, White House staff surmised that Mrs. Clinton hit her husband with one of the dozens of books that she kept on her bedside table.

Mr. Clinton “insisted that he’d hurt himself running into the bathroom door in the middle of the night,” Ms. Brower writes. “But not everyone was convinced. ‘We’re pretty sure she clocked him with a book,’ one worker said. … The incident came shortly after the president’s affair with a White House intern became public knowledge … And there were at least twenty books on the bedside table … including the Bible.”

I believe this to be true.  Hillary’s temper and frustration with everybody is famed. Covered up by the MSM, but still famed.  You can Google some of the comments she’s made to the Secret Service, her staff, the world in general. This is not a happy woman. This is a conniving, manipulating woman dead set on running over anyone who gets in her way, except Bill- who will work to get her elected as he promised forty years ago.

Second, the Clintons have something the Obamas want (and you can include Valerie Jarrett in that want), and that is the Clinton Foundation’s money laundering scheme. Obama is new, Clintons are really, really old, and they have made their money. At least that is what Obama believes and he wants in on the deal, just like the “Chicago way” taught him!  The only way this happens if the Clintons fade. The only way they fade is if Hillary fails in her bid for the Presidency. Thus, the back channel undermining of Hillary by the Obama’s through the MSM,which is causing the civil war.

And that is the seed that started this Civil War between the Clintons and the Obamas.  If Bill were running I’d give the Clintons the advantage.  He’s loved by many, Obama not so much.  But Hillary is running and she pales to many, including Obama.  Frankly, she is just hard to listen to or look at.  It’s like she is a automaton ready at almost any time to start shaking and rattling from the stress with part flying off and her eye popping from her skull and whipping back and forth on a spring!

Here is the most famous photo of Hillary. The day she became angry that the deaths of for Americans under her command may derail her run for the Presidency.  Not a hint of remorse or responsibility or the ability to emotionally relate to the tragedy.  Nothing, just a calculated response and a rare glimpse into a person who has lost her soul.

hillary angry

“At this point, what difference does it make?”

Well a ton, if you are really interested in finding out what really happened and how far down that particular road did you travel. But then again, I’m not running for President, as though it was my birthright.

Twitchy does  a better job with the comments.’

Rumor has it Valerie Jarret has five or six investigations into Hillary’s activities during her State Department tenure.  If so, we’ll get more and more articles from Obama supporting lefties about her misdeeds.

Hillary should have seen this coming.  They are both from Chicago after all.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

And did people with common sense think it would end any differently? No females made it through Marine IOC.

Social engineering within the military is like to liberals like shooting fish in a barrel. They hate he-men. They hate the military for teaching the f-ed up liberal educated kids that there are things like good guys and bad guys and duty and sacrifice and honor.  They hate it.

One of the ways the Left tries to undermine it is by changing the he-man elements within the military into something “softer” by forcing women into them.  I’m not saying women can’t do certain things as good or better than a man, but combat is not one of them.  First, as some people have pointed out, combat is ugly and why in the world do we want to expose our sisters, mothers, daughters to something ugly?  What does it gain us as a civilization to make them see what men from time to time in history have to see?

 The two-and-a-half year period in which the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course became gender-integrated for research will end without a single female graduate.

The final iteration of IOC to accept female Marines on a volunteer basis began April 2 with two female participants. One was a volunteer and one was a member of the newly integrated ground intelligence track.

Both were dropped that same day during the grueling initial Combat Endurance Test, said Capt. Maureen Krebs, a spokeswoman for Headquarters Marine Corps. Nine of the 90 men who began the course were also cut.

IOC, held quarterly at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, began accepting female officers fresh out of training in September 2012 as part of a larger research effort into the feasibility of opening ground combat jobs to women. Lieutenants who made it through the legendarily tough 86-day course would not receive an infantry military occupational specialty or career advancement; they did it only for the challenge and the hope of being part of a historical Marine Corps achievement.

But as the research continued, few volunteers took advantage of the opportunity. By July 2014, only 20 female officers had attempted the course. Only one made it through the Combat Endurance Test, and none made it to the end.

There are other issues outside just ability that make it harder to deal with women.  Simple things like hygiene, bathroom issues, menstrual cycles and other women only problems that being in combat IN THE FIELD make difficult and maybe dangerous.  One story of combat talked about how men would be on patrol and one of them had to defecate. So he stopped, dropped his drawers and shit right there in line, in front of everyone.  The teller of the story pointed out that if he wanted privacy he had to trade his security to do it.  Wandering off to get behind a bush or  tree could get him killed or captured.  Same with urinating.  What do the guys do when the girls have to drop and squat?  We are talking men and women in their twenties and thirties. Why put them through that.  Not to mention the mental aspect of the training for and the execution of missions.

The Special Forces elements are against it.  They fear the standards will be lowered to accommodate the females, which will get good men and women killed.  They are right.  Imagine how the story of Marcus Lutrell’s team would have gone if some 125lb female would have been part of that unit.   They fought for a long time, ended up all getting wounded.  Had a female fallen, like one of their men had, they would have stood and fought to protect her, even more than they did their brothers.  At some point, the guys know they had to be left behind, and the guy leaving him knows he has to go.  That’s something men have trouble doing with women.  Ten thousand years of genetic imprinting prevents it.

Men fear their women being raped, tortured and killed by other men.  It is the way it is, and Diane Feinstein and her ilk can wish it away all they want, but it won’t change. Thank God for that!  It is what makes us civilized.  The concept of protecting our wives, daughters and sisters shouldn’t be mocked, it should be commended.

And this is not that they can’t fight.  Unlike the Kurds or the Israelis, we have the ability and resources to choose to keep our women out of the fight.  If they want to fly, drop bombs, do medical evacs and other things, that is about as close to the shooting as I want them to get.  And many I’m sure do a great job.  They don’t lack courage or commitment, but there is a huge difference between dropping a bomb at ten thousand feet or flying into a zone that is somewhat pacified to pick up injured, and sticking a knife in some jihadi’s chest or cutting his throat after sneaking up behind him.

Stop trying to say different.

Seriously how many people, not even mentioning women, can tote this up and down mountains or through jungles?

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The boring “Old Media” and they tired attacks meet Rand Paul, and Paul wins. Good for the new talent pool of Republicans.

Rand Paul is a smart guy. His only failing is his father.  It really is that simple. The MSM will hang Ron around Rand’s neck like a stone weight.  However, it doesn’t change the fact that he and his competitors in the run for the Presidency are the far brightest, articulate and prepared group since I can remember.

And the democrats have….Hillary…and nothing after that.

So the media will bring out the old, tired saw of Abortion “rights” and when is a baby a baby, and the issue of entitlements, and the environment and will begin to beat on the Republicans over the same old, tired issues.

However, THIS time the guys and gals in the party are from a new age.  There are no more Romneys or McCains or Bob Doles.  The closest to that mess is Jeb Bush.  Who is not going to make it unless money does really talk in the end.  But the rest of the gang are bright, ready, smart, and can hand back to the old talking heads their standard crap, spun completely around on them.  Something Romney could not do.

For example, Rand Paul- a surgeon- is being attacked on his position on abortion.  He announces, the old media attacks with this silliness.  This time Rand bounces it on the head of two MSM types and they just do not know what to do.  Even Kurtz, a veteran in the arena, cannot quite get out of his own history.  People see reality from the comfort zone, which is their combined experiences.  When things change quickly most people cannot follow suit.

Obama knows this and used the new tech to change the way campaigns were waged.  Hillary is hiring a Google exec as a communications expert. (Wait for you Google queries to change!)

Here, in the venue of ideas we have a ton of talent, far better than Hillary or Jeb, that have new ideas and are very articulate.  The media is a mile wide but an inch deep, like thin ice. They will crack and modify if they are the ones subjected to the types of beatings Rand put on them this week.

You want something to change, then you need to be the one to change it. You find you gain respect and fans.

AP Photo/Jim Cole

 

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Harry Reid and the “exercise band” beating.

When he first told the story, I was doubtful.  Something happened to Reid, but it wasn’t an exercise accident.  That is unless he suffered the worst accident I’ve seen.  As time passes, more and more people are wondering if something else happened to Reid.  What I do know is he isn’t talking.  He’s from Vegas and shows all the markings of a man who didn’t pay up on a debt.

“Sources familiar with the incident said Reid was exercising in his bathroom, with the exercise band attached to the shower door,” Politico reported that same day.

Resistance bands, or “exercise bands” as “sources familiar with the incident” described them to Politico, or “rubber bands” as Reid referred to them, are inexpensive exercise devices that consist of a length of cord made of stretchable material, usually some form of rubber or latex, that sell for between $10 and $40.

From the moment the story broke, many have been highly skeptical of Reid’s claim his injuries came from a home exercise accident. Most of this skepticism–based mostly on speculation and the gruesome nature of the injuries—led some to offer a version of an alternate theory that somebody beat up Senator Reid.

“It’s pretty obvious from the photographs that somebody beat the bejesus out of the soon-to-be former senator from Nevada. And yet the national media has uncritically swallowed the cover story that ‘exercise equipment’ was to blame for the loss of sight in the former majority leader’s right eye. Baloney,” Michael Walsh wrote at PJ Media.

Breitbart takes the trouble to actually investigate the accident story.

A Breitbart News investigation of Reid’s home exercise accident has uncovered facts that appear to discredit Reid’s version of the home exercise accident for three very specific reasons:

1. The shower door in his master bathroom, as well as two of the other three sides of the shower itself, consists of a glass panel that extends from floor to ceiling and is not sturdy enough to be used as the anchor for an exercise band.

2. The distance from the shower door to the cabinets in the bathroom is at best a mere 3 feet, an insufficient width to conduct the type of resistance band exercises Reid says he was performing when one of the bands broke and he hit his head on the cabinet.

3. Even if Reid had attempted to conduct his exercises in this very narrow 3 feet passage, the force of the exercise would not have been sufficient to “spin him around” and crash him into the cabinets of the master bathroom, as he claims.

According to the Las Vegas Review Journal, Reid and his wife moved into their newly purchased “Cantata Model” home in the Anthem Country Club gated community of Henderson, Nevada, in the summer of 2014.

Breitbart News has confirmed through publicly available documents at the Clark County Assessor’s Office and publicly available documents from the real estate agent who handled the transaction that Senator Reid and his wife purchased a 3,571 square foot house built on the Cantata model floor plan in the Anthem Country Club gated community in Henderson, Nevada for $769,000 on July 11, 2014.

Breitbart News has obtained a copyrighted digital image of the Cantata model floor plan of the sort used to construct the house Senator Reid and his wife purchased in July, as well as copyrighted photographs taken of the house’s interior and exterior that were used as part of the sales promotion for that residence. Breitbart News has requested permission from the Greater Las Vegas Association of Realtors (GLVAR), which has copyrighted the images, to display them in this story, but has not yet received a response. Given the importance of this story, Breitbart News has included these images in this article, as a matter of public interest.

A quick look at the layout over at BB and you can see his story sucks.  Now did he fall and hurt himself? Sure, but not the way he tells the story. Sometimes a small lie will cover up a bigger lie IF nobody asks questions. Common in police investigations.

So did he fall? Maybe, and maybe his fall is covered up by the “exercise accident.”  He could be sick and is hiding it.  He bruised awful easy.

Or he could have been told his time is past, argued the point, and was reminded he had no choice.

Either way, Reid is a liar, and his excuse for being beat up is not a rubber band breaking.

Ah, no on the band excuse deal. Who tuned you up?

Update:  It may have been a family matter.

On Monday I got a phone call from a man named Easton Elliott. We talked briefly on Monday, and have had additional telephone conversations since then. Elliott* is a businessman who lives in the Las Vegas area, and he thinks he knows what really happened to Harry Reid. This is the story as he related it to me:

Elliott spent a portion of last New Year’s Eve at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in Henderson, Nevada. His AA group has meetings every hour on New Year’s Eve, along with a pot luck supper. There were approximately 20 people present at the meeting during the events described below.

Some time between 10:00 and 11:30 p.m., a man entered the meeting. His appearance was striking: there was blood on his clothing, beginning around his midsection. His left hand was swollen. He appeared to be somewhat intoxicated and was visibly agitated. He introduced himself as “Larry.”

In a group discussion that was heard by a number of people, Larry said that he had just had a fight with a family member. Larry said he had been at a family get-together, and he didn’t remember much about the fight because he had blacked out. When he came to, he was rolling on the ground, fighting with a family member, and his clothes were bloody. Now, he said, he was frightened that the Secret Service would come after him.

This last reference was not taken seriously by the group, although it was obvious that Larry had indeed been in a fight. Larry stayed for the rest of the meeting, and for a while afterward. There is a front room where coffee is served, and he remained there for a while. At some point during that time, he asked whether anyone could give him a ride to Searchlight.

Is this a coverup of a coverup? With Harry and now the Capital Police (remember, they’re the guys who shot up a confused black woman in a car- because she bumped a barricade in D.C.- and got a standing ovation from Congress ) are stuck. Did they know the truth and hide it at the behest of the senator?  If Harry says Larry did it, it is a federal offense at the worst and a felony at the least. So Larry could end up in prison for the rest of his life. Not to mention the front page stories.  I actually get why Harry would lie.  If this were his only lie, I’d look the other way, just as the Capital Police did.

But after his stellar career in screwing people WITH the lie, I’m thinking it’s Karma time.

American Thinker does a great summation.

 

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Apple products do not occupy my home and the battlefield of gay “rights.”

In Indiana they passed a law saying in effect their are protections for religious liberty in the railings against them by the “gay mafia.”  Jonah Goldberg puts it best.  “After achieving, essentially, total victory, going across the battlefield shooting the wounded.”

He’s right.  This is a total war AND A WARNING about how you cannot deal honestly with the Left.  They will not tolerate any behavior or beliefs outside their ideology.  We’ve seen this before, we’ll see it again.  Strident ideologues always end up killing or maiming or harming someone “in the name of the cause.”

Why pick on America when there is so much bad happening to gays across the globe? The easy answer is we are low hanging fruit. It is easy to force us to change and cower. Not so much for nations like Saudi Arabia or Iran.  What drives me crazy though is people and companies like Tim Cook at Apple don’t even try!  In fact, they will do business with nations that abuse gays religiously (no pun intended!).

But back to Cook, who offers this clarion call.

Our message, to people around the country and around the world, is this: Apple is open. Open to everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship or who they love. Regardless of what the law might allow in Indiana or Arkansas, we will never tolerate discrimination.

Super. Now we know that Cook’s ignorance applies, not just to state and federal laws in the U.S., but to laws in the other countries where Apple does business. As Allahpundit pointed out on Twitter:

Four of the 10 countries that punish homosexuality with death appear on this Apple page http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/02/24/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death/  https://www.apple.com/choose-your-country/ 

October 2014: Apple in talks to sell iPhone in Iran http://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-in-talks-to-sell-iphone-in-iran-1414604199 

December 2014: Saudi retailer announces opening of first Apple stores http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-retailer-announces-opening-of-first-apple-stores-575777.html 

So Tim…what up wit’ that?

So until I see Apple pull their product from nations who BEHEAD gays and hang them in public, I’m going to continue my self imposed Apple boycott.

And you should too.

No more PC.

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

A five second lesson on spoiled doper kids and racism. The Taraji P. Henson story.

I like the actress and her portrayal of a NYPD detective in Person of Interest. However, that is done.  What a person plays and what a person is can be revealed when put under stress.  In her case, she’s just another race offense hunting fool.  Her son, a kid with some obvious problems, was pulled over by the police.  Instead of getting popped for the weed, amphetamines and paraphernalia, he got cut loose, after almost running over a pedestrian to boot.

AND SHE SEES RACISM because the cop was white! Nothing else matters. Nothing rings that bell, like her son is a doper and a liar.  (You can be sure what he told her and what happened were two different stories.)  In this case, thank goodness for the dashcam. Too bad you can’t sue people who run their mouths and lie about the cops.  Would certainly clear up some cheap shots like this one.

Earlier last week she claimed in a media interview with Uptown Magazine her son was racially profiled by police and abused.

Ms. Henson stated her son was not safe at any college that was not black and she would be sending him to Howard University because it wasn’t safe for a young black man around non-black college campus police officers.

…..“My child has been racially profiled. He was in Glendale, California and did exactly everything the cops told him to do, including letting them illegally search his car. It was bogus because they didn’t give him the ticket for what he was pulled over for.” […] “I’m not paying $50K so I can’t sleep at night wondering is this the night my son is getting racially profiled on campus.”  (link)

However, it appears Ms. Henson and her son are just another couple of race baiting liars.  BIG LIARS.   Thankfully the police had dash camera footage:

You just gotta watch this footage, because her son was pulled over by the nicest darned police officer I’ve ever witnessed on tape.  This cop is EXACTLY the 180° opposite of what she and her son are claiming.

Years ago, my partner and I stopped a black car with a tag hanging loose off the back bumper. The driver and passenger were black.  We couldn’t tell that because it was night and the windows were tinted.  When I approached the passenger he said, “Well I guess you got your quota tonight.”  I knew what he meant.  I had him get out and walk back and pointed to the tag.  I told him this is why we stopped him, not because he was black.

This was years before the BGI industry cranked up with Obama, but it shows just how many times it is assumed by the blacks that police are after them.  The truth is, because of their subculture of criminal and thug problems they simply will not address, there is some validity to that. We aren’t “after them” as a race.  We are after that element of within their culture and within all other cultures- the criminals- who prey on society.  In the black culture they are just more of a problem per capita.

And sometimes the idiot kids dress  and act like the criminals.  I rest my case.

This is how he is. Just another young black dope smoking, pill popping dumbass.

Sobriety test: Marcel Henson, 20, told the officer he had smoked marijuana two hours before driving, and the officer asks him to get out of the car to see if he is under the influence, but determines he isn't

This is how she sees him and presents him to us.

Taraji P henson

 

 

 

 

 

 

However in this case, Ms. Henson needs to address another issue. That her son is a doper.  If she were to pay attention to it, rather than blindly defend his lying ass, he might survive. She should remember the names of the kids of Hollywood stars who die from drug abuse.  There are far too many, and most were because the parents indulged them.

If he were my kid, he’d be driving the public bus for a year.   He wants to smoke dope and ride, then that’s his decision. HOW he rides is mine.

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Quick note on the Clintons. Nothing new to see here.

I followed the Clintons since 1992.  I was a great fan of the American Spectator.  It covered Whitewater, the Rose law firm records, Vince Foster in great detail.  The simple takeaway from that period, as well as Clinton’s two terms, is this.  Bill Clinton likes money and power and being loved by people.  He has no moral center, but his intent is never really evil.  He is that buddy who is a used car salesman who only wants to be loved and have fun.  You would hang out with him, but you would never let him date your sister!

Hillary is bad.  She wants it all and will do whatever she feels she wants to do and can get away with (by hiding behind the popular husband) that will allow her to reach her goals.  The Rose law firm billing records hid in her bedroom for years is an example (and a prelude to her current email scandal.)

She is truly a Alinsky acolyte, who decided to corrupt from within. But not for the goal of destroying America but to gain power OVER America.  Think Obama, without the charm.  Hillary has always been strident in her beliefs and has that personality which demands adherence to her way. I met a family who knew the Clintons just after they were elected.  The family was from Arkansas. In a conversation with them, they said this “You have no idea what you have done!”  They said Hillary ran the government while Bill just kinda hung out making friends.  That has never really changed.

So, to the issue of her emails/hiding data from the government and from the people.  Of course she did!  It is her way! Her team also realizes that asking forgiveness is far more effective if you are a Clinton than asking permission.

However, things are different now.  Hillary and Bill have a new enemy- Obama and Jarrett.  And frankly, I think Jarrett is better than the Clinton “cleaner” Cheryl Mills.  Old school vs new age.  It is Jarrett that released the email scandal.  Obama claims that his administration is the most transparent, which is a lie.  He hates the idea that Hillary brings up his bad acts, so he’s pissed.  As a It is rumored that Jarrett has prompted six investigations into Hillary.  That would be unbelievable if it were not for the fact that Jarrett fears Hillary would undermine Obama’s legacy and her agenda for Iran.  Which she would.

Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal

New vs old.

 

So, Jarrett is wanting another far left progressive to take over Obama’s mission.  Think for a minute that there is a farther left candidate out there than Hillary.  Yikes!   They want a weak leader that will influenced by Jarrett and Obama after they leave office.  Also, don’t forget, Jarrett is Iranian (Shia) and Hillary’s chief of staff is Muslim Brotherhood (Sunni).  I know, who would have thought that would even be part of any American political equation!!

Point is, Republicans need only to pop popcorn, get a cold drink and sit down while this works out.  Throw in a few subpoenas and watch the new age, left wing cat fight.

Booom! Done!

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ferguson, DOJ and the outcome of reverse racism.

In a nutshell.  Holder is a racist. Obama is a racist.  Michelle is a racist.  It just is.  They hate the way America is handling with they consider a racist problem- black crime.  The problem they have is America is trying to hold blacks accountable for their crimes and failures, just like it does everybody else.  However, those three represent a group of blacks who do not want to address the real issues within the black community and instead want to make the rest of the nation bend to the failures of that certain element of the black community.  Sadly, the end result will be the good people within the black community will suffer the most.

Right now, Obama and Holder want to nationalize the way the police handle black criminals and miscreants.  They want us to be more sensitive to the bad behavior of blacks in general and look the other way when they commit crimes everybody should be arrested for.  That my friends is racism in its purest form. If an Asian kid does what Trayvon Martin did, nobody blinks.  Worse, if an Asian kid does what Martin did PRIOR to his death- committing a burglary and being found in possession of stolen property- the Asian kid would be arrested and prosecuted.  But as the American Thinker reminds us, that did not happen to Martin as he was caught up in the effort by the Miami police chief to play with the statistics and not the reality of black crime in the schools.

As evidence of those outcomes, the report cites information in the DOJ’s Orwellian 2014 “Dear Colleague Letter.” This letter was a follow up to a July 2012 executive order warning school districts to avoid “methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.” The White House headlined the press release announcing this dubious stroke of reverse racism, “President Obama Signs New Initiative to Improve Educational Outcomes for African Americans.”

One model school district in the eyes of the DOJ was the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, one of the few districts with its own police department. The late Trayvon Martin had the seeming good fortune of pursuing his education therein.

Appearances deceive. The Miami-Dade Schools Police Department (M-DSPD) had problems unique to its peculiar mission. The exposure of the department’s practices began inadvertently with the Miami Herald story on Martin’s multiple suspensions. The article prompted M-DSPD Chief Charles Hurley to launch a major Internal Affairs (IA) investigation into the possible leak of this information to the Herald.

As the investigation began, the officers realized immediately that they had a problem on their hands. “Oh, God, oh, my God, oh, God,” one major reportedly said when first looking at Martin’s data.

He could see that Martin had been suspended twice already that school year for offenses that should have gotten him arrested. In each case, however, the case file on Martin was fudged to make the crime less serious than it was.

To their credit, the officers, when questioned, told the truth about Martin and about the policies that kept him out of the justice system. From their statements, made under oath, it appears that Hurley instructed his officers to divert offending juveniles away from the criminal justice system and back to their respective schools for discipline.

Hurley did this subtly. As one detective told IA, the arrest statistics coming out of Martin’s school, Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School, had been “quite high,” and the detectives “needed to find some way to lower the stats.” This directive allegedly came from Hurley.

At least a few officers confirmed that Hurley was particularly concerned with the arrest rates of black males. In a letter obtained by NBC 6 of South Florida, a senior detective wrote, “[Hurley] asked that I reduce the number of arrests I affect of all black juveniles. I told him regardless of the race of an individual; if probable cause existed for an arrest that individual would be arrested. He was not happy with my response to his request.”

“Chief Hurley, for the past year, has been telling his command staff to lower the arrest rates,” volunteered another high-ranking detective. When asked by IA whether the M-DSPD was avoiding making arrests, that detective replied, “What Chief Hurley said on the record is that he commends the officer for using his discretion. What Chief Hurley really meant is that he’s commended the officer for falsifying a police report.”

The IA interrogators seemed stunned by what they were hearing. They asked one female detective incredulously if she were actually ordered to “falsify reports.” She answered, “Pretty much, yes.”

This is Obama’s world.  Do not address the root reasons why blacks offend at a greater level than any other culture in America, but instead cover it up.  Why is beyond me, because we can simply go to Youtube and watch example after example of self-posted videos of blacks attacking and robbing randomly.  Unlike Obama and Holder, it appears they are proud of their criminal efforts and have no problem sharing with the rest of America and the world. (The second video links to Worldstar, which holds a ton of these types of videos.)

Now remember, Martin was given outs over and over from both his Hip-Hop dad and mom, and the police and the schools.  These three elements make up pretty much all of his world. Throw in friends and music and movies and he is convinced that being a bad ass is the way to go.  Not to study, or be responsible, or do the right thing.  Nope, be a thug because that is where the fun is!  Until you run into an armed citizen and get whacked.

Because of Obama and the fact it was a presidential election cycle, Zimmerman (who is now completely off the rails due to the damage caused by Florida and the DOJ) was villified and destroyed- for votes.

Darren Wilson and Ferguson was done for the same reason- the 2014 midterm.  I know that, you know that, they know that.  Now, the DOJ after all that work and effort is stuck with Ferguson and a good shoot by a good cop over a bad guy acting bad- ala Trayvon. So what to do?  Keep the blame going and drive Ferguson, and other agencies, into a federal way, a HOLDER/OBAMA APPROVED WAY, of dealing with blacks and their crimes.

After releasing a report that completely exonerated Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson of any wrongdoing in the death of an 18-year-old strong arm robbery suspect, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that he was still “prepared” to dismantle the department, because racism was to blame for high rates of black violence and criminality.

Speaking to the press at Andrews Air Force Base on Friday, Holder claimed that he was “shocked” at what his investigators found in a review of the Ferguson, Missouri police department.

Holder said that Ferguson was “a community where this harm frequently appears to stem, at least in part, from racial bias — both implicit and explicit.”

He went on to vow that the federal government would fix the problem of racial disparities in violent crime in Missouri.

“We are prepared to use all the powers that we have to ensure that the situation changes there. That means everything from working with them to coming up with an entirely new structure,” Holder said. He went on to say that having the federal government rip apart and dismantle the department was also an option. “If that’s what’s necessary, we’re prepared to do that,” he said.

“The notion that you would use a law enforcement agency or law enforcement generally to generate revenue, and then the callous way in which that was done and the impact that it had on the lives of the ordinary citizens of that municipality, was just appalling. Appalling. And that is not something that we’re going to tolerate,” Holder continued.

Now Holder is right in one area, and using that to conflate into another.  Should police departments be expected to “tax” citizens with fines and tickets in order to fund cities? Man, is that an argument for another time! But, ask yourself this- Holder and Obama work for a government, and USE that government to fine and tax people, frivolously, in order to gain revenue.  But if Ferguson does it- that’s bad.   I know, Obama and Holder being hypocrites, who saw that coming!

But should police departments be looked at as revenue sourcing?  And how does that translate into offending blacks?  I will say this.  The best way to avoid offending blacks, many who cannot pay fines and end up on silly warrant lists, is to limit policing to what it was intended to be- keeping the peace.   That way everybody of all colors is happy.

But instead of addressing the big issue- that governments at all levels expect their law enforcement arm to partially fund itself by “enforcing laws”- Obama wants to put up blacks as victims and make them the poster children, and that is a mistake.

Why? Because if the DOJ manages to make it a rule that everybody is held accountable for crime EXCEPT for the black people, more black people will act out, and the usual victims of that acting out are…BLACK PEOPLE!

So what’s the point here? In Ferguson it is about the money for some.  Brown’s family attorney, Crump, will use this report to sue Ferguson.  Wilson’s life is over.  He didn’t do anything wrong but respond to a report of a crime and survive getting beaten by two black criminals.  That was his job!  Holder wants to make sure the police can’t do that job anymore!

In the end, it won’t matter. Because of Holder’s “FTP” effort, black across America are more willing to fight the police.  And because of that, more blacks and more police are going to get killed. Sadly, when black policeman is killed by two black robbers, there are no protests of blacks claiming “black lives matter”.

A police officer who went to a video game store to buy a present for his son ended up in a fierce gun battle with two would-be robbers, fighting to the end of his life to protect patrons and employees, a police captain said Friday.

Officer Robert Wilson III, 30, was at the counter of the GameStop store late Thursday afternoon when two brothers armed with semi-automatic weapons entered, the officer turned, and “the gunfight was on,” police homicide Capt. James Clark said.

“The officer was a hero and a warrior,” Clark said. “He fought to the very, very end, firing at both of them. Unfortunately, he lost his life.”

The brothers were identified Friday as Ramone Williams, 24, and Carlton Hipps, 29. Both had prior arrests, and police said Hipps had gotten out of prison in 2009. Both were charged with murder, attempted murder, robbery and related offenses.

Williams was in jail, and Hipps was hospitalized Friday and wearing Wilson’s handcuffs, authorities said. It was unclear if either man had an attorney who could comment on the charges.

Clark said Williams gave a statement to police, saying he and his brother did not see Wilson’s cruiser outside the store and did not know an officer was inside.

The men hid behind signs in the store as Wilson exchanged volleys with them. Clark credited the officer with saving lives by stepping away from other people in the store. He kept firing even after he was hit and “redefined what hero is all about,” Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey said.

This guy died trying to protect society and the people inside that store.  This guy is a hero.

robert wilson

These guys are dumbasses.

And because of those two, the officer is dead.  And truthfully, so is the kid in Madison who attacked the police, rather than go to jail quietly.  Of course, the media wants to say white cop killed unarmed black kid, but the truth is far more enlightening.

Tony Robinson was a 19-year-old street thug (Dindu Nuffin’ clan) who was previously involved in an armed robbery (April 2014) and pled guilty in October 2014 (case details).

Robinson pleaded guilty to armed robbery in October [2014] and was sentenced to six months in jail but a judge stayed the execution of the custodial term. He began serving a three-year probation period in December (link)

Ironically if the judge had carried out the sentencing term, Tony Robinson would be alive today.  Ultimately he was sentenced to three years probation, and can be seen in this picture above wearing his ankle monitor.  Robinson’s Twitter Account is HERE

At the age of 17 Robinson became a father and was sued for child support in 2014.   As a member of the Dindu Nuffins’ his family is customarily well versed in making excuses for his behavior and claiming the angelic felon was planning on attending college.

In addition more background on events are now surfacing including this witness statement from the neighborhood:

…This so called “gentle giant” was high on suspected hallucinagenics, and in a violent, volitile rage, walking down the streets of madison battering citizens, whom were frantically calling 911 for police assistance.

This out of control, violent man, high on acid hallucinagenic drugs, which not only gave him super human strength but made him impervious to pain, than battered a peace officer. Yes a peace officer who’s job that night was to protect the citizens screaming for help, and to protect the community from further harm from this man.

Again a man who made the choice to consume quantities of drugs, that made him a mad man, who was on a mission to critically harm others in his path”…. (link)

Sometimes it is just a street thug that gets killed, not a black kid or a white kid or an Asian kid or a Hispanic kid.  It is a thug, and thugs are colorblind.

Remember, the police were CALLED to the scene by his friends.  He was on drugs and attacking people.  Stopping that behavior IS THE JOB of the police and they cannot turn away, nor are they obligated to be hurt or killed by the suspect just because the suspect is one of Holder’s protected class. You can hear the audio of the call. His friends called on him, during which two more calls of assaults came in on the same suspect. The officer responded and within a few seconds was calling shots fired, which means he was jumped immediately.

So what does Holder want us to excuse? Gang affiliations?

Tony robinson 4 ankle monitor

Drug use?

Random acts of violence? Like this video?

Or this

Or this?

Attacking the police officer who was trying to stop him?

What exactly does Obama and Holder want from the rest of America?  Because if they think allowing random violent drug fueled crimes is a good idea, then they are bigger dumbasses than even I thought.

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The next time a confused person talks about why Obama is favoring Iran, hand them this.

 

Then walk away. When they come to you later, angered and fearful, just shrug your shoulders. You didn’t vote for the guy.

A couple of weeks ago, my MENSA bright buddy pointed out that the Obama administration was pivoting away from Europe and the Middle East and towards the Far East (China, India, Indochina). The obvious reasons are the vast majority of the people live there, the economies are growing, and the labor is cheap.  Add to the mix our South American partners, and we could walk away from the thousands of years of religious war, European nationalism and other problems we’ve tried to manage for two centuries.

I get that. What I don’t get is Obama favoring Iran over Saudi Arabia or any other nation in the region, and trust me, the Saudis don’t either.  However, this essay helps explain the plan, and it also stops me from wondering what our Middle East policy and plans are.  Obama has been criticized for not having one. I disagree.  He most definitely has a plan, just not a wise one.

President Barack Obama wishes the Islamic Republic of Iran every success. Its leaders, he explained in a recent interview, stand at a crossroads. They can choose to press ahead with their nuclear program, thereby continuing to flout the will of the international community and further isolate their country; or they can accept limitations on their nuclear ambitions and enter an era of harmonious relations with the rest of the world. “They have a path to break through that isolation and they should seize it,” the president urged—because “if they do, there’s incredible talent and resources and sophistication . . . inside of Iran, and it would be a very successful regional power.”

How eager is the president to see Iran break through its isolation and become a very successful regional power? Very eager. A year ago, Benjamin Rhodes, deputy national-security adviser for strategic communication and a key member of the president’s inner circle, shared some good news with a friendly group of Democratic-party activists. The November 2013 nuclear agreement between Tehran and the “P5+1”—the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany—represented, he said, not only “the best opportunity we’ve had to resolve the Iranian [nuclear] issue,” but “probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy.” For the administration, Rhodes emphasized, “this is healthcare . . . , just to put it in context.” Unaware that he was being recorded, he then confided to his guests that Obama was planning to keep Congress in the dark and out of the picture: “We’re already kind of thinking through, how do we structure a deal so we don’t necessarily require legislative action right away.”

Why the need to bypass Congress? Rhodes had little need to elaborate. As the president himself once noted balefully, “[T]here is hostility and suspicion toward Iran, not just among members of Congress but the American people”—and besides, “members of Congress are very attentive to what Israel says on its security issues.” And that “hostility and suspicion” still persist, prompting the president in his latest State of the Union address to repeat his oft-stated warning that he will veto “any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo [the] progress” made so far toward a “comprehensive agreement” with the Islamic Republic.

As far as the president is concerned, the less we know about his Iran plans, the better. Yet those plans, as Rhodes stressed, are not a minor or incidental component of his foreign policy. To the contrary, they are central to his administration’s strategic thinking about the role of the United States in the world, and especially in the Middle East.

Moreover, that has been true from the beginning. In the first year of Obama’s first term, a senior administration official would later tell David Sanger of the New York Times, “There were more [White House] meetings on Iran than there were on Iraq, Afghanistan, and China. It was the thing we spent the most time on and talked about the least in public [emphasis added].” All along, Obama has regarded his hoped-for “comprehensive agreement” with Iran as an urgent priority, and, with rare exceptions, has consistently wrapped his approach to that priority in exceptional layers of secrecy.

From time to time, critics and even friends of the president have complained vocally about the seeming disarray or fecklessness of the administration’s handling of foreign policy. Words like amateurish, immature, and incompetent are bandied about; what’s needed, we’re told, is less ad-hoc fumbling, more of a guiding strategic vision. Most recently, Leslie Gelb, a former government official and past president of the Council on Foreign Relations, has charged that “the Obama team lacks the basic instincts and judgment necessary to conduct U.S. national-security policy,” and has urged the president to replace the entire inner core of his advisers with “strong and strategic people of proven . . . experience.”

One sympathizes with Gelb’s sense of alarm, but his premises are mistaken. Inexperience is a problem in this administration, but there is no lack of strategic vision. Quite the contrary: a strategy has been in place from the start, and however clumsily it may on occasion have been implemented, and whatever resistance it has generated abroad or at home, Obama has doggedly adhered to the policies that have flowed from it.

In what follows, we’ll trace the course of the most important of those policies and their contribution to the president’s announced determination to encourage and augment Iran’s potential as a successful regional power and as a friend and partner to the United States.

2009-2010: Round One, Part I

In the giddy aftermath of Obama’s electoral victory in 2008, anything seemed possible. The president saw himself as a transformational leader, not just in domestic politics but also in the international arena, where, as he believed, he had been elected to reverse the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush. To say that Obama regarded Bush’s foreign policy as anachronistic is an understatement. To him it was a caricature of yesteryear, the foreign-policy equivalent of Leave It to Beaver. Obama’s mission was to guide America out of Bushland, an arena in which the United States assembled global military coalitions to defeat enemies whom it depicted in terms like “Axis of Evil,” and into Obamaworld, a place more attuned to the nuances, complexities, and contradictions—and opportunities—of the 21st century. In today’s globalized environment, Obama told the United Nations General Assembly in September 2009, “our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. . . . No balance of power among nations will hold.”

Read the rest. When you get done, you will finally grasp what we have been witnessing for a long time and wondering what in the hell was wrong with this guy.   The sad truth is nothing is wrong with him. He’s just willing to give up a hundred years of Western influence, reset the boundaries of nations using violence and chaos, and leave a Islamic fundamentalist government, which owns a nuke, in charge.

Seriously, what could go wrong?

Well, early on Obama had a chance to help the Iranian Green revolution seize control of the nation away from the nutjobs running it, which would have solved the whole issue of having to deal with them. So, there is that.

But Obama passed and a lot of people got killed.  All so he could force his policy and desires onto the reality. (Something he does a lot.)

Obama based his policy of outreach to Tehran on two key assumptions of the grand-bargain myth: that Tehran and Washington were natural allies, and that Washington itself was the primary cause of the enmity between the two. If only the United States were to adopt a less belligerent posture, so the thinking went, Iran would reciprocate. In his very first television interview from the White House, Obama announced his desire to talk to the Iranians, to see “where there are potential avenues for progress.” Echoing his inaugural address, he said, “[I]f countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.”

Unfortunately, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, ignored the president’s invitation. Five months later, in June 2009, when the Green Movement was born, his autocratic fist was still clenched. As the streets of Tehran exploded in the largest anti-government demonstrations the country had seen since the revolution of 1979, he used that fist to beat down the protesters. For their part, the protesters, hungry for democratic reform and enraged by government rigging of the recent presidential election, appealed to Obama for help. He responded meekly, issuing tepid statements of support while maintaining a steady posture of neutrality. To alienate Khamenei, after all, might kill the dream of a new era in U.S.-Iranian relations.

If this show of deference was calculated to warm the dictator’s heart, it failed. “What we intended as caution,” one of Obama’s aides would later tell a reporter, “the Iranians saw as weakness.” Indeed, the president’s studied “caution” may even have emboldened Tehran to push forward, in yet another in the long series of blatant violations of its obligations under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), with its construction of a secret uranium enrichment facility in an underground bunker at Fordow, near Qom.

Oh yeah, that goofy nuclear thing where the theocracy in charge of Iran wants a nuke and at the same time believes if the region goes up in flames it pushes their version of Islamic dominance closer to the end goal.  That’s a bit iffy.  But remember, Obama did go to Harvard.

And what about Israel?  Obama’s position is simple- screw ‘em!

The Israelis did more than just criticize Obama; they also threatened to take action against Iran that would place the president in an intolerable dilemma. In 2011, Ehud Barak, the defense minister at the time, announced that Iran was quickly approaching a “zone of immunity,” meaning that its nuclear program would henceforth be impervious to Israeli attack. As Iran approached that zone, Israel would have no choice but to strike. And what would America do then? The Israeli warnings grew ever starker as the presidential election season heated up. Netanyahu, it seemed, was using the threat of Israeli action as a way of prodding Washington itself to take a harder line.

To this challenge, Obama responded by putting Israel in a bear hug. From one angle, it looked like an expression of profound friendship: the president significantly increased military and intelligence cooperation, and he insisted, fervently and loudly, that his policy was to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon by all means possible. With the aid of influential American Jews and Israelis who testified to his sincerity, Obama successfully blunted the force of the charge that he was hostile to Israel.

From another angle, however, the bear hug looked like an effort to break Netanyahu’s ribs. Even while expressing affection for Israel, Obama found ways to signal his loathing for its prime minister. During one tense meeting at the White House, for example, the president abruptly broke off to join his family for dinner, leaving Netanyahu to wait for him alone. In mitigation, Obama supporters would adduce ongoing friction between the two countries over West Bank settlements and peace negotiations with the Palestinians. This was true enough, but the two men differed on quite a number of issues, among which Iran held by far the greatest strategic significance. In managing the anxieties of his liberal Jewish supporters, Obama found it useful to explain the bad atmosphere as a function of Netanyahu’s “extremism” rather than of his own outreach to Iran—to suggest, in effect, that if only the hothead in the room would sit down and shut up, the grownups could proceed to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem along reasonable lines.

The tactic proved effective. At least for the duration, Obama prevented Israel from attacking Iran; preserved American freedom of action with regard to Iran’s nuclear program; and kept his disagreements with the Israeli government within the comfort zone of American Jewish Democrats.

Israel has over two hundred nukes and little desire to use them unless threatened with extinction.  Iran wants nukes so they can launch them at Israel.  Israel is small and densely populated with a little over eight million people.  Iran is large and sparsely populated with seventy-seven million potential martyrs.  Two nukes could cripple Israel and put her in a situation where surrounding Hamas and other armies could swarm her, which means they get lit up too!  Iran could take the loss of half its population and survive.  I mean, who is going to invade Iran? Iraq? The plan is for Iran to run Iraq (much to the horror of the Sunni and Kurd population), so that’s not going to happen.

According to the author, the key to the Iranian dominance was not the election of their “moderate” leader, but the reelection of Obama. Remember, Obama is a malignant narcissist who is LONG time friends with the Iranian and fellow communist sympathizer  Valerie Jarrett.  Both Obama and his inner circle, led by Jarrett, really want to change the way the world works.  For many reasons, some ego driven, other more along the line of what is called the transnational progressivism.   This theory of world government is what all the conspiracy theorists are trying to grasp, quantify and expose.

Which, in my opinion is a wasted effort. There is no need to expose them.  They are right there in front of you. Their first attempt at this was the EU.  Look how that has worked out.

The key concepts of transnational progressivism are:

Groups are what matter, not people. You are “Black” or “Christian” or “Mexican” or “Afghan” or “Sunni”, you are not yourself. You also don’t get to choose your group; it’s inherent in what you were when you were born. Someone else will categorize you into your group, and you will become a number, a body to count to decide how important that group is. And your group won’t change during your lifetime.

The goal of fairness is equality of result, not equality of opportunity. It isn’t important to let individuals fulfill their potential and express their dreams, what’s important is to make groups have power and representation in all things proportional to their numbers in the population. Fairness is for groups, not for individuals. The ideally fair system is based on quotas, not on merit, because that permits proper precise allocation of results.

Being a victim is politically significant. It’s not merely a plea for help or something to be pitied; it’s actually a status that grants extra political power. “Victimhood” isn’t a cult, it’s a valid political evaluation. Groups which are victims should be granted disproportionately more influence and representation, at the expense of the historic “dominant” culture.

Assimilation is evil. Immigrants must remain what they were before they arrived here, and should be treated that way. Our system must adapt to them, rather than expecting them to adapt to us (even if they want to). The migration of people across national borders is a way to ultimately erase the significance of those borders by diluting national identity in the destination country.

An ideal democracy is a coalition where political power is allocated among groups in proportion to their numbers. It has nothing to do with voting or with individual citizens expressing opinions, and in fact it doesn’t require elections at all. A “winner take all” system, or one ruled by a majority, is profoundly repugnant because it disenfranchise minority groups of all kinds and deprives them of their proper share of power.

National identity is evil. We should try to think of ourselves as citizens of the world, not as citizens of the nations in which we live, and we should try to minimize the effects of national interests, especially our own if we live in powerful nations.

And the people who promote the concept are, surprisingly, the same group they believe should be running it.  Of course, why not…

The social base of transnational progressivism constitutes a rising postnational intelligentsia (international law professors, NGO activists, foundation officers, UN bureaucrats, EU administrators, corporate executives, and politicians.) When social movements such as “transnationalism” and “global governance” are depicted as the result of social forces or the movement of history, a certain impersonal inevitability is implied. However, in the twentieth century the Bolshevik Revolution, the National Socialist revolution, the New Deal, the Reagan Revolution, the Gaullist national reconstruction in France, and the creation of the EU were not inevitable, but were the result of the exercise of political will by elites.

Similarly, transnationalism, multiculturalism, and global governance, like “diversity,” are ideological tools championed by activist elites, not impersonal forces of history. The success or failure of these values-laden concepts will ultimately depend upon the political will and effectiveness of these elites.

So if we have Obama being run by people who want to run the world, and he wants to redesign the Middle East leaving Iran (and Russia) in charge of that region, how is that going to work out of you and me?

Frankly, he doesn’t care.  We are just batteries providing power to the machine his people are going to control. The rest is just white noise, that humming in the background everyone ignores.

Worse, we cannot depend on the Congress to step up.  I believe they know the nation is screwed in the short term and crippled in the long.  It looks like they don’t care, as seen in this poster below, but I think they just can’t do anything about it because of PC and their own need for power. Remember, they know people who go to Davos too!  Whose pockets are getting lined or will after they retire?

If Iran dominates the region and acts as a counterweight to the Saudis, then Obama’s theory is the region will balance out.  If Iran can control the Iraqi oil reserves, it will become the fifth largest producer of oil according to one report.  Why Obama thinks that will serve the United States well is beyond me, so I’m thinking, as I said earlier, he doesn’t care.  If we run short of energy and the costs go up, it is a win for him anyway.

Read the whole essay and think on it for awhile.  It’s over unless something gives.  Transnational Progressives have control of large swaths of world governments.  Their goals will be met, or their attempts will cause great harm, which will unsettle nations. They will demonize and eliminate, if they can, any nationalist effort by citizens. (Helloooo Tea Party!)

And they don’t care. I heard rumor many of the uber rich are buying remote locations around the world in order to flee and survive what they feel may be the coming civil unrest when all the money is gone and the resources dry up.  These people are the same people who attend Davos every years and control most of the world’s money.

Super rich hedge fund managers are buying ‘secret boltholes’ where they can hideout in the event of civil uprising against growing inequality, it has been claimed.

Nervous financiers from across the globe have begun purchasing landing strips, homes and land in areas such as New Zealand so they can flee should people rise up.

With growing inequality and riots such as those in London in 2011 and in Ferguson and other parts of the USA last year, many financial leaders fear they could become targets for public fury.

Robert Johnson, president of the Institute of New Economic Thinking, told people at the World Economic Forum in Davos that many hedge fund managers were already planning their escapes.

What is funny is they seem to not quite get the big picture.  There is no escape.  If you can get to it, I can get to it, and so can millions of other really pissed off citizens.  Unless the uber rich buy a piece of land on the moon and a rocket to get there, they had better realize it is far safer to manage the world effectively than to trash it, all the while stealing all they can. Something I fear Obama and his ilk do not grasp.

Chaos is like a rabid dog you let off the lease to bite your enemy. Sooner or later, it is going to turn and bite you. Take a look at ISIL if you don’t believe me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Comparing Islamic terrorism to Germany and Japan in WW2. A way to handle the problem- almost.

“What he said.”

Victor Davis Hanson is a brilliant historian and many, MANY times I’ve simply copied and pasted his thoughts on issues without comment. He just gets it right most of the time.

This time he makes the argument that in the past we’ve dealt with extremism by separating the extremists from the rest of a particular herd in order to beat them.

The terrorism in Paris is yet another bad chapter in an ongoing Western debate over a seeming paradox. Almost all recent global terrorism is attributable to Islamic-inspired violence — much of it directed against Muslims. And yet the vast majority of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims do not directly aid and abet the spate of Islamic extremism.

How then to focus on the Islamic terrorists without polluting the surrounding sea in which these sharks swim?

Do history’s radical movements assume initial or even ongoing popular majorities to ensure their viability? Obviously, the vast majority of Germans, Japanese, Italians, and Russians did not support the extremists who came to power with Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, and Lenin.

Indeed, besides carrying out the Holocaust against the Jews, Hitler killed thousands of his own Germans, an array of homosexuals, Communists, domestic critics, and the physically handicapped. Stalin caused more deaths among his own fellow Soviet citizens in the Twenties and Thirties than the Wehrmacht later did.

The point is that extremist movements, even when they become strong enough to reach power, are not always particularly kind to their own or well liked among them. That Muslim radicals kill Muslims in their midst does not necessarily mean that they do not prefer to kill non-Muslims.

The continued influence of radical Muslims who engage in terrorism hinges on whether they bring power, prestige, and resources to the people that they otherwise usually oppress. Islamic theocrats control governments only in the Gulf, Iran, and Gaza, and are trying to cobble together a caliphate largely in Syria and Iraq. Turkey likewise is moving toward theocracy. But Islamists are active, both above and below the radar, in almost every Muslim-majority nation — and they can manage this even where they enjoy very little popular support.

A great deal of attention has been given to radically changing views toward Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, after the disintegration of Syria and the rise of the Islamic State, along with the bloody rampage of Boko Haram in central Africa.

But what is even more striking is the large minorities who still either are willing to state their support for terrorists or say they are unconcerned about their activity. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, Muslim support for suicide bombing has dropped in recent years. Yet even so, in 2014 in major Islamic countries — Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan — somewhere between 18 and 46 percent of the population expressed approval for the proposition that suicide bombing against civilian targets can “often/sometimes be justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies.”

The vast majority of Muslims no longer express support for the late Osama bin Laden, but sizable minorities in some countries still do: 15 percent in Egypt, 23 percent in Bangladesh, and 25 percent in Palestine. The polls suggest two disturbing possibilities. In a world of 1.5 billion Muslims, perhaps 150 million Muslims worldwide — 10 percent — still admire bin Laden, are not concerned about Islamic violence, and support suicide bombing against the perceived enemies of Islam. While Muslim majorities are beginning to react negatively to the escalating violence in their own midst, millions still do not.

And there is the hic in the hiccup.  I am convinced Muslims, almost all Muslims, are content to let their radical brethren take the fight to the unbelievers. They want Islam to dominate both religiously and as a government, it is the teachings after all, but are content to sit on the sidelines cheering for which ever side is winning.

For example, Iraqis fought against the Coalition.  “We hate Americans!” Until we won and they realized we were staying for a while then it was “We LOVE Americans” until it the insurgency looked like it was going to drive out the Coalition. Then it was “We HATE Americans!”  Then we crushed the insurgency and it was back to “Don’t leave us good friends!” Same with Afghanistan.

Germany wasn’t like that at all.  They turned on Hitler because they were suffering defeat, loss of life and loss of quality of life (continuous bombings of civilian targets will do that!).  And this is where we have a problem using this model to defeat Islamic terrorism. The vast majority of Muslims in the world do not suffer any negative effect for the acts of a relative few fellow believers.  The reason is Islam is a religion spread out over the globe.  Germany was a state, a place that could be identified and then destroyed.

Hanson gets to this point.  Muslim really want the terrorists to act out and eventually win. If they don’t, they are not true to their religion.  Sort of Christians secretly hoping Wickens one day rule the world sort of thing.

Clearly polls are not the only evidence of the level of support for Islamic-inspired radicalism. More important can be the degree of passivity of the population. General Sisi of Egypt recently argued that the Muslim clerical establishment bore a great deal of responsibility for global Islamic terrorism, not because these clerics necessarily voiced support for it, but because they were unwilling or unable to mobilize Muslims against it. I can recall meeting with a group of Libyan exiles living in the United States in 2006, all of whom were highly educated, Americanized professionals. They voiced optimism that their former tormentor Qaddafi was liberalizing their country and offering hope of recreating a civil society even for secularized dissidents like themselves. But when I mentioned the then-current case of the Islamic attacks against those associated with the caricatures of Mohammed in the Danish magazine Jyllands-Posten, all four Libyans voiced unanimous approval of the violence against such blasphemers. And when I asked them about the then-recent suicide bombings in Israel, they again voiced support for such activities.

And there you have it.  So how can you punish those people who want the violence in the name of their religion, but aren’t actually doing the violence.  The real issue is how do we whack the mole when the population of the moles is about 1.6 billion, give or take a few that actually may be Muslim in name only and realize Sharia law is a really bad idea.

However, we will have to figure a way to do just that if we want to ever push the Islamic terrorists to the back burner and keep them there.  We will never completely eliminate them, but we can persuade the others to smack them in the heads and make them go away- like a spoiled child at a picnic.   And we have to figure it out soon, because if not, the Islamic terrorist movement will gain members, power and worse- reach.

Hanson points out the obvious.

So far, international polling organizations have not conducted surveys in Muslim countries to ascertain popular attitudes about the attack on Charlie Hebdo. However, we should not be surprised if sizable minorities should voice their support. I would assume that a certain number of Muslims worldwide — perhaps the 150 million posited above — would admire the so-called martyrs whose terrorist acts were thought to be in service to the reputation of the prophet.

While there is great talk in the West that it is only a small minority of Muslims who support Islamic terrorism, and that the remedy for such terrorism must be found within the world of Islam, there is not much logical or historical evidence that such truisms matter much. Ten percent is a tiny minority of any population. But if 10 percent of Muslims worldwide support ongoing terrorist movements, that is still 150 million Muslims, who comprise a large enough pool to aid and abet terrorism, either by giving moral and financial support or by acting as pressure groups within mostly autocratic political systems.

We should not be surprised at that fact. If just 10 percent of the French population is Muslim, and perhaps just 10 percent of that subset supports Islamic violence, there remains a pool nevertheless of perhaps 600,000 radicalized French residents of Middle Eastern descent that offers the sort of environment in the French suburban ghettos that spawns the current terrorist violence.

Moreover, theoretical support or rejection of terrorism as evidenced by polls does not necessarily translate into real-life consequences, especially in non-democratic societies — as we know from supposed German disenchantment with Hitler during the last year of the war. Were we wrong in January 1945 to keep bombing “the Germans,” given that most by then both did not like the Nazi government and yet did not dare to actively oppose it?

The truth is that to the degree that radical Muslim terrorists kill other Muslims inside Islamic countries and make collective progress impossible, or, by their actions, do tangible damage to the reputation of these Islamic countries overseas, they will be become unpopular and eventually find too little support to continue their violence.

However, if Islamic-inspired violence abroad does not directly and negatively affect the Middle East, or if it creates a sense of fear of radical Islam among Westerners that does not translate into hardship for the Muslim world — or that perhaps even succeeds in winning a sort of warped prestige — then there is no reason to expect the Islamic community will take the necessary measures to curb it.

Not as long as they can blame the “West” and keep convincing themselves it is our fault they are so screwed up.

Punish them.  Part of it is weakening Saudi oil.  Part of it is making sure the rest of the seven billion people are on the same page and no longer supporting, because it is cool to do so, Islamic foolishness (Hey Afflick, I’m talking to you, moron!).

Until then, we are going to be subject to concentrated and random acts of violence worldwide in the name of Allah.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment