Via the Maha Rushie:
If your spouse has three different versions of a night out with the girls, she’s hiding something, right? No question about it, right? If your spouse has three different versions of a night out with the boys, he’s hiding something. Probably. Either that or he or she was so drunk they can’t remember and they have to make up different stories, but probably they’re hiding something.
Now, based on what everybody heard on this increasingly popular, growing-by-leaps-and-bounds radio program yesterday the reason the regime’s story keeps changing is they don’t want to say Obama ordered an assassination. Well, Holder goes out there and claims it was self-defense; they’re twisting themselves here in lot of different ways. But the fact is as we pointed out yesterday there was no way they were gonna take Bin Laden alive because that would have put them in an impossible political position. They’re not gonna subject Bin Laden to their own sissified policies.
They’re not gonna send him over here, not gonna give him an ACLU lawyer and not gonna promise him a trial, they’re not gonna do that to themselves. They would not do that. So apparently Obama was willing to pass up a possible treasure trove of information if Osama was taken alive. The political situation had to be certain here. We found Bin Laden. He was available for a kill shot any number of ways. He was defenseless. We caught him totally by surprise. It was important to say that Osama’s death was the result of some contorted version of self-defense. I mean, they tried out wearing a suicide vest under the pajamas!
They gave up on that and said, “Oh, there was an AK-47 within arm’s reach.” (chuckles) Now, we’ve been told that Bin Laden had been there for quite some time. The SEALs were there to kill him. The Reuters story, I believe. It was a kill mission. Like we care. But Obama cares, his base cares, he can’t admit it. So here’s where we are. Now, follow me on this. He ordered an assassination, and he can’t say it. He put us on a path to socialized medicine, and he can’t say it. The stimulus bill was a slush fund for public sector unions. He can’t say it. EPA regulations are back door cap and tax. He can’t say it.
He’s a card-carrying member of the radical left. He can’t say it. He has a leftist-inspired prejudice against the private sector. He can’t say it. Bill Ayers was his good friend. He can’t say it. He listened to every word in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years. He can’t say it. And he has a real problem with Israel, but he can’t say it. That is why Obama has so many lame, phony, nonsensical versions of answers to simple questions: Because he can’t say what’s really going on. He has to hide who he is and what he’s doing. That’s all that needs to be said.
He has to hide who he is and what he’s doing — and he is “the most transparent president ever.” He has to hide who he is and what he’s doing, and that truth — that undeniable truth — is on display every day. How many versions are we on now in the aftermath here of what happened?
Some good comments in the thread to this post at AoSHQ: Merry Christmas: Muslim Terrorist Group May Be Planning Big Terror Attack In Mumbai
133 It really is inevitable. I remember that Three Conjectures article when it came out. Reading it again just hammers in the point that this period of bootlicking and fawning over our enemies in hopes they “give up” on their aim to murder us all is just delaying the inevitable.
The intent will determine the response, not the capability once the nuclear threshold has been crossed – and any rational actor must recognize that the intent of Islam is to conquer and enslave. Period.
We can’t be waiting for a Muslim Martin Al’Luther anymore. We’ll have to either eliminate Islam by application of thermal/pulsed EM energy or we’ll have to eliminate it by replacement wtih a form of religion we can trust – basically, they have to become Amish. Or we’ll ripple-burst nukes over their faces and countries for a few months.
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at December 24, 2010 03:32 PM
138 Going back, I found linked at that Belmont Club article an earlier one from Lileks. These were in 2003, remember, when the unAmerican left just started to get it’s howl going – that howl of insanity that resulted in our current President.
Here was the perfect summation of both the domestic enemy- the hard left – and of what will happen if we don’t want the war to go on any longer.
They hate this nation. In their hearts, they hate humanity. They would rather cheer the perfect devils than come to the aid of a compromised angel. They can talk for hours about how wrong it was to kill babies, busboys, businessmen, receptionists, janitors, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers – and then they lean towards you, eyes wide, and they say the fatal word:
And then you realize that the eulogy is just a preface. All that concern for the dead is nothing more than the knuckle-cracking of an organist who’s going to play an E minor chord until we all agree we had it coming.
I’ve no doubt that if Seattle or Boston or Manhattan goes up in a bright white flash there will be those who blame it all on Bush. We squandered the world’s good will. We threw away the opportunity to atone, and lashed out. Really? You want to see lashing out? Imagine Kabul and Mecca and Baghdad and Tehran on 9/14 crowned with mushroom clouds: that’s lashing out. Imagine the President in the National Cathedral castigating Islam instead of sitting next to an Imam who’s giving a homily. Mosques burned, oil fields occupied, smart bombs slamming into Syrian palaces. We could have gone full Roman on anyone we wanted, but we didn’t. And we won’t.
Which is why this war will be long.
I have highlighted what I think are quite good and quite effective policy changes.
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at December 24, 2010 03:43 PM
This is one of the major reasons why I detest America-hating, “anti-war” people who do nothing but trash America, trash our military and consider everything wrong in the world to be the fault of America… all while claiming that the rest of the world are just innocent victims of our horrible oppression. These people have NO idea what is true oppression and how oppressive we could be, if we actually wanted to be.
Great article by Sultan Knish: Breaking the Siege Mentality of Airline Security
Under our current system, all we can do is wait. Gather intel, tighten security, send out alerts… and wait. Wait for another attack.
But we’re not on the defensive because we have to be. We’re on the defensive because we choose to be. We stand around getting shot at, and insist that it must be raining. We have a gator chomping on our leg, and we blame muscle aches. We have Muslims trying to kill us, and we insist that it’s religiously undifferentiated extremists. Like Glenn Beck.
After 9/11, our goal was to kill terrorists. We went on the offensive and we actually succeeded. Not just in killing terrorists, that’s not hard to do, but in frightening them. In terrorizing them. And then we decided to turn their countries into humanitarian projects, rebuild them, provide free electricity, dig their wells and protect them. And not only did we get played for suckers, but the terrorists rebounded. They were back in their element, trying to bring down a regime and terrorize the occupation forces. And we were on the defensive.
And we’re still on the defensive.
We could end 99 percent of the threat of terror by shutting down every mosque and deporting every first and second generation Muslim immigrant from this country. And every convert. But of course we can’t do that. That would be “Un-American”. On the other hand TSA agents groping female air travelers, now that’s properly “American”.
In the same way, we could save the lives of our troops, by dropping all the “Hearts and Minds” nonsense, and focusing on wiping out terrorists and anyone who collaborates with them. Not to mention take back the American oil fields that the Saudis nationalized, and turn off the money tap for Al Qaeda. But that too would be “Un-American”. But burying fallen soldiers every week, who aren’t allowed to defend themselves under the “Hearts and Minds” Rules of Engagement, that is just very “American”. Isn’t it?
It’s possible to do anything, so long as you’re willing to accept the consequences. But on the other hand if you’re not, then the options are limited. If we go on living in a world, in which Islam is the “Religion of Peace” and our primary goal is to appease them, then we will always have the choice between being oppressed by the authorities or murdered by the terrorists. Which one we choose doesn’t really matter. Because they’re really a balance. More security, less security. More killing, less killing. As long as we remain in denial, then we’ll have to live with a measure of both at the same time.
That’s life under siege. And the only way to change that is to break out of the siege. We are under siege by Islam. By Muslims, inside and outside our country. The goal of their siege is to wear us down and beat us down to the point where we’ll give them anything they ask for, so we can just have some peace. To the point where we’ll give up our freedoms, our religion and our country — and accept slavery, just to bring the terror to an end.
The Third Option is breaking the siege mentality. And breaking out of the siege. Muslim terror hopes to contain us, isolate us and then move in, and take over. But the effectiveness of their siege depends on our unwillingness to name names, to call them out for what they are doing, and deprive them of their ability to wage war on us. That is how we break the siege. That is how we break them.
Absolutely great comment regarding immigration reform (with which I agree completely) left in response to this post at AoSHQ: The Old “Nation of Immigrants” Trick, Eh?
Yes we need immigration reform, but NOT what has been rolled out the last half dozen times. Every bill that has come out since the first major rewrite in 1965 has basically been amnesty and open invitation for illegals to flood across the border.
We are no longer the country of the 19th century with vast open areas in the West. Our cities are overcrowded shit holes run by corrupt communist hacks AND there is no longer a vast area open for the inhabitants to flee to and take up farming.
This is not to mention that we have entire towns in CA with a population > 20,000 in which none of the citizens speak English. The current crew of “immigrants” do not appear to desire to assimilate and the current crowd of liberals do not think they should. The schools have gone from teaching America as a mixing pot to America as a salad bowl where “diversity” is celebrated and heritage counts for all, unless you have a European heritage then you are a racist.
Yes, there are a lot of things that need to be done to “fix” our immigration laws. The first one of these should be to repeal that POS of Amnesty Round I that got us where we are today.
We need immigration law that does the following AND that is enforced:
1. Eliminate the BS anchor baby interpretation by providing a definition of what the term “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means, which is not dashing across the border to deliver a baby. Personally, I would require that at least one of the parents of any child born in the U.S. be a citizen before that child was eligible for “birthright” citizenship. If not, then the child would have to undergo naturalization.
2. Provide a reliable means for employers to check the status of employees.
3. Provide severe punishments for knowingly hiring illegals (or reckless disregard). That punishment should include jail time for repeat violations.
4. Eliminate ALL benefits for illegals including schools for children.
5. Rewrite legal immigration to allow in immigrants with a desirable education and/or skill set and arrange the waiting list to have the most skilled/educated at the top of the list. (Australian system) Also include a check for communicable diseases (as we did in the past) and provide for immunization. Immigrants from countries on the list of terror support need not apply.
6. For groups that already have large populations in the U.S. who have not assimilated, reduce the allowable numbers until they do (eliminate whole towns that do not speak English)
7. Provide severe penalties for mules.
8. Provide the death penalty for people involved in sex slavery.
9. Eliminate all forms of asylum. That system has been abused to the point of making it a joke. Any true case that needs to be let in should be a case by case special act passed by congress. Get them on record.
10. Immigrants who become involved in any serious crime prior to becoming a citizen should be deported back to their home country.
11. Absolutely no dual citizenship allowed.
Posted by: Vic at October 05, 2010 09:07 AM
Also, great points made by Geoff in the original post:
This is based on the old canard that because the nation was founded by immigrants and continued to welcome large influxes of immigrants through its first 130 years, we must continue to honor that same ethic today. So even though the Constitution is considered by these sorts of folk to be a “living document,” our immigration policy must never change.
Well, I’m here to tell you that times do change, and that in this case they changed a long, long time ago. In fact, the notion that we are a “Nation of Immigrants” was, until relatively recently, an antiquity. A few years ago I wrote a post where I plotted up the number of foreign-born residents over the past 100 years:
The plot below shows the number of foreign-born people residing in the US (click on the graph for a better view). This includes both legal and illegal residents. As you can see, the total number of foreign-born residents stayed fairly constant from 1910 to 1970, even as the population of the US doubled. The foreign-born percentage of the total population dropped to just under 5% by 1970.
Today we have a foreign-born population of about 15%, which I would guess is a little high for easy assimilation. But the point is, until Ted Kennedy pushed the Immigration Act through back in 1965, we were not at all a “Nation of Immigrants.” We were a nation of Americans, 95% of whom were born and raised right here.
Heh, great point in the comments:
Casanova compared the hostility toward Muslims to the hostility toward Catholics from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century. A wave of Catholic immigration unsettled the dominant Protestant establishment.
Funny, I must have missed the part in history class where those whacky Catholics attacked and killed thousands of innocent civilians during the mid 19th-20th centuries.
I must have also missed the part where American citizens were brought to the Vatican and beheaded when they refused to convert. Or the part where Catholics kept commandeering ships and taking those people hostage. Or the part where those darned Catholics kept gathering together in large groups, burning the American flag and chanting about how they wanted us all dead.
Yup, I must have missed all that, otherwise I would have to find Casanova’s entire comparisson to be way off base and quite frankly stupid.
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at October 05, 2010 09:22 AM
Yeah, I must have been asleep in History class the days they taught about Catholic immigrants chanting “Death to America!”, asking for honor killings and asking to build Churches and Cathedrals on the ashes of our war dead. “Off-base” and “stupid” comparison is an understatement.
Good follow-up by Geoff:
I dont have a problem with appealing to the concept of “nation of immigrants” but with some caveats… which were all mentioned here… willingness to assimilate politically and willingness to support oneself economically.
I’m not suggesting restricting legal immigration, though some updating of that policy could be considered. I’m just saying that we don’t need to feel obligated to continue acting as a “Nation of Immigrants” when that isn’t an appropriate descriptor for much of the 20th century. Our policies should be based on today’s needs and realities, not a reference to policies of the 18th and 19th centuries.
I can’t count the number of libs who have quoted the Statue of Liberty inscription at me to argue in favor of illegal immigration. But that’s just a poem, not a policy.
Posted by: geoff at October 05, 2010 09:40 AM
That “give me your huddled masses” plaque is not our constitution, it was just put in the base of the statue by people that donated money. And as HeatherRadish says:
“…if you didn’t work when you immigrated here in 1890, you starved to death. If you didn’t pass your physical examination at Ellis Island (or Boston, where my ancestors came through), they sent you back to Europe.
It’s all so f-ing simple.”
Only the destructive left could come up with “diversity is our strength”. Now Obama has advanced that to “America has taken too much from the world, time to redistribute”. Barry would water down any “exceptionalism” to where we are “equal” with the failures of the world.
Instead of the advancing the rest of the world, Barry would “diversify” America down to the insanity of mundanity.
Posted by: bill at October 05, 2010 09:43 AM
Another good point regarding assimilation (or lack there of):
Yes, I am really tiring of the “Muslims are the new Catholics!” meme. As has been pointed out above, the analogy is historically bankrupt. More to the point, Muslims are immigrating to America in an era in which assimilation is actively discouraged by the left.
Here’s the difference: when the Catholics heaved up off the boat in the 19th Century, Catholic community leaders immediately began to integrate them into the wider community, via churches, schools, employment, voter registration, military service and social organizations (e.g., the Knights of Columbus).
By and large, the current crop of Muslim community leaders issues them a grievance card at the airport and works hard to instill a distrust of the authorities (e.g., CAIR trying to close off the Minnesota Somalis from speaking with the Feds). There ain’t no Muslim K of C, that’s for sure. Just the flying Imams and lawfare.
Posted by: Steve the Pirate at October 05, 2010 10:10 AM
Great, great comments:
Every nation is a nation of immigrants if you go back far enough. What makes a nation is not the fact of one time immigration, but the shared ideals, history, culture, and, over time, ethnicity of the people. America has had long stretches of low immigration, most notably from 1924-1965, and these periods have done a lot to allow earlier waves of immigrants to assimilate.
The current wave of immigration is troubling for several reasons:
First, unlike the past, we now have a generous social welfare apparatus, and immigrants tend to be poor and overuse these entitltments.
Two, immigrants today are deliberately skewed to the Third World, and these include Muslims. Earlier waves, even Catholics, were mostly white. In a few generations, they were indistinguishable from native born Americans. New groups are more insular and obviously of foreign heritage long after they arrived. Plus our public schools and national leaders do little to encourage assimilation, even going so far as to be indifferent to savage foreign customs like the Burqa or polygamy.
Three, our country has fewer jobs for low IQ people with the loss of its manufacturing sector, and many of these newer groups are lower education and lower IQ, and this is true for their kids as well. This is a formula for multi-generational poverty. Look at East LA.
Finally, the earlier wave is not as successful as sometimes it’s made out; consider the Wobblie Riots, Soviet spies of the 1940s (i.e., the Rosenbergs, David Greenglass), strong support for European style socialism among immigrants vis a vis FDR, and the rise of labor unions at the turn of the century.
Immigration is America’s false consciousness. It is not what we’re about either historically or as part of our founding documents and way of life. It is a small part of our national character and only seems dominant because of the dominance of immigration in the identity of America’s Northeast, which has disproportionate influence on our media and national conversations. In any case, immigration today is clearly out of control, leading to an unnecessary population boom, the erasure of native born Americans in large parts of the country (Miami, Arizona) and straining our national unity and limited government ideals. It is also deliberately erasing America’s founding stock and majority and replacing them deliberately and thereby marginalizing them, not least because of the multiplier effect of affirmative action. This is not right, and, more important, we were never asked by our elites in politics and business if this is what we want. We are a generous and welcoming people; but there is a world of difference of a few guests and a de facto colonization.
Posted by: Roach at October 05, 2010 10:10 AM
It’s not that the immigrants changed, it’s that our expectations changed.
You came here, you were expected to assimilate. You don’t set out to change America, America changes you. That was the expectation, and immigrants didn’t question it.
Early in the 20th century, it was not shocking to hear the president proclaim that the main purpose of public education was to assimilate immigrants. Early in the 21st century, no politician could utter “assimilate” without chocking on the word – or being choked.
Immigrants will try to live up – or down – to our expectations. It’s only human nature. Newcomers, anywhere, will change as little as possible, as little as expected.
Everytime a liberal says the right has forgotten we are “a nation of immigrants,” that we’ve changed our attitude because the immigrants now have brown skin, just note that no, you changed. You changed the contract between America and immigrants. We’re not anti-immigrant, we’re anti-YOU.
Posted by: CJ at October 05, 2010 10:29 AM
Pretty shocking headline, huh? Surprised that this is not all over the news? Well, the reason this is not leading news all across the nation is probably because:
(1) Obama’s best buddies were/are domestic terrorists (Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, etc), so this person would just be on par with their activities and
(2) it wasn’t the founder of a local Tea Party Group, but a founder of an Islamic Charity and they didn’t funnel money to domestic terrorists, but to Muslim jihadists
But just imagine if a local Tea Party group had gotten convicted of supporting terrorists. Think it would be news? With that in mind, ask yourself why it is not news that local Muslim “charities” are supporting Muslim jihad.
Islamic “charities” supporting jihadists: funny how that keeps happening. And it does because there is not the traditional separation between combatant and charitable activities in zakat as there is in the Western tradition, where charitable groups are strictly non-combatant. Rather, Qur’an 9:60 makes no such distinction when discussing groups to whom zakat may be allotted, including those fighting “in the cause of Allah” (jihad fi sabil Allah).
An update on this story, and yet another report related to the “volatile Caucasus.” One can’t help but wonder which attack (or attacks) in our years archived stories about the region might have been the fruits of Sedaghaty’s “charity.”
“Founder of Islamic Charity Convicted,” from Right Side News, September 11:
After a week-long trial, a federal court in Eugene, Oregon has convicted Pete Seda, the founder of an Islamic charity accused of funneling $150,000 to Chechen mujahideen.
Seda, also known as Pirouz Sedaghaty, was charged with conspiring to move money out of the United Sates without declaring it, as required by federal law, and with filing false tax returns to hide the fact that the money ever existed. According to federal officials, Seda accepted a large donation intended to support “our Muslim brothers in Chychnia,” and then surreptitiously shifted the money to Saudi Arabia in the form of difficult to trace traveler’s checks.
Let’s also not forget that it did not make news when the Commies at CODE PINK fund-raised and sent $600,000 to support the terrorists in Fallujah, Iraq in 2005. The same CODE PINK which is best buddies with Obama, Howard Dean and deceased former Congressman John Murtha. CODE PINK’s support of terrorism against the United States was known in 2005. Yet, DEMOCRATS Barack Obama, Howard Dean and John Murtha all associated with them and accepted their support. And, despite that, the American electorate continued to support all three politicians. Despicable.
RELATED: Here’s a story, generating massive national news coverage, of a Tea Party member gunning down her coworkers in Philadelphia. Oops, no, wait… that would be a Muslim woman gunning down her coworkers in Philadelphia and it’s not being covered by national news at all. Imagine that.