Saturday, 28 February 2015
SELMA AND TRAYVON?
Do you see a connection between the events, 50 years ago, in Selma, Alabama and the shooting, three years ago, of Trayvon Martin?
If so, you'll love the fact that President Obama has managed to tie them together, as seen in the following excerpt from Susan Jones' article at cnsnews.com:
week, Michelle and I and the girls will be traveling to Selma to pay
tribute, not just as a president or a first lady or as African
Americans, but as Americans -- to those who changed the course of
history at the Edmund Pettus Bridge," President Obama told a
gathering at the White House on Thursday.
Obama mentioned the
"legends and giants of the civil rights movement" as well
as "the countless American heroes" who aren't named in the
history books, all of whom marched and sang and organized "to
change this country for the better."
He also thanked
Trayvon Martin's parents for attending the White House reception
marking African-American History Month: "Today, on the third
anniversary of Trayvon Martin's death, showing all of our kids -- all
of them -- every single day that their lives matter, that's part of
our task," the president said.
The Selma march was an invaluable moment in United States History - one that accelerated the cause of equal rights for all people regardless of color. The danger those marchers put themselves in, the sacrifices they made, exposed the reality of Black oppression in Selma and elsewhere, woke people up to the inequities people of color faced and made the USA a better, more equitable country.
Now what did Trayvon Martin have to do with this? Why were his parents invited to the White House? Why were they cited at the ceremony where Selma was invoked? And why - other than raw racial politics - did President Obama not-so-subtly reference the "Black lives Matter" rallying cry of the sharptons and other race hustlers, whose only apparent concern regarding Black victims is for ones they can claim - either accurately or fraudulently - were the result of White racism?
Trayvon Martin was not killed because he was a Black man demanding equal rights. He was killed because he attacked George Zimmerman, at that time a neighborhood watch volunteer, who thought he was acting suspiciously - and who called his suspicions in to the police. The shooting did not take place because Martin was walking down the street, it took place because Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the concrete sidewalk and Zimmerman defended himself.
That is why Zimmerman was found innocent in a court of law. And that is why the eric-holder-led Department of Justice, which was itching to put Zimmerman away, had to admit the evidence was not there to do so.
I could go on about the thuggish lifestyle Trayvon Martin was effecting - the tattoos, the "grille" (gold teeth a gangsta-wannabe would put over his real ones), the three suspensions from school that year, the women's jewelry found in his possession which he could not explain, the fact that what he bought at the convenience store were ingredients which, when combined with codeine, made a well-known quick-high drink called, among other things, "sizzurp", "lean" or "drank"...
...but that would spoil the choirboy narrative about Trayvon Martin that President Obama, abetted by his Accomplice Media, shoved down our throats.
Trayvon Martin had nothing to do with Selma. Trayvon Martin's death had nothing to do with the reasons people risked their lives in Selma. And President Obama's intermingling of the two, by inviting, and thanking, his parents at the Selma gathering, was a disgrace.
THE NEMTSOV KILLING
Another political enemy of Russian President vladimir putin has met a sudden, untimely death.
What a surprise.
Boris Nemtsov, a former Deputy Prime Minister who, today, was about to lead a protest against Putin's governance, never got to today. He was shot and killed yesterday near the Kremlin.
Nemtsov was going to accuse Putin of lying to the people about Russia's involvement in The Ukraine. Putin denies Russia had anything to do with it, but Nemtsov was going to produce evidence that his government was supplying both troops and weapons.
You can read all the particulars in this Associated Press report.
I've lost count of the political enemies of the KGB-trained vladimir putin who have wound up dead. But I better try to keep up. Because I'd bet a lifetime of vodka that Nemtsov won't be the last.
THE DHS SHOWDOWN
Well, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is alive and well for at least another week.
What, exactly, is going on here?
Well, this excerpt from the CBS News's synopsis of the issue (complete with its singling out of "conservative Republicans", of course) should help:
in both chambers were unable to agree to a longer extension of
funding due to disagreements over the President Obama's proposal to
shelter millions of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. from the
threat of deportation. Conservative Republicans in both the House and
Senate wanted to insert language into a DHS funding bill prohibiting
the president from moving forward with his proposed actions, but
Democrats insisted on a "clean" bill devoid of any
chose the DHS funding fight to take a stand on immigration because
the department is responsible for securing the border and issuing the
work permits that would allow undocumented immigrants to remain in
the U.S. While the rest of the government was funded through
September in a spending deal reached last December, DHS funding was
scheduled to expire in February so Republicans could take another
crack at the president's immigration policies after assuming full
control of Congress in January.
on Friday, the Senate
approved a bill that extended DHS funding through September but
did not tie the president's hands on immigration. The measure passed
by a 68 to 31 margin, with enough Republicans joining the upper
chamber's Democrats to push it over the top.
GOP leaders, aware that such a proposal could not clear their
chamber, rallied their members to support a three-week funding
extension to push the immigration fight into next month.
argued that a short-term funding extension would not free the
president to act on immigration, because the implementation of Mr.
Obama's plan was halted
this week by a federal judge in Texas. The judge ruled that 26
states suing the federal government over the proposal had the
necessary standing to pursue their lawsuit. The
administration has appealed the ruling.
Why did CBS have to pollute this otherwise very good synopsis by tossing in that "conservative Republicans" reference? Does CBS think the only people against President Obama's unconstitutional power grab are conservative Republicans?
But, that aside, the result of yesterday's political gamesmanship is that we still have a funded DHS.
Who knows what wonders next week will hold....
Friday, 27 February 2015
Apropos of nothing political...
...if you like really great tasting, fresh, bread, try the "Sperlonga" bread they sell at Whole Foods.
Sperlonga is an unflavored (no onions, poppy seeds, herbs, etc.), ciabatta-like bread. It has a thin, crispy crust, is light and airy - not doughy at all - on the inside, and works with just about any kind of meal.
All this, for just $2.50 a loaf. Absolutely unbeatable taste and quality.
I don't know if Whole Foods sells Sperlonga bread in all their stores, but they do in the one near us. And we couldn't be happier about it. Maybe you will feel the same.
OK, back to politics, where taste and quality struggle to achieve even mediocre levels -- and often are non-existent altogether.
WEB SITE ISSUES
Just a quick word to reiterate that I know there are still problems with the web site. But they are being worked on by Martin and Larry - two of the best guys out there.
Please bear with us.
MEDIA BIAS? NAAAAHHHH
The Washington Post had a blockbuster story last week about Hillary Clinton's foundation accepting many millions of dollars from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State. Two days ago there was a follow-up article that showed at least one contribution - from that wonderful purveyor of human rights, Algeria - went beyond unethical to specifically illegal.
So, given that the odds-on favorite to be the Democrats' presidential nominee next year caught in this kind of a scandal, the coverage must have been massive, right?
With a major tip of my imaginary hat to Curtis Houck's article at newsbusters.org, we find that, yesterday:
-CBS This Morning gave 32 seconds of coverage to this story, but nothing at all on the evening news.
-NBC - not one second of coverage, morning or evening.
-ABC - not one second of coverage, morning or evening.
But let's be fair, there could have been a much more important story out there which superseded it.
Well, here's one: two llamas which were, for some reason, being keptt an Arizona retirement community, got loose and gave the police a good chase before they were rounded up and brought back.
-CBS News gave the llama story 2 minutes and 31 seconds;
-NBC Nightly News gave it 1 minute and 51 seconds;
-ABC World News gave it 1 minute and 36 seconds.
I talk a lot about media bias in here. Any doubt about why?
THE LIE-RS SCANDAL: UPDATE
The IRS scandal - which I call the Lie-RS scandal because of how many lies the people involved have told about it, has a major new component.
Excerpted from Stephen Dinan's article at the Washington Times:
inspector general confirmed Thursday it is conducting a criminal
investigation into how Lois
G. Lerner's emails disappeared, saying it took only two weeks
for investigators to find hundreds of tapes the agency's chief had
were irretrievably destroyed.
have already scoured 744 backup tapes and gleaned 32,774 unique
emails, but just two weeks ago they found an additional 424 tapes
that could contain even more Lerner
emails, Deputy Inspector General Timothy
P. Camus told the House Oversight Committee in a rare late-night
hearing meant to look into the status of the investigation.
is potential criminal activity," Mr.
Liars. Cover-up artists.
Why isn't lois "liar" in jail already, for contempt - after presenting her side of the story and then refusing to answer questions about her activities as head of the Tax Exempt Division, where 501(c)4 applicants with names that suggested opposition to Barack Obama were systematically screwed over for years?
And she is far from the only one.
This stinks to high heaven. And the obvious cover-up, complete with lies about missing "irretrievable" emails that were never irretrievable at all, would be front page news....if it were not occurring in Barack Obama's administration.
It is time - way, way, past time - for mainstream media to stop looking the other way and treating this like the major-league scandal it is. Or do they continue to feel that suppression of free speech is just fine as long as it is conservative groups being suppressed and not them....yet?
AN EXPLANATION IN PICTURES
From our pal Barbie Buddy, comes this:
AVIJIT ROY, R.I.P.
I am terribly sad to say that Avijit Roy, a gifted writer and free-thinker, is dead.
I am even sadder to tell you what happened to him.
Avijit Roy was an atheist - a proud one who ran a web site (mukto-mona.com) devoted to freethinking religious discussion. He wrote 8 books on that and other subjects. Though Mr. Roy spent the last few years in the United States, he was from Bangladesh, and his wife, Rafida Ahmed Banya, was Muslim born.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Roy's writings were despised by radical Islamists. Many death threats were made against him. And, yesterday, several of them apparently decided to make good on those threats.
From John Hinderaker of powerlineblog.com:
today, (Roy and his wife, Bonna) were in Dhaka, Bangladesh for a book fair that featured
two of Roy's books. While walking back from the book fair between
8:30 and 9:00 p.m., they were attacked
by men wielding cleavers. While they have not been caught, no one
doubts that they were Muslims following through on the threats that
had been made against Roy. They hacked both Roy and Bonna savagely.
Roy died shortly thereafter in a hospital. Bonna survived; among
other injuries, the attackers reportedly hacked off the fingers on
her left hand.
Sick? Beyond belief sick.
Unexpected? No. The greatest tragedy here is that this is not the first, nor will it be the last, time radical Islamists will kill someone with the temerity to disagree with their beliefs.
How many more such killings will have to take place before our President talks honestly about what is happening and who is doing it?
Will the hundreds of Christian Assyrians (original reports had it the number at 90 but that has grown much larger) be killed too - simply for living as Christians be enough? Have they already been killed (not to mention raped and/or sold into slavery/and or tortured)?
May Avijit Roy rest in peace. May his wife Bonna recover as completely as possible. And may the sub-humans who did this get the fate they deserve.
THE QUOTE OF THE DAY
Today's quote comes to us from President Obama - and if ever there was a quote that defined the way he sees average Americans, this is the one.
In discussing his executive order which effectively grants amnesty to 4 - 5 million illegal aliens, Mr. Obama said this:
we've done is we've expanded my authorities under executive
action and prosecutorial discretion as far as we can legally under
the existing statute, the existing law. And so now the question is,
how can we get a law passed."
That, folks, is breathtaking:
-Let's start with the fact that there is no mechanism for expanding a President's authorities other than constitutional amendment. None. So the entire premise of this statement is demonstrably false;
-Next there is the claim that this "expansion" goes "as far as we can legally under the existing statute..." That is self-contradictory, because if it were legal under existing statutes it would not be an expansion of Mr. Obama's authorities.
-Then there is the most important point: that it is not legal. And Barack Obama - who used to teach constitutional law - damn well knows it.
How can I be sure that Barack Obama knows his executive order is not legal? He told me so. Almost two dozen times. So far, 22 different videos have been found...and God only knows how many others have yet to be uncovered...in which Obama specifically tells us he cannot do what he did.
One time and you can pretend he misspoke. Two times and you can pretend he was misunderstood. But almost two dozen times in different forums at different venues on different dates? There is no way around it.
-Finally, if Barack Obama's executive order were legal, why would a law even have to be passed? If all it took was a wave of his royal wand, no legislation would be necessary, would it? And, scarily, this is the way Mr. Obama - with copious help from his fawning Accomplice Media - is currently running the country.
I award Barack Obama Quote Of The Day honors, because I value insight --- and, given the above facts, I do not know how he could possibly make his disdain for the intelligence and basic comprehension of average U.S. citizens clearer.
Less than two more years of this nightmare. I count the seconds.
HOLDER'S PARTING SHOTS
eric holder, near the end of his tenure as Attorney General, granted a wide-ranging interview with politico.com's Mike Allen.
Here are some of the "highlights" - which should be extremely illuminating for anyone who does not know what this man is about:
-Though he made a point of saying it was not the major factor, holder told Mr. Allen that part of the difficulty he had as Attorney General was race-based. (within the context he used, I agree with him.)
-He is calling for a lower standard of proof to prosecute civil rights crimes - presumably because his Justice Department could not find enough evidence to prosecute George Zimmerman for Trayvon Martin's shooting, or Officer Darren Wilson for Michael Brown's shooting. This is absurd, since there was no evidence of a racial component to either shooting: no racial epithets were exchanged and neither Zimmerman nor Wilson had any history of racism (which, I assure you, holder's people looked for every way they could).
-His suggested reading for all Americans? The Autobiography of Malcolm X - on the theory that the former Malcolm Little rose from race hatred to embrace all colors before he was killed by his former Black Muslim pals. Personally, I have far less faith in Malcolm's transformation than holder does.
-He says he is going to write a letter to Trayvon Martin's parents, telling them how wonderfully they handled "the tragedy that they have had to endure". Don't count on the letter mentioning that if Martin - a young thug who was not in school that day because he was suspended, again, for the third time that year - had not been pummeling Zimmerman's head into the concrete, he would be alive today.
-And that, after he leaves the Attorney General's office he will remain involved with President Obama's "My Brother's Keeper" program - which the article describes as "a mentoring and youth-empowerment program that Holder has said might be the president's greatest legacy." Neither holder nor Mike Allen mention that this "greatest legacy" is a Blacks-only program, which no Whites or Asians are allowed to participate in, based specifically on the color of their skin. Evidently, holder can find racism in the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown incidents, but not in a federal program specifically designated for one skin color only.
Knowing this, how do you feel about eric holder leaving as Attorney General?
Personally, I am reminded of the classic line "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out".
Thursday, 26 February 2015
THE AIPAC REVERSAL
Well, Obama & Co. has re-thought its brainstorm of sending no more than a medium-ranking member of the administration to the AIPAC's convention this year - presumably to poke Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the eye for daring to go ahead with his speech to a joint session of congress, about the danger of making a "deal" with Iran.
Today, it was announced that this idea has been scrapped, and that two high-ranking people - National Security Adviser Susan Rice and UN Ambassador Samantha Power - will attend.
Yeah, I know both Rice and Power are frequently critical of Israel, and Rice just went on TV saying Netanyahu's speech was "destructive" (does she think a nuclear Iran might be "destructive" too?) But this is the Obama administration, so avid supporters of Israel are not in great supply.
I can only imagine how bad the blowback must have been for Obama & Co. to suddenly reverse field this way. And I wonder if it is enough - i.e. are they sufficiently worried enough - to tell the dozens of congressional Democrats on record as boycotting Mr. Netanyahu's speech that they better show up instead.
If the polling data are any indication, Jewish voters, while still majority-democrat, have been leaving the Democrat party in significant numbers. Are they worried that the treatment being afforded AIPAC - and, more exactly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose presence at the AIPAC convention is almost certainly why this gamesmanship took place - will be the final straw for a good many more?
Stay tuned. This is going to be more than a little interesting.
HILLARY CLINTON AND MEDIA BIAS ON STEROIDS
Are you aware that Hillary Clinton's "foundation (tax dodge?) has accepted tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments?
I assume you are aware these foreign governments want something for their money.
That, readers, is a major news bombshell.
So why is it that, with a few notable exceptions, there has been little or no coverage on the network news shows?
Here are excerpts from Jennifer Rubin's February 18th article in the Washington Post. (Please be aware that much of the information Ms. Rubin uses is from a February 17th Wall Street Journal article...but it is subscriber-only so I'm using the Rubin article instead). Please pay special attention to the last paragraph, which I have put in bold print:
an extraordinary report that has not yet been fully digested, the
Street Journal tells us that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea
Clinton Foundation has received millions from foreign governments
including Qatar, a prominent backer of Hamas:
Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting
funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an
accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton
ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.
donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman,
Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the
Keystone XL pipeline. . . .
foundation of course provides luxury
travel for Hillary Clinton and her spouse, a high-visibility
platform and access to mega-donors. She is beholden in a meaningful
sense to its donors. No presidential candidate can justify a conflict
of interest of this magnitude; it is not merely the appearance
of conflict but actual
conflict of interest.
This bombshell article was published over a week ago. So how much coverage have the network news shows given it?
Well, according to Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, "when the story first broke on February 18, CBS This Morning gave it only 20 seconds, ABC ignored the story altogether and NBC "which gives nothing when it's against the narrative of the Obama administration, gave absolutely nothing."
It is now February 26th - over a week since the story broke. And tell me: how much have you heard about it on the news shows over this period? Anything at all?
I talk a lot about media bias in here. But this is beyond the normal disgraceful level we are subjected to. This is media bias on steroids.
No wonder Hillary is still laughing. And no wonder media's trustworthiness is at or near record low levels.
THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE INTERNET
The Federal Communications Committee voted Thursday to regulate the Internet. It's pretext was the 1934 Communications Act - which, I would hope I don't have to tell you, was not written to have any relevance to the internet.
Since they serve for five year terms, every member of the FCC who voted on regulating the internet was appointed by Barack Obama. There are three Democrats and two Republicans. The vote was 3 - 2 in favor. I won't insult your intelligence by asking if you know which party members voted which way.
If this goes unchallenged, it may well be the end of the internet as we know it...and almost certainly the end of freedom within the internet.
Anyone who thinks Obama & Co. can't still wreak havoc on our lives now knows better. Or should.
NICHOLAS KRISTOF: MAKING HAMAS HAPPY
My congratulations to New York Times op-ed columnist NicHolas Kristof...
...for writing a commentary, published in today's New York Times, that, for the most part, could have been written by hamas.
Here is the link for you to read it and see for yourself.
What you will see is that:
- Israel is a "stain", because there are Israeli settlers in Judea and Samaria (also called the west bank) - which, as of this moment, is not sovereign to any country and which Jews have every bit as much right to as Palestinian Arabs. You will also see that:
-Kristof refers to east Jerusalem, part of Israel's capital city, as Arab East Jerusalem - as if it were a foregone conclusion that this part of the city is Arab property and Jews should not "settle" there (isn't the "Judenrein" - Jew-free, concept straight out of 1930's and 40's Germany?). Does Kristof concomitantly feel all Arabs should be removed from the western part of Jerusalem, and the rest of Israel? Don't count on it: only Jews should take a hike.
-He tells us that Jewish settlements are a "land grab" by a "brutal occupation force" - no mention of the hamas charter which both Gaza and Judea/Samaria are now on board with, which demands all Israel be destroyed and every Jew killed...no land grab or brutality there, you see.
-He spins a story about Mahmood Ahmed, who professes to be a Palestinian Arab farmer, and claims Jewish settlers cut down all the olive trees he planted and prevent him from grazing most of his sheep. But Kristof provides no proof this happened, nor does he interview nearby Jewish settlements to hear their side of this story - i.e. give them a chance to either deny Ahmed's charges or acknowledge them and explain why it happened. Does Kristof know that Mahmood Ahmed is telling the truth; that he is nothing but a benign farmer and had done nothing to generate any action against him by settlers? Nope.
-He quotes a spokesperson for "B'Tselem", a left wing pacifist organization dedicated to fighting the existence of settlements in Judea and Samaria, who - surprise, surprise - is sympathetic to Palestinian Arabs. No interview with anyone who has a differing point of view.
-And, about two-thirds of the way through, Kristof tosses out his CYA statement that , well, yeah, Palestinian Arabs are not all saints either. His exact words: "The violence, of course, cuts both ways, and some Israeli settlers have been murdered by Palestinians. I just as easily could have talked to settler children traumatized by Palestinian violence.". But he does not provide interviews with them; instead, he immediately goes back to attacking Israel for the temerity of thinking its people have as much right to settle in Judea and Samaria as the people committed to killing them do.
There's more: I again suggest you use the link I've provided and read every word. Then you will understand why I doubt Nicholas Kristof could have made hamas happier.
ANOTHER AL $$$$HARPTON SCAM, AT THE EXPENSE OF BLACK PEOPLE?
As any reader of this blog knows, I consider al sharpton to be a very clever racist/anti-Semite/serial deadbeat/tax cheat - among other things, virtually none of them good.
By contrast, Byron Allen is a gifted entrepreneur who has built a media empire - one which he sees threatened by Comcast and other major players paying off al sharpton to help them screw Black-owned venues such as his...payoffs which sharpton has been more than happy to take.
And if you think Mr. Allen has any problem verbalizing his issues with sharpton, I strongly urge you to read the following excerpts from Patrick Howley's illuminating article at dailycaller.com - and then, by all means, use the link to read Mr. Howley's entire article:
cheaper to give Al Sharpton money than it is to do business with real
African-American owned media," Allen told TheDC. "What Comcast
does is they give Al Sharpton money so he doesn't call them racist.
That is the issue here."
more than $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable is waiting on
approval at the FCC, with a decision expected soon. If approved, the
merger would make Comcast the most powerful media corporation in the
world. But as Allen, who owns seven upstart cable networks, points
out: Comcast pays out $11 billion in licensing fees to networks that
it carries on its platform. How much of that money goes to 100
percent African-American owned media companies? $3 million. A
fraction of one percent.
is Sharpton on TV every night on MSNBC? Because he endorsed Comcast's
acquisition of NBCUniversal. He signed the memorandum of
understanding back in 2010. He endorsed the merger. Next thing you
know we're watching him on television trying to form a sentence.
Every night we have the privilege of watching adult illiteracy."
Sharpton is nothing more than a black pawn in a very sophisticated
white economic chess game," Allen continued. "He's not even
bright enough to know he's on the chess board and he's being used
by his white masters at Comcast, specifically [executive vice
president] David Cohen and [chairman and CEO] Brian Roberts."
As you probably have surmised, Byron Allen is less than taken with al sharpton's ethics and his capabilities as a TV show host.
My one issue with Mr. Allen's analysis? That sharpton is not bright enough to know he is being used. I believe he most certainly is bright enough to know this...and is doing it anyway.
There are many reasons to dislike al sharpton. And many reasons to be absolutely appalled that he is a revered kingmaker in the Democrat Party; an inner-circle confidante of President Barack Obama, New York Mayor bill de blasio among others.
My thanks to Byron Allen for going public with his condemnation (yes, I understand he has a vested personal interest in doing so, but given sharpton's hold on much bigger players than Allen, it is, nonetheless, a significant risk.)
Wouldn't it be nice if other media people had the guts to do the same?
SORRY, SORRY, SORRY
More web site problems - which (in case you are wondering), to the best of my knowledge, have nothing to do with the site's content.
I'm hopeful they will be fixed soon.
A NOTE TO THE HARF-WITTED
Are you one of the Harf-witted?
That is, are you one of the thoroughly benighted, intellectually compromised souls who believe what you hear from Marie Harf, the State Department's resident CSIT (Credible Spokesperson In Training)? Especially her claim that the way to fight terrorism (not radical Islam, mind you) is by addressing "root causes" such as poverty and lack of job opportunities (not religious zealotry tied to a murderous Islamic sect)?
If so, this beginning to Souad Mekhennet and Adam Goldman's article in today's Washington Post may be of interest to you:
knows him as "Jihadi John," the masked man with a British accent
who has beheaded several hostages held by the Islamic State and who
taunts audiences in videos circulated widely online.
his real name, according to friends and others familiar with his
case, is Mohammed Emwazi, a Briton from a well-to-do family who grew
up in West London and graduated from college with a degree in
computer programming. He is believed to have traveled to Syria around
2012 and to have later joined the Islamic State, the group whose
barbarity he has come to symbolize.
have no doubt that Mohammed is Jihadi John," said one of Emwazi's
close friends who identified him in an interview with The Washington
Post. "He was like a brother to me . . . . I am sure it is him"
Tell me: Does that look like a poverty stricken man who would be unable to find a job? Assuming you have an IQ at least as high as a ripe parsnip, I am guessing the answer is no. Just as I am guessing you don't believe those three teenage girls in Minneapolis who left good homes and a schools where they all were doing well, to go to Syria and join ISIS, were poverty-stricken and heading for unhirable lifetimes either.
When you look at the leaders of radical Islamic terrorist groups, do you find poor, hopeless waifs from the desert or the slums of Kabul, Damascus and Peshawar? Or do you find educated, relatively well off (sometimes filthy-rich) "leaders" like al-qaeda's osama bin laden and zayman al-Zawahiri, or ISIS's abu bakr al-Baghdadi? Read those names again, read up on their backgrounds, and see your answer.
Are there destitute, hopeless Muslims who sign up with ISIS? Yes there are. But a huge majority of Muslims who are poor and hopeless (the Islamic world, sad to say, is loaded with them) do not become terrorists.
So what draws a tiny fraction of them into radical Islamic terror? Is it so hard to understand that a willingness to believe in, and dedicate their lives to, the "ideals" of radical Islam (which appear to be that everyone who isn't like them should be killed) is a prime motivating force?
Therefore - Marie, I'm talking to you - if we want to address radical Islamic terrorism, we address radical Islam. What we don't do is pretend it isn't there, as you and your ultimate boss, President Barack Obama do.
Looking the other way at what is right in front of everyone's eyes is how "virtually decimated" al-Qaeda and "jayvee squad" ISIS wind up making you both look like hopeless, overmatched buffoons.
That, readers, is my note to the Harf-witted. I hope (against hope) that they benefit from it.
Oh, one more thing: about that CSIT position, Marie? You've got a long way to go.
hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.
In conjunction with the ads on this site,
third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser,
or using web beacons to collect information.
At "Hopelessly Partisan" we discuss all issues, big and small. Such as:
-How does President Obama deal with a completely Republican congress?
-How will Harry Reid like watching Mitch McConnell take the bills he sat on for years and send them to the senate floor?
-Why is Hillary Clinton suddenly harder to find than Waldo? Is it the Jeffrey Epstein/Hubby Bubba scandal?
-Will Brian Williams ever do another broadcast for NBC?
-Will Benjamin Netanyahu incur the wrath of Obama and make that speech before Congress?
Right down to:
-Is Michelle Obama contributing to childhood obesity because kids are tossing out her idea of lunch and heading for Mickey D's instead?
-Will there ever be a worse Super Bowl call than that pass play at the goal line?
-Did Melissa Harris-Perry really ask the Attorney General of the United States to quack like a duck?
In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.
So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of "The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics", and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.
And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!
TO THE LEFT
Crooks and Liars
The Huffington Post
IN THE MIDDLE
Real Clear Politics
TO THE RIGHT
Front Page Magazine
Sweetness & Light