The attacks by MSNBC’s extremist Rachel Maddow on Rand Paul clarify a good deal for me. Ms. Maddow’s position is based on a sort of warmed over version of the 1920s’ Bloomsbury ideology: effete, secular, socialist, pacifistic, elitist, and libertine. The ideology is shared by her fellow MSNBC extremists Olberman and Matthews and by Mr. Obama and his acolytes. Anyone disagreeing with her and them is not just wrong but perverse, racist, badly educated, antiquarian, and could only come from the scum of the earth. What passes for political thought and philosophy among MSNBC’s neo-Bloomsbury extremists and team Obama reminds one of cheeses and flowers — those that stink the most, last the longest.
This morning’s news photos of President Obama smiling and standing with the president of Mexico is a clear reminder that America is a land of laws — unless our president, Congress, and Supreme Court decide to ignore them because they are inconvenient. As Obama’s people spend large numbers of taxpayer dollars to entertain Mexico’s latest thief-in-chief, you have to wonder what the people of our Southwestern states are thinking — and how can much longer they will tolerate being associated with the U.S. federal government.
I keep getting e-mail from a man named David Horowitz who wants me to give money to his movement to stop what he calls “President Obama’s war on Israel.” The notes are much like the earlier one I wrote about here from the Republicans’ congressional leader John Boehner asking for money to help his party protect Israel against Obama.
After meetings last week in Washington among President Obama, his generals, Secretary Clinton, and Afghan president Karzai, it is worth focusing on what it means for the United States to lose the Afghan and Iraq wars.
Last week on Bill O’Reilly’s program on FOX, he asked if it is important for the adjective “Islamic” or “Islamist” to be placed before the word terrorist, militant, insurgent, or extremist when we are attacked by a Muslim individual or group. The conservative guest tried to answer, but did so ineffectively. The liberal guest supported President Obama’s decision to de-name America’s mortal foes, using the tired old irrelevancy that Irish extremists were not called “Catholic terrorists.” There is such deep and enduring stupidity in this statement that I was surprised Mr. O’Reilly did not pound a figurative 20-penny nail into his guest’s forehead. All that ever needs to be said in response to this inanity is the IRA never claimed to attack anything in Catholicism’s name. It attacked in the name of hating Britain and reuniting Ireland as a secular or — for some — a socialist state.
Almost before the car bomb in Times Square was defused, the city’s mayor, its police commissioner, and sundry politicians were heaping praise on the New York Police Department (NYPD) for “stopping” the attack. This spin will quickly take hold and become accepted as truth. It is not.Continue reading “America again defeated in New York … a portent of the future”
The Tea Party folks are now in the strong position that always comes in a fight with self-blinded, delusional opponents. Mr. Obama and his party, most Republicans, and the media are so arrogant they do not see they are talking only to themselves, while much of the the country comes together against them. The president’s remarks last week about how Tea Party forces ought to “thank him” is a good example of how far removed he is from a reality that finds millions of Americans believing he and our political elite are deliberately trying to destroy what they and their ancestors — white, black, yellow, and red — have built on this continent over the past 400 years.
The National Journal has a blog on national security affairs that I contribute to and this week’s question had to do with Obama, nuclear proliferation, and how to make America secure therefrom. As discussed here last week, I fear the nuclear problem is out of control and that international agreements to secure WMDs are needed but about 20 years too late. For America, as a result, only effective border control has a chance — if slim one —to stop a nuclear or other WMD attack in the United States.
By the end of 1991 — 19 years ago if you’re counting — the Soviet Union was gone and a new Russian government was in power. At the time there was much heated, anxious discussion over the need for immediate U.S.-Russian cooperation to bring under effective control all of the former USSR’s 22,000-plus nuclear weapons. Then, in the 2004 presidential election campaign, John Kerry and George W. Bush debated whether that arsenal should be brought under full control by 2008 or 2010. On Monday, President Obama will convene in Washington a so-called nuclear summit aimed at stopping nuclear proliferation and preventing al-Qaeda and its allies from acquiring and using a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon against the United States or one of its allies. And, by the way, when the conference opens none of the attendees will be able to verify that the former-USSR’s WMD arsenal is fully controlled.
Having been at war with Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and their growing number of allies for nearly fourteen years, Americans now find they have elected a president who has a solution for the problem.