Chance favors the prepared mind - Louis Pasteur

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Greg Gutfield has an awesome idea for what to build across the street from the Park 51 project (aka the Ground Zero Mosque):

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque - after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law - who can stop them?

Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I’ve decided to do the same thing.

I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

...

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps - but still want to dance.

Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.

My place, however, will have better music.

If he is serious, this would be great.  It perfectly illustrates the line I see between “not offending anyone”, which carries zero water with me and “discriminating against someone”, which does.  Would the Park51 people find the gay bar offensive?  Probably.  Too bad guys.  Freedom cuts every way we can imagine.

The beauty of this is that the Park 51 developers can’t really oppose this (anymore than the could oppose a pork deli or a strip club).  Once they open the door of “I am offended”, they’ll be the first ones to fall through it.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Either Obama was handled by some right wing warmonger or he is showing more of the stupid that is rampant in the liberal ideological system when he said that al Qaeda was a racist organization.

A senior US official suggested Mr Obama was taking a direct swipe at the ideology and motives of al-Qaeda affiliates on the continent, which US intelligence agencies say are the extremist group’s most active branches. “Al-Qaeda is a racist organisation that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Mr Obama issued the personal warning to the continent of his father’s birth days after suicide bombers killed 76 in Uganda in an attack claimed by the Somali militant group al-Shabaab, which has links to al-Qaeda.

Mr Obama said terrorist organisations “do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself”. “They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains,” he told the South African Broadcasting Corporation.

I say brilliant! I sure as hell hope this was a plant by right wingers to finally get this government of fools, hell bent on making al Qaeda like us, pissed at these bastards. If you look at what Obama is saying it literally comes down to “hey, we finally see al Qaeda, and organization that has a long and distinguished homicide bomber and murder record, is bad because they are killing blacks!”, and it seems to be hitting one of the three pillars of liberal ideological black listing; racism, sexism, and homophobia.

Suddenly, because they are now going of West Africans, they are bad guys. Maybe now Eric Holder will have an interest in going after them? It’s Arabs on black violence, after all. Let’s forget the feeling you get reading Obama’s words that he is almost regretful that al Qaeda is targeting people he feels would be sympathetic to their cause for now, and focus on the fact that the WH suddenly has decided these guys are real bad. Maybe we can go after them for hate crimes now? Heck, Gitmo might suddenly become a good thing too. What’s next? Islamic radicalism might even make its way back into the lexicon? You have to forgive me for seeing a conspiracy here considering the revelations.

Let’s get the WH to see that al Qaeda is also virulently homophobic and sexist, and maybe we actually will get them to have the UN send them an angry letter…

Dirkka dirkka, Mohamed Jihad!

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Israel has had nuclear weapons now for a few decades, and short of the usual nutjob demanding the Jews be pushed into the sea and the land reclaimed, non of its Arab nations have ever felt the need to build nukes to protect themselves. As anyone that hasn’t been living under a rock knows, that sentiment has not been extended to Iran, a fellow traveler and the nation vying for the title of top Jew hater, which has nuclear ambitions. In fact, Iran’s Arab neighbors are all either contemplating nuclear programs of their own - something they never felt compelled to do to keep up with Israel, or flat out pointing out that only idiots think anything short of force will deter Iran at this point.

Monday, June 14, 2010

You know we in the West have horribly botched up dealing with the Iranian leadership’s nuclear ambitions when the Saudis are siding with Israel against Iran. True, Arabs in general have feared Iran, and with good reason, and they aught to fear a nuclear armed Iran run by these maniacs even more. They know that the Obama and UN sanctions against Iran will accomplish nothing. Just like all the other wasted talk over the last 8 years or so. And that Iran basically is now emboldened, not just to build nukes, but likely to use them - you do not have to fire off the nuke to cause all kinds of mayhem as North Korea has already demonstrated - against an impotent West. The Saudis are thus quite contempt to let the Jews do the hard and dirty work, then go to the UN and complain a bit – they need that show for the morons that live in the ME to continue to believe the propaganda that all their ills come from evil Jews, and not the fact that their cultures are dysfunctional and destructive – to save face. Let’s pray Israel does what the rest of the world should have, and saves us all from a real Armageddon. Not like they will ever get their kudos for doing it though

Friday, June 11, 2010

About a month ago, a Community Board approved the construction of a 15-story mosque and Islamic cultural center near (not at) Ground Zero. The intent, according to its founders, is to help create a better relationship between Islam and the West.  There was no objection to this until the 9/11 families got ahold of it.  And now it’s provoking not just opposition, but obnoxiousness. During the last rally, the crowd turned on two Christian men because they were also Arabs.

Here’s the justification given:

“It’s insensitive to the 9/11 families because Islam’s faith was so central to the actions of 9/11,” said Corbett, who also drove to the protest rally, held on a plaza across from Ground Zero where families have gathered in recent years on the anniversary of the attacks to mourn loved ones.

While I can understand this point of view, I simply can’t harness the outrage that seems to be circling in some quarters over this. There seems to be a perception that this is, in some way, honoring the hijackers.  Even if we assume that the attack somehow represent a religious statement (as opposed to just mindless bloodshed), there were many more Muslims murdered on 9/11 than there were doing the murdering.  And if you look at the terrorist violence taking place all over the world, the primary victims are, in fact, Muslims living in Afghanistan and Iraq whom AQ and other organizations happily kill when they cooperate with the West, oppose radicalism, educate their daughters or just generally get in the way of the Islamist agenda.  The typical Muslim is more likely to be a victim of a terrorist than a terrorist. And this is especially true of American Muslims.  We have anywhere from 2-7 million Muslims in this country, only a tiny fraction of whom are even remotely involve with radicalism.

Moreover, what ever happened to that “they hate us for our freedoms” bit? Isn’t one of the freedoms they hate us for religious freedom?  And the economic freedom to build whatever you want wherever you can afford to?

Look, Islam is not going anywhere.  A key part of our strategy for mitigating the danger of terrorism has to involve supporting moderate Muslims against their radical counterparts.  The message we need to be sending to the Islamic World has two parts—that we’re fine with moderate Islam, but we will destroy extremists. How is that message advance by trying to banish a mosque from anywhere within X miles of Ground Zero?

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Guess what Hal? Obama has just done another thing I approve off. Props to the guy for ordering this:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday. Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said. It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president.

There has to be a price for betraying your country and siding with the enemy. Obama’s and his team got this one right. Wish Bush had done something like this when he needed to. Sometimes this kind of violence is the best answer or choice in a whole range of shitty ones. I wonder how the MSM or the elft will feel about this though…

I heard about Obama’s new nuclear policy a day or two ago, but decided to get more details before commenting on it. I should have gone with my first instincts and just pointed out then that this idiotic new policy was madness masquerading as progress. When even the usual MSM DNC talking point outlets like the NYT are asking if the new policy disarms America, you can bet that’s the end result, if not the end goal and plan, in the first place. Think about it. The people that have now decided America will literally take forever to decide on a response and get the options from lawyers, if they can respond to any WMD attacks in kind at all. These people and this new policy are completely undermining the MAD (mutually assured destruction) philosophy that have prevented a nuclear exchange by the powers that be, first during the Cold War with the USSR, and then in the new world that came after their inevitable fall. These are the same people that have vehemently objected to any and all US efforts to create some kind of missile defense, and have argued that it was because they firmly believe that if we got such a defensive system, it would undermine the MAD principle and lead to bad choices if not another arms race. But what they are pushing for is disarmament – that’s what the end game is, and Obama has made no bones about it – and whether they admit it or not, this policy has now have literally done away with the concept of MAD. WTF? In order to deter the use of WMDs from others - only stupid liberals live with the idiotic angst that it will be the evil US that will start Armageddon - we will now make our response to a WMD attack to not only be even more unclear, but now also limited? Again, WTF? Bye, bye MAD. No changes for defense, but changes that make us not just weaker, but invite attack, that’s progress!

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Just after one year of “Hope and Change” it looks like people are wising up that they got sold the same bill of loser collectivist goods of the Carter years, and pining for those bad days they told us we had when republicans were in charge. As reality clashes with fantasy and things like this, this, this, this, this, this, and this keep happening, the democrats continue to pretend that what people want is bigger government, a complete takeover of healthcare - 1/5th of the economy - by that big government, and a massive migration from jobs in the private sector to a fraction of the number of jobs lost there in the public sector. And that doesn’t tackle the complete collapse of the AGW scam which wanted to expand the government take over globally and other such stupid ideas. At least Clinton was smart enough to be saved by a republican takeover of congress in 2004. I doubt Obama, a true believer, will be able to make the same connections. After all, he was told he was the messiah and could walk on water.

As I said before, a few years of the democrats in power would be enough to make many see the light. I just didn’t think it could take but one year for that to happen. I could not believe that the democrats were really this inept and stupid, but they are hard at work proving me both right and wrong. Democrats are good at manipulating the news, with help of the complicit MSM, to attack their opponents when they are in power. Unfortunately now that they are in power, even with massive help covering up for them by the MSM, they can’t hide how inept they are. Reality has a way of destroying most collectivist fantasies, and what is happening isn’t anything new. The fun thing is that I get to bring out my latest find, a poster on some highway in the Mid West that tells the story better than anything else:

Give it time. The numbers are getting bigger and bigger, and all but the most hard core leftists are agreeing that for all his faults, and he had them believe me, Bush was heads and shoulders a better president than the current community organizer in chief….

Thursday, January 07, 2010

I hope the people at USA Today were being ironic when they put up this article about how Americans are going to be shocked by this whole sordid underwear bomber affair. The shock I experienced was at this quote from Obama:

President Obama “is legitimately and correctly alarmed that things that were available, bits of information that were available, patterns of behavior that were available, were not acted on,” Jones said in an interview Wednesday with USA TODAY.

WTF? Obama and his team that had been handpicked precisely so they could put terrorism on the back burner and go back to the days of pretending this was not a problem, now wants to make like there is a problem? Let me ask again: WTF? The decision to minimize the terror threat - and I should also add shifting the focus to their political opposition by making it policy to look harder at dissatisfied conservatives, which Janet Napolitano and crew called more dangerous than the Islamic radicals - was a conscious and deliberate move by this administration, starting right with the president that belongs to the party that has been campaigning on the fact that fighting terrorism was creating more terrorism!

In fact, they did not stop there. This WH has actively, directly and indirectly attacked everyone that followed Bush era policies intended to actually prevent terror attacks. What the moonbats and the MSM fail to realize or report, be it on purpose or simply because of ideological stupidity, is that it was not a coincidence that during the Bush years we had no more attacks after 9-11. The SOP then was to treat these people as serious threats: we were at war. The left demonized Bush for doing that too. When the donkeys won and decided to sideline Islamic terrorism – people opposing Obama and the left’s agenda were the only real terrorists worth bothering about - and again make it just your average run of the mill criminal activity, what did they expect to happen? That the terrorist would quit in sympathy? What did they think their campaign to demonize and punish the people that had taken the Bush era orders and directives to prevent more terror attacks – like their campaign to go after the CIA for actually once doing what it took to stop attacks – and use them to take a poke at the top members of the Bush administration would lead to? I don’t if it takes a genius to figure it out, and don’t know about you, but if my new boss tries to punish me for diligently & effectively following orders of given by my old boss, orders that actually worked and matter, I think my attitude will simply become to avoid doing anything and everything that might be then used against me. That’s human nature. So you will pardon me for not wanting to give Obama a pass now that he and his team say that there was a problem connecting the dots? SHYA!

These idiots don’t get it. They can not have it both ways. If you do not take this threat seriously and deal with it as such, if your politically motivated efforts to score cheap points against your predecessor with your lunatic base obviously will result in problems but you still go ahead with it, and more importantly, if you continue to try and pretend that just because you have decided to stop dealing with these people that have declared war on us as such, don’t act surprised when they not only come at you harder and more frequently. And please don’t pretend it is not your fault. We got lucky. This bastard was stopped. Sooner than later however, especially with the current attitude towards the war against these terrorists and radicals, one of these twisted monsters will get lucky and people will die.

But don’t worry. They have a plan.

Senate Intelligence Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said a “very comprehensive no-fly list” would be “the greatest protection our country has.” In an interview, she said the definition of who can be included should be expanded to include anyone about whom there is “a reasonable suspicion.”

Yeah, I am sure this will work. These government bureaucrats are so good with lists. Treating this threat with the seriousness it deserves and actually acknowledging the left is damned wrong about the way it approaches this entire issue, for pure political reasons nevertheless, is not going to happen. Don’t thus be surprised when we get more of the same. So far it does look like the terrorists sure love the Obama presidency just like the left promised us the world would.

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

I have often told liberals that the greatest vindication of the Bush policies would come from the next elected democrat doing more of the same and the left suddenly twisting itself into pretzels justifying that, and it has not even been a full year yet since Bush left that these tools are not letting me down.

After a year with President Barack Obama at the helm of U.S. foreign policy, an observer could be forgiven for concluding that the presidency is more like taking over the controls of a train than getting behind the wheel of a car. That’s because you can’t steer a train; you can only determine its speed. So far, the menu of foreign policy challenges, and the Administration’s response to each, is remarkably similar at the close of 2009 to what it was at the close of 2008.

Obama’s promises of outreach to adversaries and consultation and coordination with allies certainly cleared away some of the negative atmospherics left by the Bush Administration. However, his substantial policy positions have proven to be remarkably similar to those of the second-term, chastened-by-reality George W. Bush. Indeed, anti-war Democrats groaned when the President, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, referred to “evil in the world” and hailed America’s willingness to use force abroad over the past six decades as an essential component of global security. The neoconservatives cheered.

Literally, you can condense the pile of manure and twisting in this Time article’s opening statement into: Blame Bush for Obama having to do more of the same! The rest of the article is replete with more excuse making for why Obama is now forced to not just follow Bush policies, but expand on the ones that irked the left the most when Bush was doing them. From Iraq – which we have now won despite the stupid left’s enormous campaign to declare it a loss (and accompanying actions to make it so) - to Afghanistan, which the Obama administration labeled the only “just war” right before it found itself desperately seeking for excuses to cut & run (like I predicted Afghanistan was just an excuse for the anti-US crowd to hide behind while attacking the Iraqi war, and despite all the blather would be abandoned just as quick as they could as the idiotic authors pathetic attempt to actually make the case for less action in Afghanistan clearly proves), the Obama Administration is doing more of the same that Bush did. In fact Obama is now realizing that despite his most fervent desire to bail on Afghanistan, that doing so will have consequences that will definitely affect his desire for a second term in office. I find the lack of a mention of the situation with Pakistan quite telling too.

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Why have we not gotten more of this? Seriously. Our media and the leftists and their PC society are going to get more of us killed. This is unbelievable stuff.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Looks like the terrorists that killed 3000 of us on 9/11/2009 are just as excited as the radical America hating left is about their opportunity to spout their views of the evils of our great nation.

NEW YORK (AP) - The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday. Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but “would explain what happened and why they did it.”
The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

Sure makes Holder’s choice of this venue very obvious now. It is a bone thrown out those that like them think it is America’s fault for being or doing whatever they don’t like. All the usual Bush and America hating turds can rejoice in the crap these idiots will spout and secretly, or not in many cases, nod in agreement. Of course, not even the Obama people are so stupid to believe that these people should be able to go free. That’s why Holder has promised they will be found guilty. BTW, if that claim by Holder is not a clear indication of a rigged trial and a huge problem with our justice system, I don’t know what is.

Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try the men in a New York City civilian courthouse have warned that the trial would provide the defendants with a propaganda platform.

And also the losers that agree with them. That’s how this should read. But it won’t. We all know it, but we will not say it out loud. Need to give these shlobs something to feel good about considering they are front and center for the destruction their kind of thinking is wreaking on our country these days.

The attorney general said he does not believe holding the trial in New York - at a federal courthouse that has seen a number of high-profile terrorism trials in recent decades - will increase the risk of terror attacks there.

Doesn’t matter that Osama said he targeted new York for this very kind of stuff. Watch these idiots blame Bush for this too.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Well it looks like Holder has decided to bring the terrorists behind the 9-11 attack to justice in a US courtand people already are pointing out the politics and stupidity of this move. I watched Holder get lobbed a bunch of softball questions while working out at the gym this AM and simply could not believe the crap he was saying. First off, I was baffled how he talked about bringing them to justice and having a fair and impartial trial, only to then assure the mouthpieces playing at reporting that expressed the concern that trying war criminals (my words not theirs) in a civilian court could see them getting off, that he was certain they would be found guilty.

Of course Holder avoided answering what they would be tried for and kept mouthing off that he was going to ask for the death penalty. But in the end there was no clear charges mentioned, and that was obviously on purpose. And the obvious thing to me here is that this is all a meaningless but dangerous political act of contrition intended to appease the left, and it shows. Obama, have no doubt that even though Holder is doing the talking that Obama is pulling the strings, is going to give the left that circus to paint America as the bad guy he promised. I wonder if they no longer feel this sort of stuff makes terrorists like they used to tell us back when Bush was in charge and we tried to fight these terrorists.

Also, what nobody also asked was how long this Kabuki dance would take to play out. Considering the back and forth that is sure to follow between the lawyers defending these scumbags and the Justice Department, it could take a decade or more before these trails happen. In the mean time Obama and Holder are not just (hopefully) likely to be long gone, but they score cheap political points by claiming they brought these terrorists to trail even if they are going to be locked away for another decade or more, put us all at in danger. Remember that Bin Laden pointed out the reason he chose the Twin Towers was that he wanted to amongst other things punish us for trying the other bearded camel humper that tried to blow the place up in 1993. I wonder if these Ivy league geniuses know that or simply don’t care?

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Talk about having the country with the greatest support for terrorism getting a little of their own medicine. In an act that I am sure is Ironic to most of us but likely got missed by the Iranian monsters oppressing the people of Iran, we get this tid-bit:

TEHRAN (Reuters) – A suicide bomber killed six senior Revolutionary Guards commanders and 23 other people on Sunday in one of the boldest attacks on Iran’s most powerful military institution. The attack, in the country’s turbulent southeast, came as Iranian officials were to meet Western counterparts for a second round of negotiations in Vienna on Monday intended to help resolve a standoff with the West about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

State media said a local rebel group called Jundollah (God’s soldiers) claimed responsibility for the attack, the deadliest on the elite Revolutionary Guards in recent years, which also wounded another 28 people at a meeting of tribal chiefs. “Rigi’s terrorist group has claimed responsibility for the attack,” said state television, referring to Abdolmalek Rigi, leader of Jundollah which is linked by some analysts to the Taliban in neighboring Pakistan. The Guards themselves accused “foreign elements” linked to the United States of involvement. Tehran accuses the United States of backing Jundollah to create instability in the country, a charge that Washington denies.

What’s hilarious is that the blame the current panty-waste do nothing cowards in DC for the attack, be it directly or indirectly, after these crooks in DC removed all aid for Iranian dissidents in the hopes of kissing up to these evil men! If anything these Sunnis are going to be backed by Saudi Arabia, where Sunnis are in the majority, but Iran is not ready to blame them yet it looks like.

I guess the mullocracy is still brutally oppressing, but the people are using some of the mullah’s own tactics against them now.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Here we go again. Another bunch of idiots is setting us up to lose another war, while pretending to want to spare innocents. As usual, I am certain this stuff will not blow up in our faces:

KABUL — The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday. The order would be one of the strongest measures taken by a U.S. commander to protect Afghan civilians in battle. American commanders say such deaths hurt their mission because they turn average Afghans against the government and U.S. and NATO forces. Civilian casualties are a major source of friction between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the U.S. The U.N. says U.S., NATO and Afghan forces killed 829 civilians in the Afghan war last year.

If I was one of the terrorist commanders/planners, I would just order my people to drag some “innocent civilians” into a building somewhere near American troops, blow the place up, while making sure the scene looked as gruesome as possible, get some MSM reporters that are always ready to blame America for anything to come give this “massacre” some prime time and front page exposure, and presto: instant scandal that more likely than not will make the fighting for the troops even harder.. Do this a few times, and the left will demand we pull the troops out of Afghanistan (which might be part of the plan from the get go) to stop them from committing “atrocities”. We saw it in Iraq. That one of their own is in charge will not matter. They will see it as them legitimizing Obama instead of him handing the US another defeat.

I have already had this argument over a dozen times with many lefty idiots. Yet it bears repeating: war is supposed to be an ugly thing. Every time western nations have made new rules, to clean war up and protect the “innocent”, they have encouraged those innocents to be put into harm’s way. Every single time. No exceptions. All rules like this do is prolong the fighting and make sure we end up with as many innocents as possible in harm’s way. And to exacerbate the problem, we need to remember that the enemy we are currently fighting in Afghanistan does not place any value on human life, often not even their own. Because we do value innocent’s lives we should avoid any and all policy, like this one, that reduces human lives to just another tool for the enemy to use.

I guarantee you that if these innocent bystanders could not be used as propaganda fodder, that these rules would not be needed. In fact the enemy would not try to use them as shields because it would not help them avoid a beat down. Please do not think I want or enjoy innocents dying, but we need to use basic psychology when making this kind of decision. Claiming you want to protect innocents might play well in the press, but when your supposed ROE changes make it a lot more likely innocents will be put in harm’s way, you are not really helping out. Maybe if war was brutal and ugly again, a lot less people would want it so much. And the people running Afghanistan right now and complaining about civilian casualties – practically always civilians that were put in harms way for the propaganda value - ought to know that.

Cross posted at Wasting time with Alex