At least since 9/11, the Muslim jihad against the West has led to a number of eloquent books detailing the plight of the West and documenting in detail what is happening.
I include not only Muslim colonization of Europe, but also the attacks on Christian communities in Africa, Asia and the few Christians remaining in the Middle East.
However, those works which I have read, and some of them are truly excellent pieces of writing and research, all seem to me to share a common weakness.
When, in the concluding chapters, they turn from detailing the remorseless advance of Islam in one continent after another, and the impotence of liberal democracy in the face of it, to what to actually do about it, their often-razor-sharp prose has a tendency to turn to vague platitudes and truisms.
It is impossible to blame the authors of these publications for this. For one thing, the West is facing an enemy unlike any other, an enemy particularly skilled at using the West’s institutions of liberal democracy and the pacific elements of Christianity, to its own advantage.
Further, the enemy has no recognizable military structure. It has no general staff whose mistakes can be taken advantage of, no population concentrations that can be bombed to any point.
Against a drive to Islamize the world, bombing Afghanistan has never been much more than a waste of time, creating an illusion of purposeful activity and cutting a few heads off a hydra. Killing Osama Bin Laden did not damage Islamic jihadism as in, say, World War II killing Hitler would have destroyed the heart of German National Socialism. There can be no possibility of the equivalent of a Gorbachev who either could or would end the machinery of the terrorist jihad. The war in Afghanistan was plainly futile from the start if its object was to defeat international terrorism. The Boko Haram killing Christians in Africa in the name of Allah have probably never heard of Afghanistan. Winning or losing ground in the vicinity of the Khyber Pass will make no difference to the unemployed Muslim “youths” in slums ringing the French (and not only French) cities who regard Western Civilization with fascinated disgust.
We have the finest navies and air forces in the world, almost useless against an enemy who has neither. Further, to even advocate any sort of comparable counter-attack is not only incompatible with our own civilized values, but probably illegal.
I realize I am doing more-or-less what I am criticizing others for: floundering for an answer.
It is the first war in which our side has made broadcasting our own propaganda, let alone anything more active, illegal. Things have reached such a pass that even a cultural revival of patriotism (one, but only one, of the essential requirements, and for Europe more than the United States) would probably need some sort of censorship or government influence in the media comparable to, say, the anti-smoking campaign. […]
See, the news is out that Chavez did have an opportunity to be cured. Instead of taking it, he chose Castrocare instead, for political reasons, as well as general paranoia. He really did buy into the Michael Moore SICKo line about Castrocare being superior.
The results speak for themselves. But don’t ever let it be said that Chavez didn’t die for socialism.
If there was a saving Grace to those days spent in Cuba between the advent of la puta revolución and the bittersweet day of our departure, it was that we were one of the few houses in our block who actually owned a working television.
We were gusanos, but that old Zenith B&W set made us very popular worms in our neighborhood.
Even in those days of State-controlled broadcasts, with Cuban television’s version of El Zorro sounding way more Socialist than a pre-Lost in Space Guy Williams ever did, and where the prophetic irony of a show with a title like Sán Nicolás Del Peladero was lost in the time prior to the official kickoff of Castro’s “Periodo Especial”, otherwise known as the “Cuban Gatocide” as multitudes of domestic cats mysteriously disappeared from the Island, that TV was a lifeline to sanity and a way to remind ourselves that there was a world outside the shrinking walls of fear and distrust in Castro’s Cuba.
A better world, somewhere, out there.
I remember sitting down nightly to enjoy the few hours of entertainment programming sandwiched between the endless stream of propaganda and government directives (Ahorre agua!) that constituted Cuban television programming in the mid 1960’s; we seldom went out at night those days. Maybe my parents were being cautious as every gusano lived with the fear of random revolutionary acts of retaliation, even back then, before things got worse, or maybe there just weren’t a whole lot of things to do at night for a young family in Cuba after the fall.
So, we’d eat dinner, clean up, and sit on the couch under the wide louvered window in our living room ready for the night’s entertainment. We had two such windows in our apartment that more than made up for the lack of air conditioning with an ever present breeze. One window faced the bay in the distance, and the other overlooked a walkway between our apartment building and the house next door. The walkway was bordered by a concrete wall…un muro, and as soon as we turned on our set that muro was immediately covered with the neighborhood kids, silently watching the shows over our shoulders. I guess that old muro would be the Gonzalez family theater’s balcony.
We all sat there, the gusanos and the neighborhood kids, watching TV and hoping for an old American flick to come on.
There were old Cagney flicks (Made it Ma! Top of the world!), as well as films from starts with exotic names like Rooney, Flynn, Stewart and Ladd, and as we sat there and watched these films, with the country literally falling apart all around us, there was one thing we knew beyond the shadow of a doubt because we saw it in the movies we watched.
To the North of us, there was a land where the good guys always won, a land where the bad guys didn’t stand a chance, and where for every Jack Wilson there were two Joe Starretts and a Shane to stand up to them.
And good guys always wore white hats.
That’s what we knew then…we knew this about the land to the North, and the thought of a nation populated by white hat wearing good guys who would defend their homes, their families, and their towns against any number of black hat-wearing bad guys, kept hope alive in the hearts and minds of that little band of gusanos watching an old Zenith black and white TV set in those Havana nights of so very long ago.
Something has happened since then to that land, to that culture and to Hollywood.
Sometime between “Shane” and “Thelma and Louise”, between “I Love Lucy” and “Sons of Anarchy” we lost sight of the good guys, and the nation that believed in principles became a nation that gorged itself in amoral self indulgence and wanton violence.
And I blame Hollywood for a lot of it.
Sexual content for the sake of sexual content and gratuitous violence became the norm. Bad guys became heroes, the Joe Starretts of the world became victims, and we were convinced that people were defenseless in the face of evil.
So much so that now the guys in white hats have been replaced by superheroes, wizards and noble robots from other galaxies. A message so subtle yet so strikingly clear that it is hard to miss: we’re not enough to handle threats to our existence. We need a greater power to protect us.
The culture of violence and lack of respect for human life promoted by Hollywood has permeated every aspect of our lives, and Hollywood is the one place in the US where mindless violence is rewarded, even if it is only the realistic portrayal of gratuitous violence.
Sit with your kids and play a few minutes of Grand Theft Auto if you don’t believe me, or try to keep track of how many people Liam Neeson kills in Taken 2.
We have been systematically desensitized to violence and gore as violence and gore became movie themes in and of themselves. Little by little, as a nation, whether in our choices at the box office or in our support of abortion as a “right”, we lost sight of the worth of life.
We can hold an honest debate on whether it was Hollywood that changed the culture, or whether it was the changes in the culture that drove Hollywood’s standards into the gutter, but there’s little to debate on whether or not Hollywood’s influence on society has been largely negative.
So the sight of self-aggrandizing, self-indulging Hollywood personalities demanding that “something be done” and that we should “demand a plan” just set me off.
The absolute insulting irony of being prodded to “demand a plan” by these effete acting school trendies with their feigned accents and armed bodyguards was a bit more than I could bear, but then I saw this:
Yeah…I got a plan.
My plan is that you leave me to defend my home, my family, and my country, while you all get on your knees and apologize to all the victims of the senseless, gratuitous violence and immorality that you make millions promoting.
My plan is to raise my kids to understand that your social relevance is as real as those Marvel superheroes that you play on the big screen.
My plan is to teach my kids to defend themselves, and by extent their families from not only the morally corrupted and the psychopaths in this world, but from their enablers as well.
My plan is to make sure that my children understand who and what makes a person a role model, and that neither you, or the politicians that you support are it.
My plan is to raise men, not “low information voters”.
My plan is to bring back those white hat days of old, days when bad guys got their asses kicked at the end of the movie.
Here are two related stories. The first, from a couple of weeks ago, has a Democratic Congressman calling to limit freedom of speech by legislation and constitutional amendment.
A Democratic representative is calling for an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow for some legislative restriction of freedom of speech.
“We need a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) was quoted as saying by CNS News.
He reportedly made these comments while speaking at the Annesbrooks HOA candidate Forum held last month.
In a video obtained by the website, Johnson asserts that “corporations control … patterns of thinking.”
“They control the media. They control the messages that you get,” he added. “And these folks … are setting up a scenario where they’re privatizing every aspect of our lives as we know it. So, wake up! Wake up! Let’s look at what’s happening.”
Corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution because of the ruling in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,” which found that a sate law prohibiting corporations from making political campaign contributions using their treasury funds was unconstitutional.
The ruling additionally stated that the spending was a form of political speech that is protected by the First Amendment, according to the official blog of the Supreme Court of the United States.
“These corporations, along with the people they support, other millionaires who they’re putting into office, are stealing your government,” Johnson was quoted as saying by CNS News. “They’re stealing the government and the U.S. Supreme Court was a big enabler with the Citizens United case.”
The second — not a surprise to anyone who follows this blog — has the wonderful Harry Belafonte urging President Obama to imprison his opponents. Yes, you read that right:
Don’t worry, though, socialism will never take hold in the United States…
Luis’s recentcoming out of the post-election head trauma coma post doesn’t leave a whole lotta head left on the nail because he hit it so damn hard and square.
I have been shaking my head over the last few weeks myself. I go out amongst the electorate and mingle in the day-to-day activities we citizens of this morphing nation, from representative republic to government-driven socialist state under the guise of “democracy”, and scoff in their faces as they bitch and moan about the economy, the prices at the pump and at the stores, their home energy bills, and whatever else is now out of their control by choice (Yeah, you voted for more free stuff, but wait until they start pushing you around telling you what you can and cannot do anymore.). If only you bitchers and moaners standing in line with me understood what is going on beneath the surface… Um, that would include the continuing chipping away of our Constitutional Bill of Rights by the “non-binding” (don’t make me laugh) U.N. treaties (our tax dollars, our free speech, our gun rights, our communication rights, and even our disabled family members), with the blessing of the raunchy globalist/socialist emboldened “progressive” democrat partyoccupying the US Senate, the pussified GOP held US House, and the imperial White House. Ah, forgetaboutit! I am worn out from trying to learn yunz when it counted, prior to you walking into the voting booth and voting against the highly successful businessman that made hard and unpopular decisions to save and have businesses become successful and sustain employment for others simply because you were sold the “he’s an evil white rich guy” mantra. No, you all figured the guy who never held a real job in his life, never made a decision he could be blamed man-up and take responsibility for, and taking credit for those he could be endlessly praised for (especially by his own telling over and over and over…), was the lesser of the two evils. Nicely played, you bastions of critical thinking. Nicely played.
Let’s see if that can change in the near future. Presumably it should if the press reports that a realistic compromise is on the table that— hey, looky here— aligns with the public’s and the press’ professed desires, but early signs show it’s being treated unseriously in the press. Heck, even a plurality of Obama voters want the deficit dealt with by making more spending cuts than tax hikes:
A survey of 800 Obama voters, conducted last month by Benenson Strategy Group for the moderate Democratic think tank Third Way and shared first with POLITICO, finds that 96 percent believe the federal deficit is a problem and that 85 percent support increasing taxes on the wealthy.
Yet 41 percent who supported the Democratic incumbent want to get control of the deficit mostly by cutting spending, with only some tax increases, while another 41 percent want to solve it mostly with tax increases and only some spending cuts.
Just 5 percent of Obama supporters favor tax increases alone to solve the deficit, half the number who back an approach that relies entirely on spending cuts.
Meanwhile, according to polling by CNN, registered voters oppose Obamacare by a margin of 10 points — 52 to 42 percent. Independents like Obamacare even less, opposing it by a margin of 22 points — 57 to 35 percent. Clearly, voters didn’t think they were ratifying Obamacare when they pulled the lever for Obama.
The shift away from the view that the government should ensure healthcare coverage for all began shortly after President Barack Obama’s election and has continued the past several years during the discussions and ultimate passage of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010. Americans are divided on that legislation today — 48% approve and 45% disapprove — as they have been over the last several years.
Republicans, including Republican-leaning independents, are mostly responsible for the drop since 2007 in Americans’ support for government ensuring universal health coverage. In 2007, 38% of Republicans thought the government should do so; now, 12% do. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners there has been a much smaller drop, from 81% saying the government should make sure all Americans are covered in 2007 to 71% now.
One thing that has not changed is that Americans still widely prefer a system based on private insurance to one run by the government. Currently, 57% prefer a private system and 36% a government-run system, essentially the same as in 2010 and 2011. Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the percentage of Americans in favor of a government-run system ranged from 32% to 41%.
Anyhow, read the whole thing with Mary Katharine Ham’s insight. She is more tenacious at this point than I am. My give-a-damn’s busted right about now since I had a long conversation last night with my (1/2 way through third year) medical school daughter about how Obama’s takeover of student loans inside ObamaCare has screwed her, and all other students, royally. She is only aware of it because, *gasp!*, she informs herself, pays attention to what’s happening in this country, and thinks ahead about her personal responsibilities as an adult, and not just for today. I guess she’s doing it all wrong…
Venezuela President Hugo Chávez is now battling bone metastasis from his pelvic cancer, according to a report by Spanish newspaper ABC. Citing an unnamed intelligence source, ABC’s Washington correspondent Emil J. Blasco says there has been a recurrence and spread of the tumor, which was detected in a test performed on a trip to Havana just after the elections on October 7.
Blasco said the metastasis is causing Chavez “severe pain in the left femur and serious walking difficulties.” He also says that Chavez passed out twice in August, losing consciousness briefly, and that doctors determined that his situation was deteriorating slowly but steadily.
Chavez last appeared publicly during a televised meeting on Nov. 15, prompting some critics to publicly wonder where he went after his election win.
During the electoral campaign, he repeatedly dismissed rumors that he had not been cured of his cancer, and vowed to serve out his six-year term. […]
You see, in this current atmosphere of being immediately offended by either obvious, obscure, or even non-existent insult or offense (typically involving the mortally wounded atheists or Islamists/Muslims … and if it’s MSNBC any word in the Webster’s dictionary deemed “racist” code words or dog-whistles at any given moment), the left’s double standard of reproach has been expanded. Christians and Catholics are not permitted to express offense when they are offended. Yesterday’s coverage of actor Jamie Foxx’s insidious joke ( and as we have been told, in comedy there has to be an element of truth for it to be funny) that Barack Obama is the “Lord and savior” brought out the conservative community’s objection, and the left’s objection and ridicule of our objection. However, even Obama supporters were not tickled with Foxx’s hollow levity.
Of all the reactions I read throughout yesterday in the fallout, this exchange on Hannity last night had some of the best points made about Jamie Foxx’s remark being a sample of where a large hunk of American society is right now, and it is not uplifting…
What Jamie Foxx fails to understand is that he struggled and worked longer and harder, failed and succeeded, to get what he has and enjoys in wealth and fame … Obama is a post turtle spending OUR money with Foxx’s blessings while HE enjoys expensive accountants that make certain Foxx doesn’t pay anymore taxes than he has to.
Meanwhile, it is apparent Chicago Jesus Obama has his own Mary Magdalene as Sandra Fluke is in the running for TIME’s “Person of The Year”. Upon reading her background it is very fitting in this portrait of the Jamie Foxx rendition of the unholy family…
The daughter of a conservative Christian pastor, Sandra Fluke, 31, became a women’s-rights activist in college and continued her advocacy as a law student at Georgetown.
REALLY?? Person of The Year? The woman demanded free contraception (rather, taxpayer-funded contraception) when going to a taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood for free or cheaper than dirt contraception, or Walmart’s $9/month pills, was just too oppressive and discriminatory for intellectually superior college coeds to fend for themselves and their personal needs. Yet, another media post turtle.
“The GlobalPost Mission is to provide original international reporting rooted in integrity, accuracy, independence and powerful storytelling that informs, entertains and fills the void created by diminished foreign coverage by American media.”
From a GlobalPost story today:
According to Evelina Santiago, who moved to the United States from Mexico 25 years ago, Obama is the only choice.
“We love Obama,” she said. “I think most Latino voters do. Many are confused about Romney; they do not know what his purpose is, and they are very worried about his immigration policies.”
Santiago conceded that Cubans were in a different category, and would probably vote differently. “They only think about their own interests, getting their land back in Cuba,” she said. “They are not thinking about this country.”
The GlobalPost, btw, is also home to NPR’s Cuba “Expert” Nick Mirroff, proud recipient of a Castroite “journalist” visa…
Peggy Noonan is now claiming the Denver debate exposed the real Obama to the American people. Those of us in 2008 who saw Obama for exactly who/what he was and wasn’t really don’t need to hear her superior claptrap now just days before the 2012 election, especially when she was one of those selling the bitter lemon Obama to the American people and allowing the MSM to call us mean and conspiratorial as she was swooning and fawning over Obama and the history to be made by electing him. Would do her cred a hell of a lot of good if she just friggin recognized and admitted she was WRONG about us and we were RIGHT in 2008. Would do her some good to chastise the MSM (that we were yelling about) that were burying and hiding the real Obama back in 2008, and have continued to cover for over the last 4 years, and called us then and now “racists” whenever we spoke the truth about him. Maybe some are waking up now to the empty chair that Obama is, but they also need to be aware of the huge snow job that was done on them in 2008 that Noonan was a part of…
We all say Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. But it’s all still Denver, Denver, and the mystery that maybe isn’t a mystery at all.
If Cincinnati and Lake County go for Mitt Romney on Nov. 6 it will be because of what happened in Denver on Oct. 3. If Barack Obama barely scrapes through, if there’s a bloody and prolonged recount, it too will be because of Denver.
Nothing echoes out like that debate. It was the moment that allowed Mr. Romney to break through, that allowed dismay with the incumbent to coalesce, that allowed voters to consider the alternative. What the debate did to the president is what the Yankees’ 0-4 series against the Tigers did at least momentarily, to the team’s relationship with their city. “Dear Yankees, We don’t date losers. Signed, New Yorkers” read the Post’s headline.
America doesn’t date losers either.
Why was the first debate so toxic for the president? Because the one thing he couldn’t do if he was going to win the election is let all the pent-up resentment toward him erupt. Americans had gotten used to him as The President. Whatever his policy choices, whatever general direction he seemed to put in place he was The President, a man who had gotten there through natural gifts and what all politicians need, good fortune.
What he couldn’t do was present himself, when everyone was looking, as smaller than you thought. Petulant, put upon, above it all, full of himself. He couldn’t afford to make himself look less impressive than the challenger in terms of command, grasp of facts, size.
But that’s what he did.
And in some utterly new way the president was revealed, exposed. All the people whose job it is to surround and explain him, to act as his buffers and protectors—they weren’t there. It was him on the stage, alone with a competitor. He didn’t have a teleprompter, and so his failure seemed to underscore the cliché that the prompter is a kind of umbilical cord for him, something that provides nourishment, the thing he needs to sound good. He is not by any means a stupid man but he has become a boring one; he drones, he is predictable, it’s never new. The teleprompter adds substance, or at least safety.
A great and assumed question, the one that’s still floating out there, is what exactly happened when Mr. Obama did himself in? What led to it?
People saw for the first time an Obama they may have heard about on radio or in a newspaper but had never seen.
They didn’t see some odd version of the president. They saw the president.
And they didn’t like what they saw, and that would linger.
[…] But the best and brightest of the Kennedy-Johnson administration were so self-deluded with their “success” that they decided to apply the same strategy of “flexible response” in Vietnam. Cyrus Vance, who was a deputy secretary of defense at the Pentagon in 1962 and who later served as Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of State, confirmed this view: “We had seen the gradual application of force applied in the Cuban Missile Crisis and had seen a very successful result. We believed that, if this same gradual and restrained application of force were applied in South Vietnam, that one could expect the same result.” Not!
If, as Kennedy thought, wars start by “miscalculation” (one of Kennedy’s favorite books was Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August, which argued that World War I began because of “miscalculation”), then the task of leadership consists chiefly of sending the appropriate rational “signals” to affect the other side’s calculations about the chances of war. During the heydey of this thinking, John P. Roche recalled, “Discussions of military security began to sound more and more like seminars in game theory. There was a kind of antiseptic quality permeating the atmosphere; one often had the feeling he was attending a chess match. . . The atmosphere made those of us who come from the harsh training of poker decidedly uneasy.”
In reviewing this whole period of liberal strategic thought, military historian Jeffrey Record wrote that Robert McNamara was “The most disastrous American public servant of the twentieth century,” combining “a know-it-all arrogance with a capacity for monumental misjudgment and a dearth of moral courage worthy of Albert Speer.”
Wonder what Record would say about Obama?
The McNamara quote is a keeper.
BTW, our very own cirujano has brought these facts to the attention of readers over and over and over and over again.
Victims of the Nov. 2009 Ft. Hood shooting are being denied benefits commensurate with combat injuries because the Obama administration refuses to label the attack an act of terrorism.
Instead, the shooting Maj. Nidal Hasan carried out after screaming “Allahu Akbar” it is still being labeled “workplace violence.”
The difference between labeling the incident “workplace violence” and “terrorism” is not only the rightful recognition 13 of our troops deserve for being killed in service to their country on Nov. 5, 2009, but also ongoing benefits that would help survivors pay for the physical therapy, and other medical and psychological treatments that might be necessary to a full recovery.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has openly stated that the shooting, which took place in his state, was an act of terrorism and that the president such recognize it as such. He said, “President Obama’s refusal to call it an act of terror is a shining example of this administration’s devotion to political correctness over the defense of our men and women in uniform.”
The rumor mill surrounding the health of Fidel Castro churned anew on Friday, despite a letter from the aging Cuban revolutionary published by state media and denials by relatives at home and in the United States that he is on death’s door.
Social media sites and some news organizations have reported allegations by a Venezuelan doctor that Castro, 86, had suffered a massive stroke, was in a vegetative state, and had only weeks to live, though the same doctor, Jose Rafael Marquina, has made some claims before that have not panned out.
Marquina told Spain’s ABC newspaper that Castro had suffered a “massive embolism of the right cerebral artery” and while not on life support or breathing artificially, was “moribund” at a house in a gated former country club in western Havana.
Marquina also said that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had traveled suddenly to Havana to be with his friend and ally, an account that could not be immediately verified.
Reached by The Associated Press, Marquina said his sources were in Venezuela, but he would not identify them or say how they were in a position to have information about Castro’s health. He also indicated he had received corroborating evidence from sources on Twitter, but would not say who. […]
Meanwhile, a woman who several years ago decided to pretty much dump the USA for England and a faux British accent seemed to find time to do some endorsing and campaigning for Obama (and out him as a “black Muslim” … or something) during her lame concert tour to promote her floundering latest CD and her very obvious has been career … and the results are predictable (Language Warning)…
By the way, the woman has promised to strip naked on stage should Obama get re-elected. So, just one more reason in the long and growing list of reasons why Barry Obama must lose in November.
You see, all the fame and fortune in the world cannot buy a person’s way out of the catagory of useful idiot.