Saturday, February 11, 2017
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Friday, October 14, 2016
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Saturday, October 1, 2016
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Sunday, September 25, 2016
From childhood, we have had ingrained in us that in order for interactions between people to work, especially competitive interactions, everyone has to “follow the rules”. The reason we have rules is that we have people, and people are sometimes dishonest cheats. The rules are put in place to prevent the dishonest cheats from winning unfairly, because they are despicable thieves who would steal what rightfully belongs to someone else.
Nobody likes a cheat, except perhaps other cheats or those who stand to share in what the cheater steals from the honest participant. That is, nobody with an ounce of integrity, understanding the inevitability of chaos if half of all participants in an event are permitted to cheat, would agree to participate. Therefore, any system which is premised upon rules requires that independent arbiters, acting without bias and favoritism, intercede to enforce the rules so that each contest is determined by merit, rather than fraud and intimidation. This is called “integrity”.
Unfortunately, when the referees belong to the same organization, or “team”, as the half of the participants in an event who cheat, the system is no longer effective. Indeed, when the half that cheats has become so comfortable with cheating and lying and stealing that they have no reason or intention to stop, because there is no cost to them as long as their cronies remain in charge, the risk is that the rule-followers will never again know what it is like to have an event in which they have any hope or chance of not only competing, but sometimes winning.
After eight years of the most blatant and obvious corruption, we watch current events as if we have a splinter in our eye. An entire political party is so morally bankrupt that it no longer feels any need to hold its members to any rules at all. And yet, it controls the enforcement of the rulebook, and zealously enforces those rules against anyone who doesn’t belong to their lawless team. They do this smugly and self-righteously, as if it is their right and privilege to screw millions of people who follow the rules and believe that a society can only survive it its rules are followed by all, and enforced equally against all.
This is the only kind of fairness that the Constitution contemplated, because it is the only kind that man can control. One man cannot control whether another man with free will makes choices that will prove successful. We are not born owing what we will someday earn to morons who are too careless or brainwashed to make wise choices. As if to stand the theory of evolution on its head, Democrats exist to show us that Darwin was wrong. People do not evolve. They do not improve or adapt to better function in the ecosystem. No matter how much time goes by, humans will always have among them the cheats, the thieves, and the losers. We will always have among us the humans whose nature is dark and evil, those who are incapable or unwilling to place their self-interest behind the concept of a greater good. The world is their oyster, and they intend to steal every pearl they see.
At present, the Democratic party and its membership, particularly in positions of authority and in media, is participating in events as actors unbounded by any rule or law. The IRS commissioner still uses the IRS to target conservatives. The Obama administration is literally turning illegal aliens into citizens to unlawfully alter the outcome of the upcoming election, as Democrats have always done. They are rewarding criminals with early release from prison and restored voting rights simply to tip the scales. They are flooding our country with Muslim Syrians, whose culture is antithetical to ours, knowing the inevitable outcome will be an eventual conflict between those who believe in forcefully imposing Islamic theocracy and those few who still know and believe in the American Constitution. They are making secret alliances with our enemies, or merely surrendering to them out of abject cowardice or belief in common principles. They protect terrorists, who are the ultimate rule-breakers, while demonizing Americans, who cannot figure out what they may have done wrong, having done nothing but exist.
No matter which side of the aisle you are on, it is undeniable that any system that is premised upon rules will fail and break apart when one side gleefully cheats with impunity, but the other side is punished. You would not tolerate this if it was your own child’s sporting event, or one in which you had agreed to compete. You would not peacefully watch a professional event if one team got to do whatever it wanted, while the other team was policed by the cheats. Such an event would unnaturally reward vice and criminality, while punishing integrity.
At present, the Democratic party is the most successful example of a criminal enterprise that we have in this country. The Mafia was never as large and powerful as the Democratic party, but they were at least more honest. They never swore an oath to uphold the law and not enrich themselves with the property of others. There was no public trust betrayed. They pretended to be businessmen, but not to be public servants in order to gain control over the treasury and the arbitrary enforcement of laws against only their enemies.
The last eight years have been about building the brand, honing and perfecting the fraud, constructing the perfect machine with which to destroy what is left of a system of laws, rights and duties. The left believes in none of those concepts, or they would abide by them. They believe the lie of their own superiority and deformed morality. Hillary Clinton believes that disagreement with her is deplorable and irredeemable. She will rule as a tyrant, as spiteful and vengeful as any before her who was slowed by her enemies. Her objective is to utterly destroy the last vestiges of honor and integrity that made this country exceptional.
One thing is certain. We cannot construct a new framework with the Left or its amoral members, just as we would not form a business or marriage or friendship with someone we know we can never trust or respect. Besides, they will try to revive the solutions of Leftist history before they will allow us freedom, from them and for ourselves.
Friday, September 23, 2016
Keith Lamont Scott was scum.
He had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in two different states and convicted of assault in three states. an.’”He had been hit with “assault with intent to kill” charges in the 90s. His record of virtue included “assault on a child under 12” and “assault on a female.”
The media spin; “Family and neighbors call Scott a quiet ‘family man".
Nothing says “quiet” like “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill” and nothing says “family man” like assaulting women and children.
Keith Lamont Scott, the latest martyr of Black Lives Matter and its media propaganda corps, was shot while waving a gun around. He had spent 7 years in jail for “aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.”
This vicious monster’s career of crime ended when he was shot by Brentley Vinson, an African-American police officer, protecting himself from the latest rampage by this “quiet family man.”
Brentley Vinson is everything that Scott isn’t. The son of a police officer, Brentley dreamed of following in his father’s footsteps. He used to organize his football team’s bible studies and mentored younger players. Former teammates describe him as a “great guy” with “good morals.” His former coach calls him a “natural leader” and says that, “We need more Brent Vinsons… in our communities.”
Except that Obama, Black Lives Matter, the media, the NAACP and everyone else going after this bright and decent African-American officer has decided that what we really need are more Keith Lamont Scotts. And the streets of Charlotte are full of “Scotts” throwing rocks at police, assaulting reporters and wrecking everything in sight in marches that are as “peaceful” as Scott was a “quiet family man.”
That’s what Hillary Clinton wanted when she tweeted that, “We have two names to add to a long list of African-Americans killed by police officers. It’s unbearable, and it needs to become intolerable.”
What exactly should be intolerable? An African-American police officer defending his life against a violent criminal who happened to be black? Should black criminals enjoy a special immunity? The greatest victims of black criminals are black communities.
Whom does Hillary Clinton imagine she’s helping here? Instead of standing with heroic African-American police officers like Vinson, she’s championing criminal scum like Scott.
Tim Kaine, Hillary’s No. 2, wants us to think about Scott’s family. We should do that. Scott’s brother announced on camera that all “white people” are “devils.” Timmy should check to see if he can get an exemption from white devildom. But if there are any white devils, it’s men like Kaine and women like Hillary who enable the worst behavior in a troubled community while punishing those who try to help.
Every time the lie about “peaceful” protests is repeated, another black community becomes unlivable.
Twenty police officers have been injured and National Guard troops have arrived to deal with all those “peaceful” protests. Protesters chanted, “Black Lives Matter” and “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” before throwing things at police and then peacefully shooting each other. Stores had their windows broken and decorated with Black Lives Matter graffiti. A Walmart was peacefully looted and trucks were torched.
A police officer was peacefully hit by a car. Another was peacefully hit in the face with a rock. Mobs besieged and attempted to break into hotels. Reporters were attacked and a photographer was nearly thrown into a fire. White people were targeted by the racist Black Lives Matter mob and assaulted.
But all these peaceful rioters are probably just quiet family men too.
The peaceful protests are as big a lie as the “bookish” Keith Lamont Scott reading a book in his car. Police had no trouble finding a gun. They couldn’t have found Scott anywhere near a book. The only thing he could have done with a book is try to beat someone to death with it. Maybe a child.
Scott wasn’t a quiet family man; he was a violent criminal with a horrifying vicious streak. He and the rest of the Black Lives Matter rioters remind us of the monsters that we need dedicated police officers to protect us from.
The spin on what happened between a deranged black criminal and a courageous black police officer fell apart as fast as the Freddie Gray case, where black police officers were targeted and a city terrorized over conspiracy theories relating to the accidental death of a drug dealer.
The claims of racism are absurd. Not only was Scott shot by an African-American police officer, but Charlotte Police Chief Kerr Putney, who has taken the lead in defending him, is also African-American.
Are we supposed to believe that an African-American police officer and an African-American police chief are racists or that these two black men took the lead in a genocidal conspiracy to kill black men?
That’s the laughable premise of the racist Black Lives Matter hatefest that alternates between “Stop killing us” street theater and violent assaults on police officers, reporters and anyone in the area.
But the truth doesn’t matter. Black Lives Matter rioters are still chanting, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” long after the Michael Brown lie fell apart. They’re holding up signs reading, “It Was a Book.” The lie is backed by some of the biggest media corporations in the country, by $130 million from George Soros and the Ford Foundation, by Barack Hussein Obama and by Hillary Clinton.
These are the malign forces destroying Charlotte, as they trashed Baltimore. On the ground there are the vulture community organizers of Black Lives Matter, funded by the left, who parachute in to organize race riots, behind them are the reporters who sell the spin live on the air and the photographers who capture glamor shots of the racist rioters, and after them come the lawyers of the DOJ out to ruin, terrorize and intimidate whatever law enforcement survived the riots.
They did it in Ferguson and a dozen other places. Now they want to do it in Charlotte.
They want to do it because they hate white people and black people. They hate peace and decency. They hate the idea of people getting up in the morning and working for a living. They hate the idea of good officers, white and black men and women, like Brentley Vinson, who genuinely believe in doing the right thing. They want unearned power. They demand unearned wealth. And they thrive on destruction.
This is the real evil in Charlotte. And we need to stand up to it. From the ghetto to the manors of the liberal elite from burning cars to pricey restaurants in exclusive neighborhoods, it plots against us.
It is a lie repeated a million times. Sometimes the lie is simple. Other times it’s sophisticated. But the way to fight it is to begin with the truth.
The truth is that Keith Lamont Scott was a violent criminal who came to a bad end because of his own actions. Just like Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and too many other Black Lives Matter martyrs to count.
The truth is that everything Black Lives Matter does reminds us of why we need police officers.
The truth is that this is not about race, but about those who want to build and those who want to destroy. It’s about the difference between Brentley Vinson and Keith Lamont Scott.
It’s about what kind of country we want to be. Is it a country that celebrates a young black football player who chose to follow in his father’s footsteps, who organized bible study and helped others, who risked his life to keep other people safe. Or is it one that celebrates Keith Lamont Scott, who assaulted a woman, a child and anyone else he could get at, who terrorized three states and died as he lived.
Obama and the left want a nation of Keith Lamont Scotts. But now it’s our turn to choose.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Whenever somebody asks me who I am going to vote foe president, I find myself saying first ' he was my 10th chose'; like I feel embarrassed that I am voting for Trump. Maybe this will help explain better.
There are racists and homophobes in the Trump camp, to be sure. Everybody’s got to be somewhere. Trump is no Puritan, however, and really couldn’t care less what sort of sex people have, or who uses what bathroom (as he made clear), or who marries whom. He built a new country club in Palm Beach two decades ago because the old ones excluded blacks and Jews. He’s no racist. He’s an obnoxious, vulgar, salesman who plays politics like a reality show. I’ve made clear that I will vote for him, not because he was my choice in the Republican field (that was Sen. Cruz), but because I believe that rule of law is a precondition for a free society. If the Clintons get a free pass for influence-peddling on the multi-hundred-million-dollar scale and for covering up illegal use of private communications for government documents, the rule of law is a joke in the United States. Even if Trump were a worse president than Clinton–which is probably not the case–I would vote for him, on this ground alone.That’s not why Trump crushed the Republican primaries. He won because Americans are tired of an economic elite that ignores them. Americans know the game is rigged against them. For generations Americans could make their way from the bo
ttom to the top of the heap by starting businesses. In some periods more of them succeeded than others, but everyone knew someone who got rich more or less honestly. That came to a crashing end during the Obama Administration. There were fewer small firms with fewer workers in 2013 than there were in 2007.
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Monday, July 18, 2016
Yet another criminal known to security services has perpetrated a mass killing, the Tunisian Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. Why did the French police allow a foreign national with a criminal record of violence to reside in France? Apart from utter incompetence, the explanation is that he was a snitch for the French authorities. Blackmailing Muslim criminals to inform on prospective terrorists is the principal activity of European counter-terrorism agencies, as I noted in 2015. Every Muslim in Europe knows this.
The terrorists, though, have succeeded in turning the police agents sent to spy on them and forcing them to commit suicide attacks to expiate their sins. This has become depressingly familiar; as Ryan Gallagher reported recently, perpetrators already known to the authorities committed ten of the highest-profile attacks between 2013 and 2015.
The terrorists, in other words, are adding insult to injury. By deploying police snitches as suicide attackers, terrorists assert their moral superiority and power over western governments. The message may be lost on the western public, whose security agencies and media do their best to obscure it, but it is well understood among the core constituencies of the terrorist groups: the superiority of Islam turns around the depraved criminals whom the western police send to spy on us, and persuades them to become martyrs for the cause of Islam.
Bullet impacts are seen on the heavy truck the day after it ran into a crowd at high speed killing scores celebrating the Bastille Day July 14 national holiday on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, July 15, 2016. REUTERS/Eric Gaillard
These attacks, in other words, are designed to impress the Muslim public as much as they are intended to horrify the western public. In so many words, the terrorists tell Muslims that western police agencies cannot protect them. If they cooperate with the police they will be found out and punished. The West fears the power of Islam: it evinces such fear by praising Islam as a religion of peace, by squelching dissent in the name of fighting supposed Islamophobia, and by offering concessions and apologies to Muslims. Ordinary Muslims live in fear of the terror networks, which have infiltrated their communities and proven their ability to turn the efforts of western security services against them. They are less likely to inform on prospective terrorists and more likely to aid them by inaction.
The terrorists, in short, are winning the intelligence war, because they have shaped the environment in which intelligence is gathered and traded. But that is how intelligence wars always proceed: spies switch sides and tell their stories because they want to be with the winner. ISIS and al-Qaeda look like winners in the eyes of western Muslim populations after humiliating the security services of the West.
As a result, western European Muslims fear the terrorists more than they fear the police. The West will remain vulnerable to mass terror attacks until the balance of fear shifts in the other direction.
As the Prussian army drove into France during the 1870 war with France, Germany’s Chancellor Otto von Bismarck sought the advice of the American military observer, none other than Phil Sheridan, whose cavalry had burned out the farmers of the Shenandoah Valley in the last stages of the conflict. What should Bismarck do about French snipers and saboteurs from villages along the Prussian route of march? Sheridan told Bismarck to burn the villages, leaving the people “with nothing left but their eyes to weep with after the war.” That, and hang the snipers, Sheridan threw in.
Like Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, who burned a great swath through Georgia and the Carolinas, Sheridan believed that war is won not just by killing soldiers but by denying them support from a broader civilian population. There’s nothing particularly clever about this insight. One learns from James Lee McDonough’s new biography of Sherman how ordinary the great man was–a competent military officer without a minute’s combat experience before the war began, then an honest but unsuccessful banker. When the war came Sherman came close to a nervous breakdown, trying in vain to convince his masters that they would have to kill 300,000 Southern soldiers and devastate the Confederacy to win the war. He then distinguished himself in combat at Shiloh in 1863 and went on to become the scourge of the Deep South.
The Union always had more men and more resources; what it lacked was generals with the stomach for the job. That meant not only the grisly war of attrition waged by Grant, another middling commander with absolute resolve, but also retaliation against civilians: When snipers fired on Union soldiers from Tennessee or Kentucky villages, Sherman expelled residents, burned houses, and laid waste to crops. There are lessons here for what we used to call, quaintly, the Global War on Terror.
Destroying ISIS, al-Qaeda and other Muslim terror groups is not particularly difficult, far less difficult than Sherman or Sheridan’s task during the Civil War. It simply requires doing some disgusting things. Western intelligence doesn’t have to infiltrate terror groups, tap phones, mine social media postings and so forth (although these doubtless are worth doing). Muslim communities in the West will inform on the terrorists. They will tell police when someone has packed up and gone to Syria, and when he has returned. They will tell police who is talking about killing westerners, who has a suspicious amount of cash, who is listening to broadcasts from Salafist preachers.
They will tell western security services everything they need to know, provided that western security services ask in the right way. I mean in Phil Sheridan’s way. Like the victorious Union generals of the Civil War, the West does not have to be particularly clever. It simply needs to understand what kind of war is is fighting.
Most Muslims are peaceful people who disapprove of terrorism, but many are not. Opinion polls show a large and consistent minority of 20% to 40% approves of at least some form of terrorism. Support for ISIS generally is low, but much higher for Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups. By any reasonable count there are a few hundred million Muslims who in some way approve of terror, although very few of them would take part in terror attacks. But they are the sea in which the sharks can swim unobserved. They may not build bombs, but they will turn a blind eye to terrorists in their midst, especially if those terrorists are relations. They also fear retaliation from the terrorists if they inform.
Flowers are seen attached to a fence to remember the victims of the Bastille Day truck attack in Nice in front of the French embassy in Rome, Italy, July 15, 2016. REUTERS/Max Rossi
The way to win the war is to frighten the larger community of Muslims who passively support terror by action or inaction–frighten them so badly that they will inform on family members. Frightening the larger Muslim population in the West does not require a great deal of effort: a few thousand deportations would do. Western intelligence services do not even have to deport the right people; the wrong people know who they are, and so do many of their neighbors. The ensuing conversation is an easy one to have. “I understand that your nephew is due for deportation, Hussein, and I believe you when you tell me that he has done nothing wrong. I might be able to help you. But you have to help me. Give me something I can use–and don’t waste my time by making things up, or I swear that I’ll deport you, too. If you don’t have any information, then find out who does.”
This approach to quashing insurgency has worked numerous times in the past. It is not characteristic of peacetime life in western democracies, to be sure, but neither was Phil Sheridan’s ride through the Shenandoah. We prefer to think about winning hearts and minds. Winning the hearts and minds of a people, though, isn’t difficult once they fear you.
The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the view of Asia Times.
(Copyright 2016 Asia Times Holdings Limited, a duly registered Hong Kong company. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)