Sunday roundup
Sunday is usually my day of blogrest. But so much has been happening lately that I thought I’d try an Instapundit turn.
You’d do well to read Stuart Schneiderman on the left’s “poor pitiful bombers” narrative (hat tip: “sharpie”).
And Schneiderman directs us to this portrait of the bombers’ mother and the Tsarnaevs’ family life, written by a young woman who used to go to the family residence where the mother gave her facials. Yes, facials.
If the younger Tsarnaev survives, perhaps he has a future as a Columbia professor. John M. Murtagh, who was nine years old when his home was firebombed by Kathy Boudin and company, reflects on new bombers vs. old (hat tip: Ace).
Historians unworthy of the name. I made a similar observation here a while back.
The situation in Watertown a couple of days ago made a lot of non-gunowners think twice.
If this scene were in a movie you’d think it farfetched.
At 12:43 A.M. on Wednesday the 17th of April, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev tweeted: “I’m a stress free kind of guy.”
David Henneberry’s gonna get a new boat.
Surfing the Net this morning I noted the following observation on the Boston bombing vis-a-vis the controversy over high capacity ammunition magazines: The police [trained in the use of firearms] shot about 200 rounds to bring down one man.
Amidst the horror of this week came a small reminder that God has a sense of humor: Robert Redford’s Weatherman glorification movie opened this weekend: http://tinyurl.com/cq8tbfa
Yeah, don’t think audiences will be receptive to the bombs are valid tools of protest theme, dude.
Almost as tragic as the events themselves, is the battle the media will wage against our sensibilities. We will be told how we should think about it, and especially how we should not – it’s not anything to do with a radical, militant sect of Islam. They will spend months trotting out social science experts to create an alternate story of isolation and alienation,and it will be repeated over and again until it is widely believed to be true.
In this America, He could become both a Harvard professor and community organizer someday.
Re the historians, it’s apparent the old saw about it being written — and apparently rewritten – by the victors (Churchill ?) gains credence. Southpaw’s comment/rant under the post Public Enemy #2 Captured says it all. The Left, left unchallenged when it came to history, were emboldened to take up the present, its ills and remedies, its portents if unremedied, its good guys and bad. When Howard Zinn’s A People’s History Of The United States got a passing grade the dominos began to topple. They’re still toppling.
Southpaw – I watched MSNBC this a.m. to see how it would be spun. The experts, Joan Walsh & Heather Hulburt, as “fear of the other.” Yes, they really said that the bombers, immigration reform & national security all boil down to OUR fear of others; it’s our problem, not the bombers. http://tinyurl.com/blt57as
The other interesting part was that on the 2 hr show, more than 1 hour was devoted to the failed gun legislation, complete with discussions about individual Senators who comprise “the 46” (as they’ve been dubbed) who voted against it. A-maz-ing propaganda.
Lizzy,
“Amidst the horror of this week came a small reminder that God has a sense of humor…”
Or even in the midst of the horror itself, in a dark sarcastic way: Car jacked by Muslim terrorist suspects had ‘COEXIST’ bumper sticker.
Somehow I’ve always thought of that crescent-C as a Pac-Man chomping all the others. Though, some of the folks at Weasel Zippers posted more creative remakes of that vapid hippie sticker.
Coexistence–among multiple nations in a single state, or between an imperialist religion like Islam and all the others–is one of the Big Marxist Lies drummed into the heads of everyone in the free world.
Southpaw & Lizzy,
Regarding your comments on the press. I don’t disagree; as I have noted before on this site, this is nothing new.
Many people believe the myth that the press was once unbiased and non-partisan. This is simply not true. The press has always had a particular axe to grind. Many newspapers were started as the mouthpieces of political parties (some still bear the name “. . . .Republican” or “. . . Democrat” in their names). People would point to WW II as an example of the press being patriotic. While it’s true that they were patriotic, they were still propogandistic; come to think of it, they mostly accepted the govt’s point of view, much as they accept the Obama administration’s point of view now.
My point? Media propaganda is nothing new. It’s been the natural state of reportage all along. All the more reason for commentors like you both to continue to draw attention to the bias in a continuing battle of an ongoing war.
I now see the indefatigable Mark Steyn already wrote about it, tying it up with all the other PC-MC shenanigans of recent occurrence.
Regarding the historians and Bush: In my own peculiar way I subscribe to “Bush lied people died”. The lie wasn’t Iraq, it was the constant refrain “Islam is the religion of peace”. If it weren’t for the crescent, the Coexist bumper sticker wouldn’t be needed at all. As Samuel P. Huntington pointed out in “the Clash of Civilizations” Islam has bloody borders everywhere in the world. It also has a bloody interior.
It’s ironic that the older brother was named Tamerlan, no doubt after Tamerlane the great Islamic warrior known as the sword of God. He was a successor to Ghengis Khan (John Kerry are you listening?) and killed 17 million people in conquering an empire that stretched from the Middle East to Dehli in India.
Drudge now has that the UK Mirror is reporting that there is a 12 person sleeper cell involved.
ziontruth,
The problem with the bumper sticker is that we do coexist. The implication fo the bumper sticker is “utopian coexistence” and , of course, such is nonsense.
The fact is that for all of the differences in the various cultural systems of human beings, we do quite well in getting along together. Perfect? Absolutely not, but look at how we have redefined human existence. Look at how we have redefined the level of poverty (in the West, at least), and look at how we have redefined governance (in the U.S., at least) based upon a contractual idea as opposed to rule by divine right of birth. We possess the most terrifying weapons of any generation and yet for seventy years, even with all of humankind’s cultural differences, we have avoided self-annihilation. That is one Hell of a run as far as coexistence goes.
As Occam’s Beard has written on this site before (quoting Yogi Berra?): In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is. In that practice of coexistence, we don’t do nearly as badly as the utopians would have us believe.
One other thought on coexistence. Look at all of the diseases mankind has conquered and NO country has reserved those advances and cures to itself alone. We have wiped smallpox off of the face of the earth. Coexist? “Nuff said!
The Left is hard at work this weekend.
I noticed this morning that my own, possibly senile, Senator Diane Feinstein announced that Watertown residents did not need assault rifles for protection during the siege of their town. Although she has been schooled repeatedly that her use of that inflammatory description displays her ignorance; she persists. The rhetoric must still resonate with her equally ignorant base constituents.
At one time I thought history would be kind to G. W. Bush. I may have been mistaken, since it appears that much of history will be written prematurely. Why delay to do research and obtain perspective when you can “strike while the iron is hot” and shape the narrative?
Following that thought, it appears that the bombers may become sympathetic victims by the time the Left finishes their analysis. Apparently living in America radicalized them.
Someone in our vast Homeland Security political-bureauracy failed badly. Will anyone say that? My first question is why we would have Chechnyans in this country at all. Profiling is not always bad, and the profile of anyone from that benighted area, particularly one who returns for six months, should raise huge flags. Apparently the Russians warned us, but we were not listening.
Paul in Boston,
“The lie wasn’t Iraq, it was the constant refrain ‘Islam is the religion of peace’.”
Yep. As soon as I heard him say that, I thought to myself, “That’s it, it’s all over, brace for a protracted waste of men, money and materials.”
“…Tamerlane the great Islamic warrior known as the sword of God. He was a successor to Ghengis Khan…”
Genghis himself was a pagan. It took some generations for them to be Islamized, enough time to provide a respite for European travelers like Marco Polo to tread what was a no-go route before and after. Hulagu Khan, one of Genghis’s successors, butchered the Muslims to the extent that his name is as dreaded by them as Hitler is by the Jews. (Of course, Hitler himself is admired by the Muslims; I always maintained there should have been “God Bless Hulagu” signs to respond to the Muslims’ ones.)
“…and killed 17 million people in conquering an empire that stretched from the Middle East to Dehli in India.”
No people have suffered under the Muslims like the Hindus; what the West, or even Israel, is now experiencing is peanuts compared to what the Hindus have been going through for centuries. But don’t hold your breath for the Muslim genocide of the Hindus to be taught in schools; the Marxists approve the teaching of the Holocaust not because they love Jews (they’re at the forefront of Jew-hatred today) but because they treasure it as a club to beat the white, capitalist West with, and as the genocide of the Hindus does not serve that purpose, and in fact it slights their friends and allies to boot, the only way you can learn about it is by independent reading.
T,
There’s controlled coexistence and there’s criminal insanity. I don’t know if anyone remembers it, but the Windows and Macintosh operating systems of the 1990s had co-operative multitasking, where each application was to relinquish its time slice to the others, and therefore, one buggy app could hang the entire machine. Today’s OSes have preemptive multitasking, where each application is given its confined memory space and any misbehavior–encroachment into the memory space of another app, hogging system resources, etc.–results in the OS terminating that app.
Now, if someone says, “Human beings aren’t software applications,” my answer is, “You’re right. They’re much worse.” I don’t care how you define your nationality (by birth, by language, by ideology or a mixture–it’s immaterial to this discussion), but I know that, from 1919 onward, the putting of multiple nations in a single political space has brought to disaster. Xenophobia, racism, colonialism, genocide, all those Leftist buzzwords, are actually, truly caused by not allocating an exclusive political space to each nation, where the members of the nation feel safe and secure by virtue of having political rights to themselves. Add the proverbial app that wants all the resources–the entire world–to itself, an imperialistic app like Nazism, Marxism or Islam, and calamity is all but assured.
Nation-states ought to coexist among themselves, but nations aren’t supposed to coexist within a single state. It took Europe a world war to learn this until Czechoslovakia was emptied of its German irredentist minority in 1945, and now it looks as if merely bringing up that lesson makes you a RAAAAACIST. The Marxist idea of multicultural “coexistence,” all the more so when you bring Islam into the mix, is a recipe for genocide, and that should never be forgotten. Diversity and coexistence are viable, but only when each constituent is safe and secure in his own protective space.
physicsguy Says:
“Drudge now has that the UK Mirror is reporting that there is a 12 person sleeper cell involved.”
Every imported muslim is a sleeper cell subject to Islam’s activation.
George Pal,
“Every imported muslim is a sleeper cell subject to Islam’s activation.”
Activate Order 66…
The problem is worse, in fact. We have someone like Papa Tsarnaev who’s a cafeteria Muslim. I coined the term after “cafeteria Catholic,” those who are selective of the doctrines and practices of the faith they adhere to. “Moderate Muslim” isn’t an appropriate term, it suggests there’s a moderate Islam, one without jihad attached to it. But there isn’t. Those Muslims who don’t support the jihad are simply being selective in their religious observance–hence, cafeteria Muslims.
So the two junior Tsarnaevs start that way, but suddenly become observant. It doesn’t matter why. It can happen in any religion. But when a Jew becomes observant, you just know he’ll be unavailable on the phone one day a week, and a newly observant Hindu will decline those medium rare steaks he once used to eat with gusto. The trouble is true Islam has jihad; it’s an integral part of Islam, so anyone strengthening his Islamic observance will become a terrorist threat. As politically incorrect as can be, but that’s the truth.
There’s a twofold problem, then: You can’t tell who’s a cafeteria Muslim like Papa Tsarnaev, and you can’t tell who’s just lying low in preparation for the attack like the junior Tsarnaevs, or Mohammed Atta, in the years before they struck. The regime of PC “correct thinking” doesn’t allow you to suspect anyone, either–apparently the doctrine is you’re better off dead than causing hurt to an “innocent Muslim.”
In short, that’s why I believe–regarding my own country, Israel–that the only viable peace plan involves thorough mass deportation of the entire population from which 100% of those terrorist attacks originate. It’s harsh, but in the absence of a filter I see no other alternative to living under this menace.
Legal Insurrection has a good synopsis with offensive media examples of the narrative creation. Actually, the narratives are more likely already written and ready for publication as contingent pieces to be appropriately applied. Thus, Obama uses “raised in our community and country” and “acts of violence” which are going to appear in all the narratives.
I have noticed a recent change in tone by several conservative pundits that perhaps the best description is hate. At the least, frustration. It’s as if the long level of deception can no longer be endured with polite language.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/04/politically-correct-epistemic-closure-counterattacks-boston-marathon-bombing-reality/
Ziontruth,
“In short, that’s why I believe–regarding my own country, Israel–that the only viable peace plan involves thorough mass deportation of the entire population from which 100% of those terrorist attacks originate. It’s harsh, but in the absence of a filter I see no other alternative to living under this menace.”
I would wish as much and advise as much for this country as well as the ‘West’.
The problem of assimilation is almost too great to overcome in the event of unexceptional incompatibility; in the event of the antithetical, it is impossible.
You can’t be a muslim (Mohammedan ethic/Sharia) and an American (Judeo/Christian ethic/Constitution). Nor can one coexist, in proximity, with the other, can’t be done – impossible; the term ‘antithetical’ is barely sufficient to convey the difference. Natural mortal enmity – as between good and evil, light and darkness, the cross/star and lunatic crescent – makes much the best crux of it.
southpaw,
There is no “radical, militant sect of Islam” there are only observant and ‘cafeteria’ Muslims.
“There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that’s it.” Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan
ziontruth,
“the only viable peace plan involves thorough mass deportation of the entire population from which 100% of those terrorist attacks originate.”
I happen to agree but one minor quibble; deportation [and the annexation that would follow] isn’t a peace plan, it’s a security tactic.
There will never be peace with Islam because Islam would no longer be Islam were it to live in peace with ANY of its neighbors.
Were Israel to deport every Muslim from Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, Israel would still be surrounded by her enemies so there would still be no peace.
There would be greater tactical security, which however would be insufficient in itself. I favor deportation and annexation as part of a greater strategy.
I do believe that a truce is possible however.
IMO the key to that truce is to make Islam itself responsible for maintaining the truce and that can be done by Israel implementing a doctrine that holds Islam’s holy sites hostage to its good behavior.
Obviously Muslims would have to be convinced that Israel was serious and undeterrable in its determination. I’d start with Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock as a demonstration of Israel’s resolve.
Islam will not risk Mecca.
I take issue with the criticisms of Bush for saying Islam is a religion of peace. Can you imagine what would have happened had he said otherwise in places like Morocco, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and elsewhere? Post 9/11, he was working intensively to get intelligence cooperation across the globe. Even in Amesty International Land (aka Germany), the lefties and liberals were fighting tooth and nail against monitoring emails. He was fighting preconceived notions of himself as a Texas redneck moron from the day his election was confirmed. I saw all this in Germany. Do you think a more balanced discussion of the problems with Islam would have gotten a hearing? Bush was criticized here for sending an aircraft carrier to help after the tsunami. (Typical Bush! He thinks the miitary is the answer to everything.) And imagine what the Saddam oil for food friends in France and the UN would have let loose. Bush took a lot of s**t to keep cooperation going with the rational actors abroad.
What too few in America realize is that every word issued by a president is heard around the world and filtered by our enemies for their own purposes. One false statement and a true friend loses an election or becomes the object of radicalizing protests.
It’s time to note two things: the criminality (especially fraud resulting in unlawful gov’t payments) of Muslims and the role of the specially late appearing “study centers” on campuses.
1. The wish list of Tamerlan on Amazon revealed books for making false IDs and books on fraud. This isn’t unusual. The Muslim strategy of taqiyya (deception) dovetails and supports jihad.
Note how the Wikipedia definition of taqiyya justifies it because it is used only in response to persecution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
The problem with even that dimmed down definition is what can be perceived as persecution. However, taqiyya is not limited to a response to persecution. It was and is used, legitimately according to Quran and Hadith, to deceive enemies in war.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm
2. For an example of the special studies department, view the exchange between Bill Maher and his guest, Brian Levin – the director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino.
The exchange brings up the failure of conservatives to create a wedge between liberal fascists and muslim fascists.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/04/20/maher-guest-defending-islam-wake-boston-bombing-thats-lberal-bulls-t
Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism (snort)
OMT, can you imagine what would have happened worlwide if Bush’s comments had set off a wave of Muslim killings in the US?
Geoffrey Britain,
Yes, I totally agree: There can be only a long truce, enforced by making imperialist aggression costlier for the Muslims than keeping quiet.
I also believe in maintaining choke points. Were Egypt to declare war on Israel and lose the war, it would be best for Israel to take control of the Suez Canal as a trump card. If only the Arabian oil fields had been so confiscated instead of engaging in fruitless nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, Islamic terrorism could have been cut down from its financial source. As Mark Steyn said in America Alone: Saudi Arabia doesn’t export oil, it exports jihad, bankrolled by oil.
Alternative energy–my money’s on nuclear–could make the point moot as well. But, even if the jihad loses its sources of funding, the threat will still be there as long as the troopers–invader-immigrants like the Tsarnaevs, colonist populations like all the Arabs in the Land of Israel–are allowed to stay. 9/11 was masterminded, not on Middle Eastern soil but in Hamburg, Germany.
“Islam will not risk Mecca.”
Hmmm… I’m not completely sure about that. There was one occasion that Mecca was sacked and the black stone was stolen in the history of internal Islamic strife (look up the Qarmatids); although the stone was later restored (or maybe substituted…?), the event wasn’t as momentous to Islam as it could be. Far more damaging to the confidence of the Islamic faith are textual criticism of the Koran and doubts cast on the founder.
I really don’t know what’s going to bring Islam to the 21st century, or whether that’s possible at all. I wouldn’t set my sights so high; as things stand now, it’d be a great victory if we could just dislodge the rule of PC-MC that’s enabling Islamic imperialism to make so many inroads unopposed. That brings me back to my contention that Islam is just one among many opportunistic attackers, while it is the political AIDS of Marxism (call it “Progressivism” today if you will) that has made the free world vulnerable to such an attacker. Islam is imperialism, Marxism is treason.
expat,
“I take issue with the criticisms of Bush for saying Islam is a religion of peace. Can you imagine what would have happened had he said otherwise in places like Morocco, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and elsewhere?”
Therein lies the problem: That, after 9/11, the head of the attacked nation-state should give a rat’s derriere about what people in the Muslim world thought.
“One false statement and a true friend loses an election or becomes the object of radicalizing protests.”
As the so-called Arab Spring has shown, it doesn’t take much to “radicalize” those bozos. Enough of this, please: Let the Muslims start thinking before radicalizing non-Muslims, not the other way round. If they can make Buddhists (in Thailand) hate their guts, then they ought to give a moment’s reflection to see how their actions are making them loathed all over the world–despite the PC-MC indoctrination trying to defend them at every turn.
expat,
Your assessment of the situation Bush faced is correct, which is not to say that he handled it optimally. Rather than claim Islam to be “A religion of peace” he might instead have made the distinction that our fight was only with those who supported terror.
I suspect that Bush made that claim because his intelligence briefings had convinced him that Islam was a peaceful religion, one highjacked by a radical fringe, which time and a greater familiarity have proven to be a gravely mistaken premise.
In any case, Morocco, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc. are all showing signs of increasing radicalism. They are all following Turkey’s route toward Islamic dominance of their nations.
That is because Islam’s core message hasn’t changed, only the ‘tides’ of expansionism and quiescence vary.
Islam senses that the West is ripe for conquest.
They base that assessment upon the moral rot evident in the West but as they lack the logistical resources to conquer the West, it is a forlorn hope.
But as Islam’s jihadists are the unwitting dupes of China, Russia and the West’s most committed leftists, they have a useful function to perform in the left’s strategy of subversion and fundamental transformation of the West.
Big news, big, big, big
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/boston-bombers-fbi-hunting-12-strong-1844844#.UXM54Yqm6hA.twitter
After Benghazi, when the Jihadi’s saw our gov’t cover for them and refuse to pursue them, why would they not understand it as President Obama signalling his cooperation.
zion truth,
You must have missed my point on non-islamic countries not cooperating with us on things like intelligence sharing. Gerhard Schroeder’s opposition to the Iraq war, stated before definite plans were made and while the US was still trying to get support to further pressure on Iraq, was part of his election campaign. He didn’t want to risk alienating the peaceniks.
You don’t pour oil on a fire you are trying to contain.
Geoffrey,
No one paid any attention to the religion of peace statement. I think the term war on terror got a lot more play. And it has been mocked relentlessly.
Also, the Michael Moores and multi-cultis have fed the radicals far more than Bush did. I would even bet that Lady Gaga and Madonna have inflamed mor Muslims than Bush.
“No one paid any attention to the religion of peace statement.”
If by no one you mean conservatives I agree but if by no one you mean everyone, I most emphatically disagree.
You cannot effectively fight an enemy whose ideology you refuse to accurately identify.
Claiming Islam to be “a religion of peace” set the meme that Islam is essentially peaceful and that a radical fringe element of Islam is responsible for jihadist terrorism.
That meme and claim is what has allowed the charge of Islamophobia to flourish. The Arab League with support from many in the UN is repeatedly trying to make ‘Islamophobia’ the basis for outlawing criticism of Islam as a religious hate crime.
Obama and his supporters elevated that meme to the point where even accurate terminology is banned. Even our military is now prohibited from identifying the West’s enemy. Now the media with the AP leading the way is following that example of disinformation.
They would have faced far greater blow-back had Bush and his administration not made that claim.
I fear the passage of Rubio’s immigration bill is more threatening to the future of liberty than even the continued coddling of Muslim terrorists by our President and his cabinet. Hopefully, the Boston Marathon Massacre will gin up more opposition to a well-meaning but fundamentally flawed bill.
There’s nothing ‘well-meaning’ about a 1,500 page bill that the Senate is given one day to peruse before voting upon passage. We can rest assured that 1500 pages are not needed to address immigration and any bill that fails to address border security and lacks specifics on how to greatly slow the rate of illegal immigrants into the US is NOT serious.
This is an attempt to register 5-10 million more democrat voters.
In fact a simple, red litmus test of any immigration bill would be the determination as to whether it even uses the term ‘illegal immigration’. Failure to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration is itself determinative as to intent.
I’d have to say, you turned me around on that, GF.
I’ll parse it out by asserting that this foul intentioned bill seeks to use the good intentions of politicians like Rubio and evangelicals who worship and commune with illegal aliens.
expat,
“You must have missed my point on non-islamic countries not cooperating with us on things like intelligence sharing.”
Because you wrote of “places like Morocco, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia” in the post, I assumed you were referring primarily, or solely, to what the Muslim world would think. Alright, I’ll address the argument about non-Muslim countries like the European ones.
I’ve mentioned the fact that the 9/11 plot was hatched by Muslim colonists (“immigrants”) in Hamburg, Germany. Yes, it is clear that America had, and still has, much intel to gain from Europe. But you’re talking about maintaining good relations for the sake of solving a problem that is, ironically, its own cause. What do I mean by that? You say honesty from Bush about Islam would have cost pro-American European leaders their elections by alienating both peacenik (read: Leftist) and immigrant (read: mostly Muslim) constituencies of theirs. But have you not noticed that those very constituencies are the problem? Like I said, Islam is imperialism that attacks the nation-state, Marxism is treason that enables that attack to succeed, often without a shot being fired.
I submit that, by saying either hard-Leftist or Muslim (or both) sentiments in other countries should be taken heed of, the whole war, the true war, is undermined. It’s like setting up a medical center under a broken bridge instead of fixing the bridge.
I also think that paying consideration to those factions does great disservice to the non-Muslim nation-states. You will find wherever you look, whether it is Western Europe, India or Israel, that there is a thin upper layer of opinion-makers sitting atop the media outlets and making a lot of noise with their high-profile demonstrations, while underneath them, in their thrall, their opinions not allowed to pass through (you know how it works: “RAAAAACIST!”), are the masses of people who would like nothing more than a decisive and thorough booting out of all the Muslim settler-colonists, those thanks to whom they have to live under a terrorist threat ever since they arrived in a critical mass.
I’ll cut Bush slack in this way, though: There was not much he could do better; for–although we only now know this to be so–he was not up against an Islamic attack primarily, but against a thought-regime that had been put in place in the West beginning in the 1960s. It was evident in the way that the Italian Prime Minister then, Berlusconi, quickly backtracked from his remarks about “the superiority of Western Civilization” following media uproar. The Islamic terror attacks are spikes that punctuate our existence, against the background hum of the PC-MC thought-regime that self-flagellates us into accepting it all. Hard though it may be to believe, Islam is the lesser enemy; the greater enemy is the treason within, opening the gates of the city to the invading barbarians.
Geoffry Britain:
“Islam senses that the West is ripe for conquest. … They base that assessment upon the moral rot evident in the West – but as they lack the logistical resources to conquer the West, it is a forlorn hope. … But as Islam’s jihadists are the unwitting dupes of China, Russia and the West’s most committed leftists, they have a useful function to perform in the left’s strategy of subversion and fundamental transformation of the West.”
Intense.
Will self-preservation ever kick in to the Multi-Cultis? What could quell their self-hatred? When will they see that if their analysis is right (US “created” the extremism of these brothers) that is is a lenient, non-principled, multi-culti US that did that? Have they not heard that “permissive parenting” does not work?
sharpie,
I somewhat agree as to “the good intentions of politicians like Rubio and evangelicals who worship and commune with illegal aliens.”
Though in Rubio’s case, I nevertheless suspect (not sure) that a bit more calculation went into his political calculus on the issue before he supported this bill. That he signed on to a bill of this size and evidently agreed to the lack of time to review it increases the probability that he is doing this primarily out of self-interest.
And in retrospect, we’ve all wished at one time or another that we had parsed our words a bit better.
I just wwatched a brief German news summary on Boston. 1) Americans are scared. 2) Bush was acting out of panic as shown by his axis of evil speech. 3) Obama is much cooler.
Not mentioned was the German hysteria over GM foods or the danger from Fukushima. And we won’t even talk about tiny amounts of non-dangerous horsemeat that may have made it into canned lasagna.
“Will self-preservation ever kick in to the Multi-Cultis? What could quell their self-hatred? When will they see that if their analysis is right (US “created” the extremism of these brothers) that is is a lenient, non-principled, multi-culti US that did that? Have they not heard that “permissive parenting” does not work?” M of Hollywood
I don’t think so, at least not for the majority of liberals. Guilt is a powerful motivator and the left has predicated expiation of ‘white, Eurocentric’ guilt upon submission to ideology.
Their faulty analysis is immune to reasoned criticism because it is based in emotion. That permissive parenting doesn’t work is irrelevant, because they don’t base their world-view in what works but in what ‘ought to be’.
When a person’s beliefs and suppositions are confronted with a reality that disproves their beliefs, one of three reactions are possible: they lose touch with reality; they reject reality and refuse to confront it; or they grapple with it and, in the process, they break free of their prior beliefs.
The third reaction is by far the rarest.
Two relevant quotes;
“There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see once they are shown & those who will not see…” Leonardo da Vinci
“Political ideas that have dominated the public mind for decades cannot be refuted through rational arguments. They must run their course in life and cannot collapse otherwise than in great catastrophe…” Ludwig von Mises
Rubio’s motive is tough to determine. He had the guts to face Levin. And both Levin and Rush attest to his integrity even if they don’t agree with his bill. And what is the self-interest? Is it the visibility of resolving an issue and making him a presidential candidate? Is he succumbing to the Washington viewpoint of “partisanship?”
My guess is that Rubio is not being pragmatic or self-dealing but really believes the Republicans must do something or keep losing the Hispanic vote. That belief has led him to compromise on the particulars you mentioned: the size and lack of review of the bill.
But him and Toomey are greatly disappointing.
Yes, the 2016 Republican nomination for either President or Vice President has to weigh on Rubio’s mind. If he can stay on the public’s mind favorably, his chances would be greatly increased.
I accept that he really believes the Republicans must do something or keep losing the Hispanic vote. My concern is that ‘doing something’ rings reminiscent of capitulation ala Reagan in 86. Democrat promises are worth less than nothing, they are misdirection to achieve another amnesty.
Geoffry Britain. Right. How careless (and emotional) of me to forget. When emotion rules thought, there is no thought.
How many times have I seen it w my own erstwhile “friends” that, supplied with a fact or a reason, they simply retreat, sometimes after hurling the r-word. they simply change the subject or say “I don’t want to talk about politics.”
David Mamet’s book is insightful. Sad, but insightful.
And how possibly can Rubio not see this. DOMA not ring a bell. The “pragmatists,” aka liberal fascists, have no credibility. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
That’s why I’m so terribly disappointed in Rubio, because until I’m disabused of it, my thinking is that Rubio is either naive-incompetent or is a pragmatist himself. The immigration reform is such a turkey and to be so wrong on it?
As if last week wasn’t sad (Boston, Waco, Gosnell) or strange enough (Ricin Elvis) enough:
Electrical grid, comms attacked near San Jose: http://tinyurl.com/bmz93tj
Shots were fired at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant last night:
http://tinyurl.com/cmnbf5n
So he was in the Let it Burn camp, I see.
My belief is that Rubio is the classic politician who wants to be President. He is positioning himself as a heroic friend of the downtrodden Hispanics, while he has previously established his conservative credentials. He hopes to bestride both sides of the immigration issue. I fully expect to see him straddling other issues when it suits his ambitions.
He has allied with Schumer, and is a key player in the latest gang to draft dark-of-the-night legislation, and try to drive it into law before anyone is aware of the content. A huge red flag. Actually, anyone who is aligned with Schumer on any issue has virtually disqualified himself in my mind.
Confession. I have never been too sold on Rubio. My doubts were simply that he was young and inexperienced, but was being packaged as the next wunderkind. Too much packaging. I have become very wary of wunderkinds. In addition, I am particularly wary of those who have never accomplished anything outside the world of politics. More recently, my early doubts about Rubio have crystallized into suspicion.
Is anyone besides me wondering where the Tsarnaev brothers got their money? The father worked in this country as an auto mechanic, the mother as a cosmetologist. There’s no indication that there’s money in the extended family. The younger brother was a college student; Tamerlane did not finish college and was apparently unemployed, yet people who knew him speak of his nice car and say he paid for things. That boxing photo essay shows him on his cell phone in front of his Mercedes, in a scarf, stylish jacket and white leather European shoes. The money for all that came from someplace. Where?
Oldflyer,
I’m with you. It is discouraging to see people annoint a relative newcomer as the saviour of the party. I am all for giving them a bit of attention as they work on problems. Speechifying isn’t enough. And I’d also like a bit of humility from the newcomers. Some don’t seem to know what they don’t know.
It brings alot of facts and curiousities together to posit that Rubio has sold his integrity to become President. My main problem with that is believing that Rubio is stupid enough to think that Republicans can essentially buy votes especially considering who is selling the better package to a voter who votes his income instead of earns it.
Republicans will never replace the Democrats as the trusted party to provide welfare and amnesty. I think Rubio believes the bill is a strategic move which will be better than an Obama executive order providing general amnesty. And so he is at least getting something instead of nothing.
Well, it never quite works that way does it.
I just hope that Rubio gets shot down and ruined as a presidential candidate because of this stupidity or cupidity, whichever it may be.
rickl,
Touche.
Oldflyer,
Until recently, I’ve based my impression of Rubio entirely on the values and arguments he advanced in his speeches and his apparent sincerity. And I know better, as once you can fake sincerity you’re half way to the sale!
I too am becoming suspicious because this immigration bill does raise a huge red flag. I share your opinion of Schumer.
Mrs Whatsit,
Good point. As always, follow the money. The Tsarnaev brothers did not exist in a vacuum. Of course, that is predicated on the premise that the administration wants to get at the truth.
http://www.therightscoop.com/full-interview-rush-discusses-immigration-reform-with-marco-rubio/
Rush interviews Rubio. Rubio specifically denies the political motive for the bill.
sharpie,
Rubio isn’t stupid. I think he’s probably positioning himself as the conservative candidate who’s able to work with moderates. He’s taken a page from Romney in hopes that with Obama gone in 2016, he has a shot against either Biden or Clinton as a moderate but principled conservative…
By backing the immigration bill he eliminates any charge of being unsympathetic to immigrants. Not in getting their votes but in making it harder to attack him on that issue.
And another good site with info and more sites.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345910/demint-vs-Rubio
Geoffey Britain,
I hope Rubio doesn’t think that way because not only does that destroy his conservative chops, it makes him another adherent to the “only a moderate can win” narrative.
This article by Heritage briefly states why the bill is flawed. The opposition to the bill writes itself, that’s how common sense and principled the reasons against are. Meanwhile, expediency, the main argument for, constitutes in itself, an argument against.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/18/morning-bell-jim-demint-on-the-senates-immigration-plan/
Front page article right now at NY Times website:
“Tragedy Intrudes on Chechen Life in U.S.: After the Boston suspects were identified as being of Chechen origin, Chechens in the United States said the attack had left them feeling exposed and embarrassed.”
Priorities.
Ann, I am so sorry that Chechens in the United States feel exposed and embarrassed.
As an Old White Guy in Southern California I guess I should sympathize with them
Reaching.
I’m also struck by the fact that just about everyone is showing only the most flattering photos of the living suspect. One of the favorites seems to be the one where he’s wearing a red flower in his lapel and looking like someone you’d like your daughter to date.
Oh, and the AP keeps refering to him as a teenager.
Hitorians unworthy and angry because the love of God is not in them and the good students inherently shun them.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/04/the-power-line-100-a-sequel-with-schramm.php
He has allied with Schumer, and is a key player in the latest gang to draft dark-of-the-night legislation, and try to drive it into law before anyone is aware of the content. A huge red flag. Actually, anyone who is aligned with Schumer on any issue has virtually disqualified himself in my mind.
Confession. I have never been too sold on Rubio. My doubts were simply that he was young and inexperienced, but was being packaged as the next wunderkind. Too much packaging. I have become very wary of wunderkinds. In addition, I am particularly wary of those who have never accomplished anything outside the world of politics. More recently, my early doubts about Rubio have crystallized into suspicion.
Agree, Oldflyer. You hit it right on the nose. And Schumer is a wily and vicious ______.
Re Historian’s roundup …
Arthur Schlesinger? The Kennedy Clan’s household eunuch and hagiographer was judging George Bush negatively? As if he had an agenda? Gosh what a surprise.
Many of us will also recall Garry Wills’ contemptible gushing over Michael Bellesiles’ fraud. He now claims to have been had. Yeah in the same way a dog rolling in the dirt is being “had”.
Nonetheless to be “fair”, by placing this in perspective, I doubt that very many of these historians even pretend to accept a canon of objectivity anymore.
These people, whatever they are, deserve all of the moral contempt that can be directed at them.