Feeds:
Posts
Comments

I bow to no one in my disregard and contempt for Obama, but I am more than a little concerned with the GOP’s use of a foreign leader to do so.  In foreign policy, for good or ill, the President is the symbolic head of the country and its national leader.  Disrespect to him by foreign leaders is, often enough, disrespect for the country as a whole.

The Congress, while it contains an important role in foreign policy–the approval of funds and, in the case of the Senate, ratification of treaties–it should not have its own, separate foreign policy.  It was unseemly, for example, when liberal Senators like John Kerry traipsed around Nicaragua back in the 1980s, seeking to avoid “another Vietnam” by making sure the communists won. It is unseemly that a foreign leader–any foreign leader–would meet with other members of the American tripartite government without presidential approval.  It is a breach of decorum, a deliberate provocation, and the very kind of “foreign entanglement” our first President warned us of so eloquently in his Farewell Address.

There is no doubt most Americans support Israel, do not want Iran to have nukes, and are wary of Obama’s misguided foreign policy. But the affection for the former should be kept within certain bounds.  We are a separate country.  Our interests are distinct and they sometimes diverge.  Israel and its leader never forgets this, dealing as it does with our rivals such as China to sell its own sophisticated arms, but American congressman sometimes do.  Here, in their enthusiasm to court evangelical voters, Jewish donors, and Obama haters everywhere, they are undermining the formerly well settled principal that the nation speaks with one voice in matters of war and peace and that voice, for good or for ill, is of the President.

This is an unserious act by thoughtless, short-sighted people. Obama won’t be president some day, but a dangerous precedent of foreign leaders using one party that holds them in high regard against the president has been set.

 

Giuliani’s Truth

Everyone is upset for Rudie Giuliani’s recent tirade on Obama, but it’s hard to see why this is such a fuss.  Obama’s philosophy is on display for all to see.  It depends, like all liberalism, on feats of concealment and dissimulation, as the raw, unvarnished liberal truth is a hateful, cynical, unpatriotic, and ungenerous tirade from top to bottom.  It’s a Marxist critique that sees little good in the present and the past.  And his supporters’ fanatical defense of him from all criticism shows that it’s also anti-democratic and cultish in the worst ways.

I wrote along these lines once before:

Obama ran as the biracial healer of America’s still unhealed racial wounds.  But in reality, for most of his life he only identified with one half of these groups, and that group, especially since the 1960s , has defined itself in terms of its righteous victimhood and alienation from the majority.  This was not always true.  Guys like Bill “Bojangles” Robinson, Sammy Davis, Jr., and Booker T. Washington did not talk or think this way.  They loved America and wanted to be fully part of it.  In their eyes it was mostly good, but it had some problems.  This is not true, however, of the Kanye Wests, Reverend Wrights, and Al Sharptons of the world, and nor is it for Obama.

For Obama, America has been mostly bad until now, and only acquired an ounce of moral legitimacy by rejecting that past, which includes his election.  But in his eyes sustaining that legitimacy depends upon the majority’s continuied obeisance to him.  Dangerous.

The Libya Debacle

The lid was taken off Libya by Obama in 2011 without congressional authorization and contrary to his own self-understanding of the constitutionality of using military force in such cases.  In addition to getting one of our ambassadors murdered–which murder was dishonestly pinned on “Youtube videos” by the administration–we have now seen ISIS get a foothold, which they used this week to murder 21 Egyptian Christians.

Andrew Carney explores the ins and outs of this shameful debacle here.

Retaliation

Where the US is tripping over itself to release terrorists from GITMO, Jordan executes two al Qaeda terrorists in response to the brutal burning alive of one of its captured pilots.

I completely support this response.  It is what is missing from our own country’s, with its excessive concern for law, taking its time, and ordinary procedures in the face of an extraordinary threat.  You have to show strength and the willingness to be brutal in the face of brutality. ISIS and its allies deserve no mercy.  Retaliatory executions of prisoners as “belligerent reprisals” are also well established in the law of war.  This came up in the Hostage Cases, for example, at Nuremberg.

May Jordan unleash hell upon these Satanic people.

One remarkable thing about the elites in government and media is how they can wind us up and wind us all down, almost at will.  Americans, in spite of their war weariness from Iraq, seem also pretty eager to get involved, at least for a short while, in pretty much every place on earth if we’re riled up long enough.

A year or so ago, we were supposed to fight Assad.  Then ISIS (i.e., Assad’s enemies). Before that we were traipsing around Libya, where we were told we needed to “do something” to protect the freedom-loving Libyan People.

Freedom, Libyan Style!

Earlier this year we were supposed to go to to toe with Russia over the Crimean Peninsula (a scene of mad, brutal European War involving many similar issues, 170 or so years ago).  Now we have largely forgotten about it.  Perhaps this is because the “forces of freedom” in Ukraine are so undeniably embarrassing, not least because so many are unabashed brutal neo-Nazis who made a cult of the genocidal Stepan Bandera.

Things stabilized at the end of the summer, after the rebels started to win back lost territory in a large scale offensive that squeezed out remaining pockets of Ukrainian troops, restored lands lost during the Ukrainian Army spring offensive, and threatened the city of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov.  The Kiev government remained in control of the nearly-destroyed airport, and it became an Alamo-like place where its prestige was on the line, after losing thousands of troops, scores of tanks and heavy equipment to the increasingly well organized and capable rebels.

In spite of the cease fire, for the last six months, the Ukrainian Army and Donetsk rebel units would occasionally have artillery duels, often resulting in the death of civilians.  Neither side clearly had moral authority in terms of its conduct during the war, and the coup-regime in Kiev seems to have little or to have lost its moral authority in the country’s East, where a great many people clearly want to go their own way and be more closely aligned to Russia.

Now the fight is apparently gearing up after the Ukrainian Army had a long period of European and American-funded rest and refit.  Nonetheless, as before, their funding and equipment do not make up for a lack of operational art.  The airport is now back in rebel hands.

You have to dig really deep into the NY Times and CNN, with their obsessions over Ferguson and global warming, to know any of this is happening.  Be sure that if the power elites decide they want to hobble Russia, images of the noble Ukrainian Army and the evil rebels will be played nonstop.  If there is one thing the elites of the government, media, and education know how to do, it is to manipulate public opinion.

Sadly, for the people of Donetsk, the war and shelling go on whether ordinary Americans are paying attention to it or not.

Donetsk People's Republic Rebel, i.e., The Media Elite's Bad Guy Du Jour

Donetsk People’s Republic Rebel, i.e., The Media Elite’s Bad Guy Du Jour

 

Ukrainian Azov Battalion Members Showing their Usual Commitment to Western European Liberal Values, i.e., The Good Guys!

One of Obama’s problems with ISIS, with the Parisian attacks, and with Islamic fundamentalism in general is that, for the length of his presidency, he has tried to declare victory and be done with this troublesome problem.

He would rather focus on other events, whether it is his domestic agenda, black civil rights, or his golf game.  Thus, he withdrew our forces from Iraq on the basis of no particular facts on the ground and declared the withdrawal timeline in Afghanistan before he had even begun the surge there.

More important, he has been diffident and denialist on the persistence of this problem in spite of the fiascos he had much to do with in Libya, Syria, and Egypt and now spectacular attacks in the heart of Europe.

Part of intelligence is recognizing that one’s assumptions are no longer congruent with reality and thus one’s plans must be changed accordingly.  For example, Bush and Rumsfeld, and, in truth, the entire military chain of command, should have noticed early on an insurgency was brewing in Iraq, that it festered where we had little control and offered little security, and that it became a magnet for every Islamic fundamentalist in the region, for better or worse.

Obama should have noticed that al Qaeda is simply a variant of Islamic fundamentalism.  The “brand” is less important than the fact that this is NOT a matter of a few isolated extremists but a significant swath of the Islamic world that finds justification in core Islamic teachings widespread within that community from time immemorial.

Not only does Obama not get Islamic terrorism, but he and his administration engage in strenuous efforts to deny its existence and power, because acknowledging the same would make a mockery of their efforts to date.

As I wrote at the time of the beginning of US operations against ISIS:

Obama has always been a reluctant warrior against al Qaeda.  His passion was not for the exercise of US power but empowerment of the world’s oppressed.  Thus, he gleefully pulled us out of Iraq not to preserve US power but to enhance that of Iraq, and he abandoned our allies in Egypt and faced off with “dictators” in Syria and Libya, not because they were anti-US, but because he theorized “people power” in these countries would foster good will and justice.

It did not, and missing from his lefty analysis is that these people are powered by and aggrieved by and made crazy by Islamic Fundamentalism and not mere Third World anti-imperialist grievances.  Further, this talk of the Khorosan Group and the like are an alibi for the great strengthening of al Qaeda on his watch, exemplified by the murder of a US ambassador in Benghazi.  This is why Benghazi matters:  Obama and his minions lied to cover up a major failure of policy born from a major confusion about how the Islamic world operates.  Here, as always, Obama’s idealism is tethered to his venal narcissism and lack of curiosity, which does not permit him to be agile in dealing with a complex and dangerous world.

So this is why it matters when the US administration sends literally no one of note to a large rally of European unity in Paris.  It is more of the same:  disdain for white Europe, attempted solidarity with the third world oppressed, and willful denial of reality with regard to the fact that the Islamic part of the third world would oppress whites and non-whites alike around the globe, but for determined resistance and isolation, coupled with removal of them from societies in which they cannot assimilate.  In other words, it requires acknowledging every concept that the left rejects:  a recognition of the ethnic and religious character of US and European society, a recognition that non-whites also can be oppressors, and a declaration that we have a right to exist, to flourish, and not to be destroyed in turn.

The mass murder in France is neither surprising, nor unprecedented.  Europeans have courted disaster ever since they began allowing the alien denizens of their former colonies to colonize the once-proud imperial powers.  And this incompatibility is doubly apparent in the case of Muslims, whose values and folkways are completely incompatible with the modern world and the liberal world of Europe.

From Theo van Goth to the British train bombings, all of which have occurred alongside the increasing agitation and among Muslim immigrant communities to have sharia law, we have seen the intolerance, certitude, and aggressiveness of Islam many times before.

What seems different this time is that the erstwhile narrative of a “few extremists” and the “religion of peace” are no longer believable.  These words function more often as the punchline to a joke than something that anyone sincerely believes. One gets the sense that even the legacy media is merely going through the motions.  Even there we see some signs of a crack up, with such once-reliable sources as The Atlantic calling out Islam itself as the source of this violence.

More important, in France and Germany, we see tens of thousands in the streets protesting.  Militarized police are out in force with widespread public support.  Stylish young people are visible in these protests and embracing various stripes of nationalism as a form of rebellion against multicultural orthodoxy.  It’s possible the blind alleys of liberalism will suffocate this instinctual movement, opposed by the underclass and elites alike.  But, as with the rapid fall of communism in the Eastern Bloc, unworkable ideas buttressed by lies, which even their propagandists s do not really believe, are fragile things.  The French in particular have long been a passionate race, prone to paroxysms of anger and revenge, and may prove, as at Tours, the vanguard of European self-defense.

In the meantime, I hope these worthless Islamic immigrants on the run–terrorists too, of course, but also as I describe them–are hunted down and shot down without mercy. Viva la France de Charles Martel et le Vendee!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers