• Archives

  • Topics

  • Meta

  • The Boogeyman - Working Vacation
  • Coming Home
  • Via Serica

You Evil Americans, You!

Interesting.

The United Nations wants the United States to hold some sort of truth commission to air out the grievances of Americans with relatively recent ancestors of African descent over slavery, Jim Crow, and other issues. This is supposed to be a move toward a more open discussion of the problems of race in our country and will also include discussions of such things as reparations to the descendants of slaves.

Well, I’m a little short at the moment. Will they take the blood of our ancestors who fought in the Civil War for the North as a down payment? Can we count the money spent on social programs that have benefited the descendants of slaves?

Look, jackholes, we acknowledged that slavery was an abomination 150 years ago, after over half a century of arguing about it. We got rid of legalized overt discrimination based on race half a century ago, and have exercised the power of the courts and legislature to fight it whenever and wherever we have found it. Every generation of Americans since then is a little better at letting race go as an issue between human beings.

It took 400 years to get to where we were in 1968, and it’s going to take a little time to unwind that particular knot from hell.

But apparently we’re not moving fast enough.

Michael Brown was reminiscent of black men being lynched? Are you bloody kidding me? A thug who holds up a store, struggles with a police officer for his gun, and then gets shot is compared to innocent men who were rounded up and killed without doing a damn thing? Really?

Look for this to be waved around in the next few months. “The rest of the world, who created the slave trade, killed millions of Africans while they were raping and pillaging sub-Saharan Africa up until the 1950’s, and have rarely, if ever, been honest about it or made reparations, wants us to fess up and admit that bad things happened in our history and within our borders!  Vote for me and you’ll get your share of the goodies!”

Yeah, spare me the drama.  Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to get ready for work, because somebody has to pay the taxes that make sure that the U.N. can pay for things like this.

Let the Games Begin

So, tomorrow, the good people of Iowa will go to their caucuseseses, thus officially starting the slightly less silly political season in the United States by browbeating their neighbors and family into a bad decision in a high school gymnasium.

On one side, we have Comrade Greeting Card, who promises free admission to the bread lines for those who have a party membership card.   He is opposed by the Wicked Witch of Benghazi, who promises to provide federal subsidies for the bill she plans to send our families for the bullets it takes to execute us.

On the other side, we have a multi-faceted goat rope.  The front runner appears to be the fuzzy brain parasite that feeds from what used to be a liberal Manhattanite real estate mogul.  Hot on his trail is the product of a wild weekend between Richard Nixon and Patty Duke in Calgary.  Behind them is a collection of, well, a bunch of misfits, and I don’t mean the lovable kind.

Really, America?  Is this the best we can do?

Somebody wake me up in June when all of this is done.

This Again?

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. — Thomas Jefferson

 

Thanks to Tam, we find out that the Obama administration and their minions in Congress are trying to get a bill passed, which mirrors the the efforts the State Department made last year to make publishing information about weapons a violation of ITAR.  This would make the publication of things like reviews, specifications, and manufacturing / maintenance data a crime.

If they can’t find one way, they’ll find another, it appears.  Yeah, the quote above has become a cliche, but it rings true today.  If they can’t get their way through Congress, they’ll do it via executive orders.  If they can’t get it that way, they’ll do it through regulations.  If that is thwarted, they’ll go back to Congress.

Around and around she goes; where she stops, nobody knows.

Please, reach out to your Senator as soon as you can.  Tell them what you want them to do about this bill, and what you expect of them when it comes to your rights.

Please, join and support a group that fights for your rights, and get involved.

They’re not going to quit.  Neither should we.

 

Weak Tea

Yesterday, after meeting with the Attorney General to confirm his biases and uninformed opinions, President Obama finalized plans for a series of executive initiatives which he hopes will make people think he’s still relevant when it comes to the subject of gun control.

I won’t enumerate or discuss them here, because better writers and thinkers than me have already done so.

What I do want to point out is just how ineffectual this president is, and to be honest, always has been, no matter the subject.

Obama came into office with a majority in the House of Representatives and a super-majority in the Senate.  He and his party wielded that powerful tool until after the 2010 mid-term elections.  They accomplished exactly one significant thing with it – Obamacare.  That one, singular sensation was so odious that it had to be packed with carve-outs, bribes, and favors to get even the Democrats to vote for it.  It is such a bad law that the President has had to delay its full implementation on multiple occasions, and it is currently in danger of imploding under its own weight.

Other than that, President Obama has accomplished, well, not much.

We have the Iran nuclear deal, which is off to a resoundingly bad start as Iran tests missiles, sometimes less than two kilometers from our ships.  But, hey, the Iranians turned over the nuclear material we knew about to the Russians, who we all know can be trusted.

Speaking of Russia, how’s the President’s policy toward them working out?  Well, if we’re being brutally honest, it’s not.  A big chunk of Czechoslovakia Ukraine lies under Putin’s heel, and our NATO allies are more likely to work with Russia in Syria than they are to work with us.

Speaking of Syria, the President has made so many red lines, then scribbled them out, that the country must look like it lost a Sharpie fight with Jackie Chan.  At the moment, the best that we can hope for is that the stable dictator is able to hold onto power so that the unstable horde doesn’t get its hands on the entire country.  In the meantime, the most the President can do is have our pilots wave from 35,000 feet as they pass overhead while our Kurdish allies fight to hold what they’ve got.

Back on the domestic front, the President has focused his attention on gun control, but seems to be prescient enough to realize that he’s powerless to influence the direction of the country in that particular situation.  That is, of course, unless you realize that every time he opens his noise hole, every company, craftsman, and merchant involved in the legal gun trade gets trampled by their customers buying every gun and bullet they can.  Seriously, I know more people who went from neutrality on guns to “DB, what’s the best AR-15 under $1000, and where’s the best place to buy cheap ammo?” than I ever thought possible.

While we’re on that subject, I’d like to thank the President for swelling the ranks of the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the myriad other gun rights organizations across the country.  We couldn’t have done it without you, big guy.  It is my sincere hope that after you leave office, somebody thinks to send you a ball cap or something for your efforts.  Now that I think about it, the NRA ought to start a new prize, named for the President, which recognizes the person who does the most to grow the NRA and get people into the gun stores and shooting ranges.

So, here we are, with the lamest duck I’ve ever seen.  His super-majority in Congress is a distant memory, and the best he can do now is t say “While I’m President, try to do what the law has told you to do since before I rolled my first joint.”  But, remember folks, he’s the most powerful man in in the world, and quite possibly the smartest.  Just ask him and his dwindling crowds of adoring fans.

I’ve always wondered what it would look like if this country didn’t have leadership or even management at the top.  Looks like I’m about to find out.

DaddyBear’s Debate

Guys, I tried to watch the debates the other night, I really did.  I just couldn’t get through it.  We need to be informed voters, but this debate format just isn’t cutting it.

So, being the creative Internet crank that I am, I’m proposing a solution:  Let’s have another debate, but with better rules.

  1. In order to participate, candidates must poll 10.0% or greater on the ABC News / Washington Post poll taken closest to the debate.
  2. There will be no under-card debate. Make the cut or go home and watch hockey.
  3. All candidates must blow a .08% or more on a breathalyzer test at the start of the debate.  Those who refuse to drink alcohol are not invited to the debate.
  4. Each candidate must take a 1 ounce shot of 100 proof grain alcohol before they answer a question.
  5. Any candidate who interrupts another candidate or the moderator must take two 1 ounce shots after they are told to shut up.
  6. Each candidate will be given 60 seconds to respond to a question.  Candidates will  remove one article of clothing for every 15 seconds they go over.  Refusal to do so will cause their ejection from the debate hall.
  7. After a candidate has removed all of their clothing, the moderator will be allowed to shoot them with a paintball gun for every 15 seconds they go over their allotted time.
  8. Candidates may not use their podiums or other candidates to take cover when shot with a paintball gun.
  9. Candidates that get sick will be asked to leave the debate.
  10. Candidates that pass out will be propped up on their podium and will have their questions, illustrated as necessary, written on their skin in permanent marker by the candidate to their right.
  11. Insults and fisticuffs will not be broken up.
  12. Medical personnel with oxygen masks and hydration IV’s will be available both during the debate and for 24 hours afterward.  Use of their services during the debate signals that a candidate no longer wants to participate.
  13. The debate goes on until only one candidate is still able to respond to questions.

I think that as the event goes on, the answers will be better. We’ll finally be able to see what these people really think and how they can do with a few drinks under their belt.  I’m not worried about the “3 AM” call.  Anybody can make a decision after 30 seconds of adrenaline.  I’m worried about the call that comes in when the President has had a really crappy day and decides to throw a few back.

Insults and Refutations

Last night, President Obama broke from his busy schedule of raising money for his library and addressed the nation.  We were blessed to hear his pronouncements on the attack in San Bernardino, and his thoughts on how this came about and what we can do to prevent a re-occurance.

As always, my comments are in bold italics.

__________________

Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms and dads; daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens and all of them were part of our American family.

Tonight, I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe.  Mister President, I truly, and I’m being serious here, am glad that you finally want to talk about terrorism.  It would have been nice to hear about it after Benghazi, or maybe Boston, but I’ll take what I can get.

The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their coworkers and his wife. (Yep, a coworker they had accepted, accommodated, and thrown a baby shower for.)  So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. (I’m not much of an intelligence analyst anymore, but I’d be willing to use words like ‘probably’ or ‘likely’ when describing whether or not one or both of them got some indoctrination somewhere.) But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam (For certain values of perverted) that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. (Other than the pipe bombs, it wasn’t that much of a stockpile.  Just saying.) So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.  Thanks for not blaming the victims.  Coming from you, sir, that means a lot to me.

Our nation has been at war with terrorists since al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. (Our nation has been at war with Islamic terrorists since at least the 1970’s.  It just took 9/11 to get you to notice.  But, please, keep going.) In the process, we’ve hardened our defenses — from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe. Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas — disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating al Qaeda’s leadership. Good to know.  How much of that, other than you being led into the situation room to watch bin Laden get Excedrin Headache Number 5.56, happened during your administration?

Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into a new phase. (I call it the “Obama Era”.)  As we’ve become better at preventing complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common in our society. (So, even the terrorists are having to turn to McJobs during your administration to make ends meet?) It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009, (Which you denied was terrorism for over half a decade) in Chattanooga earlier this year, and now in San Bernardino. And as groups like ISIL (Daesh for the adults out there) grew stronger amidst the chaos of war in Iraq (Chaos?  I wasn’t aware of much chaos in Iraq in January 2009?  I mean, it wasn’t exactly a nice neighborhood, but I didn’t see much chaos on the news.) and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers.

For seven years, I’ve confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing. (And just how many of those have you been late for, cancelled, or changed the subject?)  And since the day I took this office, I’ve authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because I know how real the danger is. As Commander-in-Chief (Your ideological forebears preferred Generalissimo), I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people. As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends and coworkers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. (Except that when you and Mrs. Obama go to a party, you’re surrounded by armed men sworn to keep you alive until after the next inauguration.  Those of us in the unwashed masses are pretty much on our own.) I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in Paris. (Which time?  The time you sent John Kerry and James Taylor to tell an ally that they’ve got a friend?) And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.  Careful, but thorough, excision might help.

Well, here’s what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. (How?  Sit-ins?  Maybe a nice hashtag?) Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power. (My gut tells me that you’re not referencing the Marine Corps here.)

Here’s how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary. In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies — including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.  And let’s not forget Uncle Joe, I mean Mr. Putin, who has just been a grand help in getting Syria wrapped up in a nice little bow for the Assad regime, now hasn’t he?  Also, can you point out to me where any of this is worth a half-bucket of warm, American piss?

Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens. (Yep, that’s worked so well in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past.  Heck, how many millions of dollars per man have we spent to train Syrians so that they can have new guns and trucks to hand over to Daesh when we let them loose?) In both countries, we’re deploying Special Operations Forces who can accelerate that offensive. We’ve stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and we’ll continue to invest more in approaches that are working on the ground. Mr. President?  Can you elaborate on what you mean by “working on the ground”?  Because, from where I’m sitting, there isn’t much that’s working on the ground except air dropping a metric shit ton of stuff to the Kurds and telling them they can keep what they kill.

Third, we’re working with friends and allies to stop ISIL’s operations — to disrupt plots, cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more fighters. (Does that include Turkey?  Because I’d love to hear what we’re doing about our erstwhile ally buying oil from Syria and selling it on the global market.) Since the attacks in Paris, we’ve surged intelligence-sharing with our European allies. (I’m sure they’re thrilled.  ‘Well, we won’t talk with the icky people who do bad things anymore, but here are some nice pictures of what might be a village, but then again might be a supply dump and command center.’) We’re working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria. (And yet, we aren’t willing to do the same with our own.  Odd, that.) And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries — and with our Muslim communities here at home — to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes online.  Are we working with them to take responsibility for the flood of Muslim refugees that are threatening to drown Europe and that you promise to vet using the same system that you used to check out the female piece of crap that murdered the people who gave her diapers and a crib?

Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process — and timeline — to pursue ceasefires and a political resolution to the Syrian war. (Look, Mister President, I will show you how to turn the map of Syria a little bit and it looks a lot like Bosnia!  Isn’t that fascinating?  I’m told that if you squint your eyes a little bit, it looks like Spain in 1935!) Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL — a group that threatens us all.  Assuming that Russia wants to do anything other than prop up their buddy in Damascus, of course.

This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. (Oh, sweet, warfare by international committee! Have they finished the important decision-making process as to what height the water glasses must be on the table, and whether or not we’ll use a NATO standard corkscrew?) And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done. That’s why I’ve ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. (They’re calling it “Operation Barndoor”) And that’s why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.  I’m pretty sure that the best way to bring terrorists to justice uses existing technology involving brass, lead, copper, and steel.  Preventing the formation of new terrorists usually comes from forceful, confident, and frequent demonstration of their use.

Now, here at home, we have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away.

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. (Wow, that took a turn.  Weren’t we talking about defeating an enemy?  Oh, that’s right, most politicians in your party see people like me as the enemy.  Carry on.) What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security. What could possibly be the harm of letting a God-given right to be infringed upon based on the denunciation of a law-abiding citizen, and them being placed on a secret list?  I mean, it’s not like we haven’t had aging Senators, little children, and a whole bunch of people who can’t even spell “Muslim extremist” or “Islamic terrorism apologist” or “Fascist wanna-be” on these lists, have we?  I mean, what do you think this is, a free country with due process of law?

We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. (Powerful?  Shit, come on down to Knob Creek one weekend and I’ll show you powerful.  Ever had your shoulder and neck adjusted by an 85 year old rifle?) I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. (I’m not one of those.  Keep the weapon pointed in a safe direction.  Keep your booger hook off the bang switch.  I’m all for those kinds of things.) But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do — and must do — is make it harder for them to kill.  Yes, by shooting them in the face.  Repeatedly.  Preferably using the most effective tool available and early in the process.  Then putting their carcass in a cage and letting it swing in front of their home or place of worship until the bandicoots make off with fragments of their bones.

Next, we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they’ve traveled to warzones. (How about we just start with “Sorry, we’ve got enough useless bastards who want to pull this country down and dance around its carcass.  Piss off.” and work our way up from there?)  And we’re working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly that.

Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight.  (Cough, cough, War Powers Act, illegal deployment and use of military force, cough, no explanation to the American people as to why any involvement is in our nation’s interest, cough)

My fellow Americans, these are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat. Let me now say a word about what we should not do.

We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. (Because bombing them back into the stone age will do it, especially given the high percentage of sorties that return to base with ordnance still bolted to the airframe) That’s what groups like ISIL want. They know they can’t defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops, draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits.  I dunno, if you’d read your Polybius, you’d know an effective way to make sure a prostrate enemy never rises to threaten you again. At least that way you wouldn’t continue to fade into obscurity.

The strategy that we are using now — airstrikes, Special Forces, and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country (Why mess with success, I always say) — that is how we’ll achieve a more sustainable victory. And it won’t require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil.  Nope, we’ll just sit back and wait for the fight to come to us.  Disarmed.  Brilliant!

Here’s what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. (Funny, that’s how the guys with the funny beards are defining it.) That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. (So, who does, and why aren’t they doing something about this problem?)They are thugs and killers, (And being a Chicago politician, you know thugs and killers when you see them, don’t you?) part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world — including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. (Again, where are they and why aren’t they doing something.  You know, like those brave Japanese-Americans who bled for this country in World War II?  Where are the battalions of loyal American Muslims joining the armed forces or the FBI to protect America from those who soil the reputation of Islam?  Where is the “Million Muslim March” where a respected imam stands on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to denounce Islamic terrorism?) Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.  It’s been almost a decade and a half and I’m still waiting for them to do something other than write a check to CAIR.

That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some (for certain values of ‘some’)Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.  (I’ll pause here to listen to the sweet sound of crickets coming from the Dar al Islam)

But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination. (I don’t discriminate.  It matters not to me who is trying to shoot Americans in the face, so long as we do unto them before they do unto us.  Then again, you can’t scream that we’re not looking suspiciously at Norwegian Lutherans when they’re not the ones shooting up Christmas parties.  Seriously, we just bring along the krumkake and rosettes, not the pipe bombs and tactical vests) It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. (As long as they’re Muslim, of course. We already have enough Christians and Yazidis.  Oh, and former translators to our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.)  It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes — and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.  I’ll remember that.  Why don’t you try to remember that it’s not profiling if your criteria correctly point out the group that’s most likely to walk into a grocery store and blow the produce section sky high.  When Francophone Catholics blow up a marathon, I’ll suggest keeping a close watch on them, too.

My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history. (You’d know that if you’d studied it at Columbia and Harvard, like he did.) We were founded upon a belief in human dignity — that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law. And some animals are more equal than others.  Us proles need to give up our icky, scary guns while you’re surrounded by people who get to carry guns while they try to score hookers and blow on Presidential junkets.

Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future Presidents must take to keep our country safe, let’s make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear; that we have always met challenges — whether war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks — by coming together around our common ideals as one nation, as one people. (So long as it’s the right people coming together with you, like the ones who are willing to surrender their rights.  Otherwise, you’ll unleash the hounds upon us.) So long as we stay true to that tradition, I have no doubt America will prevail.

I prefer the tradition of the “big stick” mentality.  Since you studied history at Columbia and Harvard, I’ll explain, and I’ll try to use small words – We want to be left alone and leave the rest of the world alone.  You raise a hand to the United States, and we’ll blow off your arm.  You kill one of our children, and we make sure your bloodline disappears.  You bomb one of our harbors, and you get to tour the smouldering remains of every large urban center in your country. You start a war with us and we will make a desert and call it peace.

If you’re starting a new tradition of “Lay back and think of Jimmy Carter,” count me out.

Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. And the same to you, Mr. President. I mean that.

Crunching the Numbers

The current “You’re a racist!” versus “No, you’re an idiot!” kerfluffle running through American politics is whether or not the United States, and with it the rest of Christendom, ought to be providing assistance to people fleeing from Syria and other war-torn countries.  Another question is how rigorously these refugees should be checked before being handed identification papers, an EBT card, and the keys to their government-paid housing.

Before I go any further, let me say that I believe that the U.S. has a moral obligation to assist those who need it.  However, just because you’re charitable doesn’t mean you’re a sucker.

So, let’s talk about whether that aid should come in the form of allowing said refugees to enter our territory and roam freely among our populace, and the potential risks we take on by doing it.

First, let’s look at the 10,000 refugees that the President has said the United States will take from Syria in the next year.

Number of People 1% 0.10% 0.01%
10000 100 10 1

If there is a population of 10,000 refugees, we see the number of potential attackers to whom we open our gates if 1 percent, 1/10th of 1 percent, and 1/100th of 1 percent of them are terrorist infiltrators.

That’s really not a lot of people, but then, none of the major attacks in the past couple of decades have taken more than a platoon’s worth of people.

Incident Perpetrators Civilian Dead Civilian Injured
September 11th 19 2996 6000
London 4 56 700
Madrid 21 191 2050
Beslan 32 334 728
Bali 5 202 209
Paris 7 130 368
Mumbai 10 166 600
Boston 2 6 280

Of course, the number of perpetrators, for the most part, doesn’t include the number of people it took to plan, fund, and organize the attacks.  Let’s assume that those resources already exist, either here in the United States or abroad, and can be tapped by anyone who knows the proper secret handshake.

At .01%, there would probably be enough infiltrators to execute a Boston-style attack, or possibly a bombing like Bali or London.  Of course, it only takes one jackass to walk into a Super-Duper-Megamart on free popcorn Monday and blow himself sky-high to have an impact.

At .1%, there would be enough to replicate Mumbai, Paris, Bali, London, or Boston.

At 1%, we would have admitted enough attackers to perpetrate any of the attacks I’ve listed several times over.  That’s assuming that they didn’t try to do 50 or so little attacks on soft targets like shopping centers, schools, or hospitals, which would probably shake the American man and woman on the street even more.

These numbers are only for the expected number of Syrian refugees we plan on admitting.  It doesn’t take into account those we bring in from other Islamic war zones, such as Iraq or Afghanistan.  They also don’t account for people who come here with a neutral mindset, but decide, after they’ve been admitted to the United States, to bite the hand that feeds them.

So, what do we do?  How do we separate the needy sheep from the dangerous goats, or at least keep them away from the American herd?  As I see it, we have several options, all of them bad in one way or another –

  1.  Do nothing.  I don’t like this one.  Like I said, I feel a moral obligation to assist those truly in need.
  2. Allow in 10,000 Syrians after they are vetted as thoroughly as possible, but allow them to settle wherever they can find support. To me, this is the worst option, security wise.  If we do this, we’re relying on our ability to sniff out terrorist infiltrators with a sketchy background check and a few interviews.
  3. Establish refugee centers in the United States, as we did in the 1970’s for Cuban refugees, and keep the refugees there until they can be repatriated.  This will centralize management of the refugees and their needs, as well as allow our security services to more efficiently monitor the refugees for ‘radicalization’ or other indicators that they either came in as terrorists or are starting to lean that way.  If we insist on bringing them to our shores, I prefer this method.
  4. Establish and expand refugee centers in the region, such as has been done in Turkey.  This keeps the potential threat of terrorist infiltrators on the other side of the ocean, but also leaves the refugee populations within easy reach of ISIS and anyone else who wants to either victimize them or recruit from their numbers.  To me, however, this is the option that best insulates the American homeland from potential infiltration by terrorists disguised as refugees while still satisfying our moral obligation to assist and protect the innocent.

Whether or not we even consider military-aged males for refugee status is another debate entirely.  I lean toward the women, children, and old people only side of that argument.

Are we willing to chance that a few, and we are talking about a handful of people, get through the vetting process and do harm to Americans while living among us as refugees?  This is one of those “low probability but high cost” kinds of risks, I grant you.  But what is at risk because 1, or 10, or 100 terrorists abuse our hospitality and slip in along with those who truly deserve it and pose no harm?

To put it bluntly, what will be the cost in American blood for us to provide for these refugees, and are we willing to pay it?

On Litmus Tests – or – Only Nixon Could Go To China

The quadrennial season of madness is in full swing here in the United States, and it’s time to start picking out which monkey can fling the finest tasting shit.

Both major parties are serving up a dog’s breakfast of tired ideas, stuff they’ll never make work even if they can get it through the political process, and “Hey, look, somebody you don’t like!  Get ’em!”

I’m not even going to get into third-party choices, mainly because at this point, it’s not worth the calories.  Really, they all ought to just get together and rebrand as the “Protest Vote” party.

For me, since I’m an Independent in a closed-primary state, this is just something I watch from afar.  You know, like I would if a plane was crashing on the other side of the parking lot, or a herd of wildebeest were to just start making their way along I-65 one morning.  Can’t effect it, might as well just sit back and watch until it’s my problem next year.

But I do want to bring something up while you all spend millions of dollars separating the skilled liars from the amateur liars – political litmus tests.

I’m for them, and here’s why – There have to be core beliefs which you will not compromise.  There have to be clear, bright lines beyond which you will not negotiate.  This goes for those on both the right and the left, as well as the poor suffering bastards at the center.

We must be careful not to elect people who are willing to compromise on their constituencies’ base principles, or we risk being sold out when it becomes profitable.  And a president in power who compromises their principles can do a lot of damage, no matter which side of the political coin they come from.

Both conservatives and liberals have long lists of issues they want ‘fixed’ that don’t have a chance in hell if someone from their political stripe is the public face for it.  A Democrat calling for ending the War on Drugs will probably be branded a filthy hippie who just wants to get high, while a Republican trying to do the same thing would be called a statesman and friend to personal liberty.

I truly believe that only a Democrat could get meaningful welfare reform through Congress.   Conversely, only a Republican could get gun control enacted without being roasted on a spit.

A Republican who tried to do something like a drop in the corporate income tax rate would be excoriated as being a shill for big business, while a Democrat who does it would be a wise custodian of the nation’s finances who is trying to attract international business to the country.

In all these cases, their parties, and more importantly, their party’s caucus in Congress,  would probably refrain from fighting them, and the section of the media that would normally oppose such moves would also hold their tongues.  A politician who has the political cover of coming over to get something done that would be unexpected from his or her side of the aisle can accomplish a lot, good or bad.

If LBJ had been re-elected in 1968 and gone to China in 1972, he would have been raked over the coals.  His Great Society programs had already been attacked for being socialistic or even communist.  But Nixon, an old anti-communist hard-liner, was praised for reaching out to Red China.  For better or worse, it took someone who opposed communism to initiate normal relations with Communists.

That still holds true.  If you want something done that you know will be vociferously opposed if you do it, find someone nominally on the other side who can do it for you.  Conversely, if there’s something you want defended to the death, don’t elect people who might be willing to make a deal over it.

If someone is soft on an issue that is near and dear to you, don’t vote for them.  Better that we have gridlock than someone who’s willing to cross the aisle and compromise on base principles.

Four Questions

During the 2014 election, I posted a series of long-winded, wordy, boring, and pointless questionnaires that I wish politicians would have answered so that we could have put the “Informed” into “Informed Voter.”

Yeah, not some of my best writing, but it was a good mental exercise.  Remember, this blog is here to get those thoughts from swirling around in my head so long they cause my ears to bleed and to keep me out of bars after dark.

Anyway, this time around, at least until the primaries are over, I have only four questions for the gang of idiots who want to spend over a billion dollars to get a job that only pays a few hundred thousand dollars a year, but comes with some pretty sweet government housing.

  1. Do you believe that federal gun laws that deal with anything beyond the way that firearms are imported into the country and move across state lines are constitutional?
  2. If not, do you plan to not only veto any new federal gun laws, but also work to repeal those on the books?
  3. Do you believe that federal drug laws that deal with anything beyond the way that chemical intoxicants are imported into the country and move across state lines are constitutional?
  4. If not, do you plan to not only veto any new federal drug laws, but also work to repeal those on the books?

Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our sacred Honor

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton